European
Unilateralism
Environmental Trade Barriers and the Rising
Threat to Prosperity through Trade
This report was prepared by the Australian APEC Study Centre, based at Monash University in Melbourne.
Research was conducted by Alan Oxley, Kristen Osborne and Lisa Marty.
The research was conducted by the the Australian APEC Study Centre for a symposium in May 2003 of APEC Senior
Officials on trade and environment issues.
Alan Oxley is Chairman of the Australian APEC Study Centre. He is a former Ambassador of Australia to the GATT
and former Chairman of the GATT Contracting Parties.
© August 2003
2
E U R O P E A N U N I L AT E R A L I S M
Environmental Trade Barriers and the Rising Threat to Prosperity through Trade
Contents
1.
European Unilateralism – A Rising Threat to Prosperity Through Trade
5
2.
Key Results
6
3.
Methodology
9
4.
Synopsis of Environmental Trade Barriers
10
A.
Environmental Trade Barriers
10
B.
Prospective Environmental Trade Barriers
13
C.
Related Measures
14
D.
Trade Measures under Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAs)
15
5.
6.
Barriers and Related Measures
16
A.
Environmental Trade Barriers
16
B.
Prospective Environmental Trade Barriers
36
C.
Related Measures
40
D.
Trade Measures under Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAs)
45
Bibliography of Official Documents
46
3
4
E U R O P E A N U N I L AT E R A L I S M
Environmental Trade Barriers and the Rising Threat to Prosperity through Trade
1. European Unilateralism – A Rising Threat to Prosperity Through Trade
his report contains new research which reveals that
over the last decade over forty environmental
restrictions on international trade have been introduced
which appear to disregard the rights of members of the
World Trade Organization (WTO) not to be subject to
trade coercion. At least twenty more measures are in
prospect. Most of the measures have been introduced
by the European Union (EU). It appears that despite the
fact other members of the WTO do not agree with EU
proposals to amend the WTO to enable trade leverage to
be used to force other countries to change environmental
standards, the EU is acting unilaterally to do so.
T
The trade and environment debate – trade coercion
or international collaboration by consent?
A constant criticism of the WTO by Green Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), particularly Greenpeace
and the World Wide Fund for Nature, is that it does
not permit trade restrictions to be used to protect the
environment.
This position is broadly shared by the European Union.
It wants WTO rules changed so that it can restrict
imports if the way they are made does not meet domestic
EU environmental standards and so that trade sanctions
in Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) cannot
be challenged in the WTO.
There is a very good reason the WTO does not allow
the use of trade restrictions in this way. Basically, it is to
protect the right recognized in its Agreements that every
country should have the capacity to utilize its comparative
advantage to prosper in the global economy through
international trade. In plain terms, the WTO prevents
countries from playing politics and restricting trade
because of disagreement over policies in other areas.
The WTO prevents trade coercion and requires
members not to discriminate among trading partners.
The WTO respects the principle of national sovereignty.
When one member of the WTO imposes trade restrictions
on another unless the latter changes its environmental
policies, then the first country is coercing the second and
transgressing its national sovereignty.
The WTO gives members significant latitude to
restrict trade where it endangers the environment. WTO
rules allow countries to use quarantine measures to
restrict imports. But the WTO limits that right. Members
can only so act if the health and safety of people or
plants or animals is at risk. Measures must also reflect
recognized standards or be scientifically based. Members
can also impose technical standards which restrict
imports to protect the environment. That right is also
limited. The standards may not create unnecessary
obstacles to trade or be more restrictive than necessary.
What NGOs do not like is that the WTO does not
allow trade to be restricted at whim or on the basis of
political rather than scientific judgments. Most Green
environmental groups want environmental officials to
have broad rights to act to protect the environment.
There is nothing to stop countries deciding to create
such rights in international law. It is done all the time
through international treaties. If enough countries think
such a course of action is desirable, they come together,
draft a convention which sets out measures to achieve
its objectives, sign the treaty and then enact measures in
national law which oblige citizens to act in certain ways.
It is the traditional way of making international law.
Common goals are achieved by enacting domestic
measures.
Green organizations evidently prefer that powerful
countries should instead force other countries to change
domestic environmental policies under threat of trade
coercion. That is why they want WTO rules changed.
There is widespread opposition to this in the WTO. Only
the EU and Switzerland support the sort of changes to
the WTO proposed by NGOs.
The rise of environmental trade coercion
While members of the WTO remain unconvinced of the
case for environmental trade coercion, there has been a
steady rise in the introduction of such measures which
seem to disregard the principles of avoiding coercion and
respecting national sovereignty.
Research was undertaken on the incidence of environmental trade barriers in 2003 for a symposium of APEC
Senior Officials on trade and environment issues.
This report sets out the results of that research. In the
past decade, over forty new international barriers to
trade based on environmental grounds have been
introduced. Over twenty more are in prospect. There
may be more. No official body is monitoring the
incidence of these measures.
The threat to prosperity through trade
These measures are being introduced without regard to
their impact on trade or the undesirability of using trade
coercion to enforce non-trade goals. Very little consideration is being given to pursuing these environmental goals
in a less confrontational manner. Trade from developing
countries is being restricted. This study addresses the
impact on economies in the Asian and Pacific region.
Evidently the same barriers restrict trade from other
regions of the world.
Most of the barriers are being erected by the European
Union. Green NGOs call regularly for assessment of the
environmental impact of trade agreements. They never
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
5
2. Key Results
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
propose that the trade effects of environmental measures
should be assessed before they are imposed.
New WTO obligations required
WTO rules need to be strengthened to oblige members
to assess the economic and trade impact of environmental
trade barriers before they are enacted. Obligations to
consult members on such measures need to be
strengthened and penalties for non-compliance increased.
Action in the United Nations Environment Program
(UNEP)
The only effective way to take international action to
improve the environment and respect the national
sovereignty of countries is to negotiate international
environmental treaties which do not have provisions that
impose trade sanctions. Members of the WTO should
adopt a principle that before members enact coercive
trade measures to protect the environment, they also
raise the issues of concern in UNEP to consider
collaborative and consensual options for international
action and to consult with the WTO to ensure that trade
coercion is averted and that measures do not undermine
fundamental precepts of the WTO.
Summary
he research revealed that about forty-four new
environmental trade barriers have been imposed over
the last decade. A further twenty-three environmental
regulations that could prospectively impact on international
trade have also been adopted. Most of these measures
originate from the European Union (EU), the rest are from
Japan and the United States (US) and Multilateral
Environment Agreements (MEAs). Developing economies
from South Asia, Africa and the Asia Pacific region have
been affected.
The number of barriers is set to rise. There are new
proposals in the pipeline to extend regulations for
environmental purposes which are likely to affect sectors
of export interest to developing APEC economies.
T
Country of origin
The majority of environmental trade barriers were
identified as originating in the European Community
(thirty-four barriers). Four were identified by the US and
four in Japan. Although many European barriers were
based on Community-wide Directives and Regulations, the
incidence of national measures was concentrated among
a handful of EU member states, notably the Netherlands,
Germany, Austria and Denmark.
Barriers imposed at a sub-national level were not
reviewed in this research.
Rise of incidence
Around half of the trade barriers are relatively new, having
been implemented since 1999/2000. A number of the EU
barriers arise from measures implemented as early as
the late 1980s, although the majority were instituted in
the late 1990s. A significant number have emerged
since 2000. Some important environmental policies have
been adopted, particularly in Europe which are likely to
generate further barriers, see below.
Most US measures were imposed in the mid to late
nineties. Several have emerged since 2000. Most
Japanese barriers date from 1999.
Nature of the barriers
Environmental issues
Trade restrictions focused on areas which have been the
subject of environmental campaigns to:
• eliminate use of toxic substances – chemicals and
heavy metals in particular;
• recycle waste and packaging;
• protect wildlife;
• raise food safety standards;
• promote organic food and oppose genetically modified
organisms (GMOs).
6
E U R O P E A N U N I L AT E R A L I S M
Environmental Trade Barriers and the Rising Threat to Prosperity through Trade
Types of measure
Generally, measures considered to be environmental
trade barriers included standards regulating levels of
toxic substances in products and standards for marketing
approval or for product harvesting. Several product waste,
disposal and recycling obligations and packaging and
labeling requirements were also considered to be environmental trade barriers, as were standards mandating
energy efficiency or emissions reductions and regulations
pursuant to some MEAs and other international treaties.
Most barriers were mandatory standards and regulations. They either banned substances or products or set
very low tolerance levels for toxicity and residues of
proscribed substances or excessively stringent testing
and certification requirements.
“Whole of life-cycle” regulation1 and specific recycling
measures mandates adherence to production processes
and creates obligations to collect and recycle packaging.
Compliance can be enforced with mandatory labeling.
The measures often affect trade by requiring
importers to adopt the domestic environmental measure
as a condition of access to the market, or banning
access of products to the market.
Trade controls have been applied unilaterally and
through multilateral environmental agreements.
Philosophy of regulation
Measures were usually justified to protect health and
safety or to conserve the environment. Application of a
‘no-risk’ version of the precautionary principle2 and the
concept of ‘whole of lifecycle’ regulation, generally
entailing obligations on producers and importers to take
responsibility for the cost of the environmental impact of
the production, consumption and disposal of product, are
increasingly pervasive.
There is a marked disposition in Europe to utilize
‘command and control’ methods of environmental
management, whereas in North America, the disposition
is to rely more on market-based instruments to improve
environmental standards.
Sectors and products affected
Most barriers were concentrated in the textiles, agriculture (including food) and forestry sectors, and to a lesser
extent, the electronics and consumer goods sectors.
Barriers in the EU were concentrated in textiles and
garments, agriculture and food, consumer products, electronics and forestry and wood products. Agricultural
products include grains, fruits and vegetables, wines,
shrimp and poultry. Products affected in the textile
sector were mostly leather and other textile products
and in forestry; wood panels and chipboard. Manufactured
products affected are chemicals, electrical and electronic
equipment, toys and automobiles.
In the US, predominantly agriculture and fisheries sectors were affected. The main imports affected were food
and raw agricultural products, shrimp and tuna and fuel.
In Japan textile products and agriculture, mostly food,
were most affected. Barriers identified in Canada applied
predominantly to imports of automotives and fuel.
It is worth observing that environmental trade barriers
are prominent in agriculture and garments and textiles,
two sectors of world trade of particular importance to
developing countries where industrialized economies
have been slowest to remove traditional trade barriers.
Countries most affected
The picture of which countries are principally affected is
mixed. Barriers in the EU predominantly affected both Asian
Pacific and South Asian exports of agriculture, food and
textiles. They also affected exports of forestry products
and electronics equipment from the Asia Pacific region.
Food imports from Malaysia, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Thailand and Peru, Chile and Mexico are
affected. Restrictions apply to textiles products from
China, Korea, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and the Philippines
and agricultural products from Thailand and Vietnam.
Imports of consumer products from China, Thailand and
Indonesia and electronic products from Thailand faced
EU environmental trade barriers.
Among the EU member states, barriers in the
Netherlands affected textile products from China, Korea
and Chinese Taipei, and those in Germany affected
textile products from China, Korea and Chinese Taipei.
Wood packing from China, Korea and Chinese Taipei
and consumer goods from China and Chinese Taipei
faced environmental trade barriers in Austria.
US barriers impact on the trade of several APEC
developing economies, notably shrimp exports from
Malaysia and Thailand and food exports from Chile.
Japanese environmental trade barriers impact on food
exports from China and Thailand.
The picture correlates loosely with the direction of
exports from developing countries to the major markets
concerned. It should also be noted that the reach and
effects of some barriers might extend to markets beyond
APEC.
Emerging trends
The genesis of increasing resort to environmental trade
barriers is a marked intensification of environmental
regulation. If the past decade is any guide, the incidence
of the use of trade measures to protect the environment
will rise. In Europe, major new environmental regulatory
programs have been foreshadowed.
CONTINUED NEXT PAGE
7
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
Since 2000, it has become formal policy in the EU to
apply the precautionary principle extensively in regulation
and to broadly regulate to achieve “whole of lifecycle”
environmental regulation. The European Unionhas
released several position papers indicating the direction
in which Community-wide regulation will move.
These include the Green Paper on Integrated Product
Policy3 which sets out the goal of making producers
responsible for their products for the whole of their life
cycle; from the manufacture of the product, to its
distribution, use and disposal. Initial sectors in which
regulations reflecting this philosophy have been adopted
are automobiles and electrical and electronic equipment.
Other white papers proposing harmonized communitywide environmental regulation for chemicals4 and for
food safety5 have been released. The former paper
outlines a new policy for the registration, evaluation and
authorization of chemicals to be used in the EU on
health, safety and environmental grounds. It proposes a
chemicals management regime that goes further than
that of any other country in the OECD with elements
based on a “no risk” and discretionary approach.
The paper on food safety declares the intent of EU
policy to cover “the whole of the food chain, including
animal feed production” and notes traceability of products
through the whole food chain as a key issue. It explicitly
mentions that the precautionary principle will be used
where appropriate.
A specific area in which new environmental regulation
is foreshadowed is regulation of GMOs and implementation of measures for abatement of greenhouse gases, in
anticipation of the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol
to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. US trade authorities have expressed misgivings
about the potential impact on trade of the direction in
which EU is moving in these two areas.6 If the pattern so
far is any guide, these commitments to new environmental
regulation make it likely that they will result in further
environmental trade barriers. This does not have to be
the case. International action to protect the environment
does not have to depend on trade sanctions. The declared
and preferred course of the international community,
enshrined in the trade and environment principles adopted
at the Rio Earth Summit, is to base international
instruments to improve the environment on cooperation
rather than coercion
This is most clearly illustrated in the case of actions to
protect dolphin. The unilateral bans imposed by the US
on imports of tuna to coerce countries to alter fishing
methods to protect dolphin have now been replaced by an
8
international convention in which each member of the
convention commits to adopt in national law fishing
regulations to protect dolphin.
The EU however, appears committed to continue to
use trade measures to enforce environmental standards.
It has indicated that it would like to see WTO provisions
and processes altered to permit trade restrictions on the
way products are processed and produced, (enabling it
make access to its markets conditional on importing
nations adopting EU environmental standards). It is
seeking adoption of its version of the precautionary
principle in MEAs7 and in international food standards. It
wants WTO rules adjusted so that trade provisions in
MEAs will be legitimized in the WTO and it has formally
stated that liberalization of agricultural trade barriers in the
WTO is conditional on acceptance of EU environmental
policy on agricultural trade.
Endnotes
1 “Whole of life cycle regulation” generally requires
producers and major importers to meet the costs of
the environmental impact of their products from the
time they are made until final disposal.
2 There is no standard definition of the precautionary
principle. The philosophy behind the concept is to
apply a “no risk” standard when assessing risk rather
than a standard for managing risk.
3 Commission of the European Communities, Green
Paper on Integrated Product Policy, COM (2001) 868
final, Brussels, 7 February 2001
4 Commission of the European Communities, White
Paper Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy, COM
(22001) 88 Final, Brussels, 27 February 2001
5 Commission of the European Communities, White
Paper on Food Safety, Com 1999 719 Final, Brussels,
1 January 2000
6 The US 2003 Report on Foreign Trade Barriers refers
to moves by several european countries to implement
measures that could impact on trade pursuant to the
Kyoto Protocol.
7 The strongest expression is in the Cartagena Protocol
which EU environment officials point to as an exemplar.
E U R O P E A N U N I L AT E R A L I S M
Environmental Trade Barriers and the Rising Threat to Prosperity through Trade
3. Methodology
Defining barriers
or the purpose of this study, trade barriers were
defined as excessive or stringent regulatory standards
that impact on trade; discriminatory trade measures
imposed for environmental purposes; unilateral environmental trade restrictions; measures which make access
to markets conditional on acceptance of environmental
standards; and trade restrictions imposed in MEAs.
There is a grey area with these definitions. Some
would argue the ultimate test of the legitimacy of an
environmental trade barrier is whether it is consistent
with the WTO. The tradition in the WTO is to state that a
measure is not inconsistent with WTO provisions until a
disputes panel decides it is.
For the purposes of this study, measures which
restrict trade that appear to be discriminatory by an
ordinary judgment, which entail compliance with a
method of processing or production not directly related
to the product, or which are sanitary or phytosanitary
measures that are not based on science or processes of
risk assessment (typically measures setting very low
tolerances for residues or toxicity) are considered to be
trade barriers.
Domestic environmental measures which may
prospectively become sources of environmental trade
barriers have also been identified. Measures that are
strong candidate sources of environmental trade barriers
are those which mandate compliance with “whole of
life-cycle” regulatory management.
F
Identifying barriers
Barriers were identified from official announcements,
notifications to the WTO, secondary sources identifying
measures as barriers and the assessment of the
researchers.
Primary research resources comprised national laws,
regulations and official documents. Documents of, and
notifications to the WTO, the United Nations Conference
on Trade & Development (UNCTAD) and the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD) were
also used. Secondary sources, such as several case
studies on trade barriers prepared by UNCTAD and the
OECD were also utilized for the research. A bibliography
of official documents is attached.
“Barriers” include measures identified as trade barriers
according to the definition above.
Measures which may prospectively become sources
of barriers or which may not in fact be trade discriminatory,
but nevertheless act as a barrier to trade, are classified
as “Prospective Measures”.
“Related Measures” include environmentally based
regulations that although do not necessarily meet the
definitions above, can act as barriers to trade.
Barriers are then further grouped into categories
according to the type of environmental regulation
imposed. The categories are:
• Standards regulating levels of toxic substances in
products;
• Standards for marketing approval;
• Standards for product harvesting;
• Product waste, disposal and recycling obligations;
• Packaging and labeling requirements;
• Standards mandating energy efficiency/emissions
reductions;
• Regulations pursuant to MEAs and other international
treaties.
Each barrier is described in the following section
(Section 4) and noted by country of origin according to
the above categories. A short explanation is provided on
the nature of the trade restriction (whether it bans
imports, requires producers to meet certain conditions in
order to import, is based on precaution or is discriminatory).
Barriers and Related Measures are also described in
further detail in Section 5 of the report which acts a
reference guide. It lists the following information on each
environmental barrier:
• Origin – the country imposing the measure, or MEA;
• Source – the regulation or legislation;
• Content – a brief description of the measure and how
it affects imports;
• The sectors and products affected;
• Exporters most affected;
• Date of measure.
Additional comments have also been added where
necessary. Where “n/a” has been noted, insufficient
information was available to record a response.
Categorizing barriers
Barriers are classified into one of four categories. These
are:
• Environmental Trade Barriers
• Prospective Environmental Trade Barriers
• Related Measures
• Trade Measures under MEAs
9
4. Synopsis of Environmental Trade Barriers
A. ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE BARRIERS
1. Standards regulating (maximum residue) levels of toxic substances in products
Regulations setting levels for toxicity and residues of certain substances in products impose trade barriers by either banning substances or products, or setting very low levels of tolerances for proscribed substances. In some cases these
levels are set below international standards. In other cases they are considered necessary applying a “precautionary
approach”. For example, the EU regulations limiting aflatoxin levels in foods are more stringent than International Codex
standards and stricter than US standards. EU bans on the use of certain antibiotics in food products are also based on
standards that are higher than those set in other industrialized economies. EU and EU-member state restrictions on the
use of azo dyes in textile products have also come under scrutiny from developing countries for prohibiting or mandating
very low tolerance levels for chemical substances.
10
ORIGIN
DESCRIPTION
European Union
Regulations limiting aflatoxin levels in food products
Commission Regulation 466/2001 setting maximum levels for certain contaminants in foodstuffs
European Union
Restrictions on azo colourants in textile products
Directive 2002/61/EC amending for the nineteenth time Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain
dangerous substances and preparations (azo colorants)
European Union
Limits on certain substances in animal feedstuffs
Council Directive 1999/29/EC on the undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition, including fluorine, mercury, arsenic, nitrites
and cadmium etc (animal feedstuffs)
European Union
Prohibitions on the use of and testing requirements for antibiotics in seafood products
Commission Decision 2002/657 pursuant to Directive 96/23/EC as regarding the setting of minimum performance limits for certain residues
in food
European Union
Restrictions on the marketing and use of products containing certain levels of substances, such as cadmium
Directive 91/338/EEC amending for the 10th time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions of the member states relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations
Netherlands
Ban on textile products containing formaldehyde
Regulation on Formaldehyde in Textiles
Germany
Labelling requirements for certain products with formaldehyde content
Ordinance on Hazardous Substances 26.10.93
Norway
Marketing restrictions on textile products containing certain chemicals
Regulations concerning the regulation of certain chemicals and textiles of 8 April 1999.
Netherlands
Ban on the use of flame retardant in electronic products
Regulation containing Rules for the Substance FR-720 (Regulation Fr-720 under the Act on Substances that are Harmful to the Environment
under Council Regulation 793/93)
Netherlands
Ban on the use of azo dyes in textile products
Azo dyes (Commodities Act) Decree
Germany
Prohibition on the use of azo dyes in certain textile products
Amendments to the Consumer Protection Act 1994, prohibiting the use of azo dyes
Austria
Restrictions on products treated with azo dyes
Azo Dyes Decree pursuant to the Consumer Goods Act prohibiting the use of certain azo dyestuffs and azo pigments in consumer articles
Germany
Restrictions on the marketing, manufacture and use of certain substances in textile products
Chemicals Act 1993 in accordance with Article 15, Annex 1 of the Chemical Ordinance 20.10.93
Denmark
Restrictions on the use of formaldehyde in wood products
Danish Statutory Order – Statutory Order from the Ministry of Environment and Energy no.289 of 22 June 1983 on restricting formaldehyde
in chipboard, plywood and similar broad materials used in the manufacture of furniture, fixtures and fittings and similar
Netherlands
Prohibitions on creosote treated wood
Decree to amend the Decision on Coatings containing Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons under the Chemical Substances Act 1998
(creosote treated wood)
Germany
Limits on pesticide residues in agricultural products
German Pesticide Residue Law
Japan
Restrictions on the use of formaldehyde in consumer goods
Japanese Law No 112, 1973 Law for the Control of Household Products Containing Harmful Substances
E U R O P E A N U N I L AT E R A L I S M
Environmental Trade Barriers and the Rising Threat to Prosperity through Trade
2. Standards for marketing approval
Standards for marketing approval can cause trade barriers where they subject the sale of products to environmental
requirements based on a precautionary approach or where they relate to the processes or ingredients used in the
manufacture of the product, rather than due to the nature of the product itself.
ORIGIN
DESCRIPTION
European Union
Rules governing the approval of biotechnology products
Directive 90/220/EC amending Directive 2001/18/EC governing approval of biotechnology products, including seeds and grains, for
environmental release and commercialization
European Union
Rules for the marketing and labeling of egg products
Regulation No 1274/91 introducing detailed rules for implementing Regulation no 1907/90 on certain marketing standards for eggs
European Community
Restrictions on the use of ingredients in animal by products
Regulation No.1774/2002 of the EU Parliament and Council laying down health rules concerning animal by products not intended for human
consumption
3. Standards for product harvesting
Discriminatory trade barriers are imposed where products are banned from sale because the means in which they are
harvested does not meet certain environmental standards or where the product harvesting or processing must meet
certain environmental criteria as a condition for being placed on the market.
ORIGIN
DESCRIPTION
United States
Restrictions on shrimp products harvested with certain techniques
Section 609 of Public Law 101-162 Relating to the Protection of Sea Turtles in Shrimp Trawl Fishing Operations 1989, 16USC1826
(Large-scale driftnet fishing), 50CFR222 (Endangered and Threatened Marine Species)
United States
Prohibition on tuna products not meeting environmental protection standards
16USC1412 (Dolphin Conservation Program), 16USC1385 (Dolphin Protection), 16USC1361 (Marine Mammal Protection Act)
United States
Restrictions on products from countries diminishing the effectiveness of international conservation agreements
Pelly Amendment (22 U.S.C. 1978) to the Fishermen’s Protective Act of 1967
Japan
Restrictions on imports from countries not meeting environmental fishing practices
Law Concerning Special Measures for the Conservation and Stronger Management of Tuna Resources. The legislation was passed in
accordance with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT)
4. Product waste, disposal and recycling obligations
Many regulations impose obligations on producers and importers by mandating environmental requirements for product
recycling and disposal of waste. “Whole of life cycle” regulation mandates adherence to production processes set by
the implementing economy and creates obligations to collect and recycle packaging. Compliance is often reinforced
through mandatory labeling.
ORIGIN
DESCRIPTION
European Community
Regulations placing waste disposal and collection requirements on producers of electronic and electrical products
Directive 2002/96/EC on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEE)
European Community
Regulations imposing obligations for the collection and disposal of end of life vehicles and their components
Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on end of life vehicles
European Community
Requirements for recovery, recycling and collection of packaging and packaging waste
Council Directive 94/62/EC on Packaging and packaging waste
Netherlands
Domestic regulations imposing obligations on manufacturers and importers of vehicles, implementing EU ELV Directive
Decree on Management of End of Life of Vehicles, Designation of Hazardous Waste Decree 1994 and Car Tyres Disposal Decree 1995
Germany
Requirements for take-back and recycling pf packaging
German Packaging Ordinance (Topfer Decree)
Belgium
Requirements for recycling and recovery of packaging waste
Cooperation Agreement on the Prevention and Management of Packaging Waste
United Kingdom
Mandated requirements for placing packaging on the market
UK Packaging Essential Requirements Regulation S.I 1998/1165
11
5. Packaging and labeling requirements
Packaging and labeling requirements restrict products from sale by banning products with certain packaging or mandating
that they meet certain environmental requirements evidenced through labeling. Some impose obligations on producers
to collect and recycle packaging. Some mandated environmental requirements are based on processes and production
methods of products. Several EU regulations pertaining to the labeling of wine impose labeling requirements pertaining to
quality and geographical origin.
ORIGIN
DESCRIPTION
European Community
Labeling requirements for fish and fisheries products
Commission Regulation No 2005/2001 of 22 October 2001 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation No 10/2000
as regards informing consumers about fisheries and acquaculture products
European Community
Regulations limiting the use of terms on labels for certain types of wines
EC Regulation 881/98 laying down detailed rules for the protection of the additional traditional terms used to designate certain types of
quality wine produced in specified regions
European Community
Rules for labeling products as organic
Council Regulation EEC .2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products
and foodstuffs
European Community
Requirements for the manufacturing, composition and environmental nature of packaging
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC on packing and packaging waste
European Community
Restrictions on the production methods, labeling, design and presentation for wine products
Council Regulation (EC) No 1493/1999 on the Common Organization of the Market in Wine, Amendments No 1622/2000 (1), No 2585/2001 (2.
European Community
Restrictions on the presentation of imported wines and use of traditional terms on labels
Commission Regulation (EC) No 753/2002 Laying down certain rules for applying Council Regulation No 1493/199 as regards the description,
designation, presentation and protection of certain wine sector products
European Union
Labeling and chemical property requirements for toys
Council Directive 88/378/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states concerning toys
Austria
Requirements for imports of wood packing material
Regulation No.319 of 31 August 2001 of the Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry the Environment and Water Management of Austria,
and amended by Regulation No 340 of 20 September 2002. (Verorduung 319 of 31 August 2001)
United States
Standards for labeling agricultural products as organic
7 CFR Part 205 National Organic Program (Standards) – Subchapter M of the Organic Foods Production Action Provisions (1990)
7USC/Chapter 94 (Organic Certification)
Canada
Energy efficiency labelling requirements for consumer products
Energy Efficiency Act (1992, c.36) and associated regulations
Japan
Regulations for the labeling of organic plant products
Japanese Agricultural Standard of Organic Agricultural Products and Japanese Agricultural Standard of Organic Agricultural Product
Processed Foods Both Standards are governed by the Law concerning the Standardization and Proper Labelling of Agricultural and Forestry
products
Japan
Quality standards for labeling of agricultural and forestry products
The Law Concerning Standardization and Proper Labelling of Agricultural and Forestry Products (Law No. 175 of 14950)
6. Standards mandating energy efficiency/emissions reductions
Some regulations impose trade barriers where, as a condition for sale on the market, they mandate products meet certain
environmental efficiency standards.
ORIGIN
DESCRIPTION
Canada
Emission standards for on road vehicles and engines
On-Road Vehicle and Engine Emissions Regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) (1999) (C-15.31)
7. Regulations pursuant to MEAs and other international treaties
Regulations implemented pursuant to MEAs, (or that extend beyond existing MEAs) cause trade barriers where they
mandate trade restrictions that ban or prevent certain products from sale in accordance with an international treaty.
12
ORIGIN
DESCRIPTION
European Community
Requirements for phase out of ozone depleting substances and products containing these substances
Regulation 2037/2000 pursuant to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer
E U R O P E A N U N I L AT E R A L I S M
Environmental Trade Barriers and the Rising Threat to Prosperity through Trade
B. PROSPECTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL TRADE BARRIERS
Several measures may prospectively become sources of environmental barriers, but are not yet in force or are merely
at proposal stage. They include standards regulating levels of toxic substances in products, product waste, disposal and
recycling obligations and packaging and labeling requirements. They also include standards mandating energy efficiency/
emissions reductions and regulations pursuant to some MEAs and other international treaties.
Measures
ORIGIN
DESCRIPTION
European Community
Proposed regulatory approach for establishing minimum levels of dioxins in food and feed
Proposal for a Council directive 1999/29/EC on the undesirable substances and products in animal nutrition
European Community
Proposed regulatory requirements for the manufacture, use and import of chemicals
2001 White Paper on Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy
European Community
Proposed restrictions on cosmetic products that have been subject to animal testing
Commission Position (EC) No29/2002 of 14 February 2002 adopted by the Council acting in accordance with the procedure referred to
in Article 251 of the Treaty establishing the EC, with a view to adopting a Directive of the European Parliament and Council amending
Directive 76/768EEC on the approximation of laws of Member states relating to cosmetic products
European Community
Restrictions on and requirements for the marketing of forest reproductive material
Commission Decision of February 2003 authorizing member states to take decisions under Directive 1999/105/EC on forest reproductive
material produced in third countries
European Community
Rules for traceability and labeling of GM products and products produced with GMOs
Adoption of the common position adopted by the Council on 17 March 2003 with a view to the adoption of a Regulation of the EU
Parliament and of the Council concerning the traceability and labelling of GMOs and traceability of food and feed products produced
from GMOs, amending Directive 2001/18/EC
European Community
Proposed ban on certain substances used in plant protection products
EC Directive 91/414
European Community
Proposed labeling of timber products with boric acid as a dangerous product
EC Directive 67/548/EEC
Switzerland
Proposed restrictions on creosote treated wood
Draft Ordinance relating to Environmentally Hazardous Substances, Annex 4.4 of the Ordinance on Substances,
Wood Preservatives SR 814.01
Netherlands
Labeling of wood products produced in a sustainable way
Bill from Member of Parliament M Vos. Amending the Act on Environmental Protection
(Sustainably Produced Timber)
Austria, Denmark
and Germany
Proposed legislation banning fluorinated gases pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol
N/A Austria Denmark and Germany
Canada
Regulations for implementing the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
Draft Living Modified Organisms Regulations
13
C. RELATED MEASURES
Related measures impose environmental requirements that are not typically trade discriminatory. Nevertheless they can
act as barriers to trade by imposing environmental testing and certification requirements that developing country
importers find hard to meet. Measures based on international standards, or measures that do not impose excessive or
stringent environmental requirements despite causing trade barriers are also considered to be related measures rather
than trade barriers for the purpose of this report.
14
ORIGIN
DESCRIPTION
United States
Mandated levels and testing requirements for pesticide residues in agricultural products
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 1947, as amended), the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and
associated regulations: 7USC136o, 21USC1401 and 40CFR152-180.
United States
Restrictions and labeling requirements for formaldehyde in wood products
Toxic Substances Control Act (15USC2601 [findings, policy and intent] and 15USC2612 [entry into customs territory of the United
States]) and the Federal Hazardous Substances Act – regulations – USC Title 15 1261
United States
Restrictions on solid wood packaging and material
7CFR 319.40 Restrictions on solid wood packaging material from China – US Entry Requirements longhorn beetle, US7CFR301
United States
Requirements for sampling and testing of food and fisheries products
HACCP Systems: Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point
United States
Prescribed energy conservation standards for certain major household appliances
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act and the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments
United States
Corporate average fuel economy standards for light trucks
Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards Model Years 2005-07 49 CFR Part 533
Japan
Fumigation requirements for horticultural products
Plant Quarantine Act
Japan
Exhaust emissions standards for light and heavy vehicles
Safety Regulations for Road Vehicles
Japan
Requirements for labeling of GM products
The Food Sanitation Law
Canada
Maximum limits on sulfur in diesel fuel
Sulphur in Diesel Fuel Regulations (SOR/2002-254)
Canada
Maximum limits on sulfur in gasoline
Sulphur in Gasoline Regulations (SOR/99 – 236), and amendments
Canada
Mandated emissions standards for on road vehicles and engines
On road vehicle and engine emission regulations
E U R O P E A N U N I L AT E R A L I S M
Environmental Trade Barriers and the Rising Threat to Prosperity through Trade
D. TRADE MEASURES UNDRE MULTILATERAL ENVIRONMENTAL AGREEMENTS (MEAs)
Several MEAs create trade barriers for developing countries where they contain provisions that allow for the use of
trade restrictions to fulfill environmental objectives mandated by the agreement, in some cases against economies that
are not parties to the MEA in question.
ORIGIN
DESCRIPTION
Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal
Restrictions on exporting
Restrictions on trade with non parties
Prohibition on trade between developed and developing
parties (not yet in force).
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer and
the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer
Ultimate ban on the production and consumption of ozone depleting
substances (ODS).
Ban on trade with non parties
Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on
Biological Diversity
Unilateral rights for trade restrictions by importers
without scientific justification
Convention on Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
Bans on trade in endangered animals and animal parts
Ban on trade of threatened species is banned.
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs)
Ban on exports of prescribed chemicals to non-parties
15
5. Barriers and Related Measures
A . E N V I R O N M E N TA L T R A D E B A R R I E R S
Standards regulating (maximum residue) levels of toxic substances in products
European Community
16
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Commission
Regulation
466/2001 setting
maximum levels
for certain
contaminants in
foodstuffs, as
amended
The Regulation prevents food
containing contaminants above the
mandated levels, which are
contained in an Annex, from being
placed on the market. The maximum
contaminant levels relate to edible
parts of foodstuffs and ingredients
used for the production of compound
foodstuffs. Member states must take
appropriate monitoring measures
regarding the presence of
contaminants on foodstuffs. Four
different categories of contaminants
are covered by the regulation: nitrates,
aflatoxins, heavy metals (lead,
cadmium and mercury) and 3-monochloropropane-1, 2 diol. Aflatoxins are
genotoxic carcinogenic substances
which develop at high temperatures
and humidity levels. The regulation
sets the lowest possible level. It also
sets out procedures for analysis
methods for evaluating the
contaminants. Where no EU level is
set, members are free to determine
their own levels, except for processed
products, for which maximum limits
set out in the Annex apply where no
specific maximum levels are set.
Directive 98/53/EC provides for a
harmonized sampling plan for
aflatoxins. Sampling methods for
aflatoxins in spices are to be applied
from February 2003.
Food – cereals,
dried fruits, nuts
such as peanuts,
fruits and
vegetables, milk
and milk products
Africa, India,
Sri Lanka,
Malaysia,
Indonesia,
Philippines,
Thailand, Peru,
Bolivia, Brazil
2002
These standards are more
stringent than International
Codex Standards and
stricter than US Standards.
In the Report of the 49th
Meeting of the Joint
FAO/WHO Expert
Committee on Food
Additives held in 1997, the
Committee considered that
the weight of scientific
evidence supported the
conclusion that aflatoxins
should be treated as
carcinogenic food
contaminants, the intake of
which should be reduced
to levels as low as
reasonably achievable.
Directive
2002/61/EC
amending for the
nineteenth time
Directive
76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the
marketing and
use of certain
dangerous substances and
preparations
(azo colorants)
The Directive sets limits for chemical
residues in products, such as
pentachlorophenol, cadmium,
certain azo dyestuffs, hexavalent
chromium and formaldehyde.
Individual countries are allowed to set
stricter limits than what is mandatory
for the EU generally under the
Directive. For hexavalent chromium
and azo dyes, in most cases the limits
specified correspond to detection
limits. Directive 2002/61/EC amends
76/769 by banning azo dyes which may
generate one or more 20 aromatic
amines in detectable concentrations
above 30 ppm where they come into
contact with human skin or oral
cavities, specified in a list, from being
placed on the market.
Textiles – leather
products, clothing,
bedding, towels,
footwear, toys,
yarns, fabrics
China, India,
Pakistan
1999
See below for Germany,
Austria and Netherlands
national regulations.
See also Directive 76/769
on the approximation of the
laws, regulations and
administrative provisions of
member states relating to
restrictions on the
marketing and use of
certain dangerous
substances and
preparations, and its
amendments.
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Council
Directive
1999/29/EC on
the undesirable
substances and
products in
animal nutrition,
including
fluorine,
mercury,
arsenic, nitrites
and cadmium
etc (animal
feedstuffs)
The Directive applies to additives in
feeding stuffs, marketing of feeding
stuffs and fixing of maximum
permitted levels of pesticide residues
on products intended for animal
feeding. The Directive requires
member states to prescribe that feed
materials may only be put into
circulation in the Community if they
are sound, genuine and of merchantable
quality. Annex II states that feedstuffs
will not meet this requirement if they
do not comply with the maximum
levels of substances set in Annex 1.
Members may allow the maximum levels to be exceeded in certain circumstances, for example in the case of
fodder which is produced and used in
the same state on the same agricultural
holding. The Directive also requires
members to take all necessary
measures to ensure that feeding stuffs
and feed materials are officially
controlled, at least by random sampling,
to verify that the conditions laid down
in the Directive are satisfied.
Food and
agriculture – all
feed materials of
plant origin
including
vegetable oils,
minerals for feed
use, animal fats,
milk and egg
products, fish oil,
fish and other
aquatic products
and other animal
feedstuffs
China
2002
(proposed
date of
entry into
force)
The trade impact of this
measure will depend upon
how EU member states
implement it.
Commission
Decision
2002/657
pursuant to
Directive
96/23/EC as
regards the
setting of
minimum
performance
limits for
certain residues
in food
The EU places an absolute ban, or
zero tolerance, on the use of
chloramphenicol and the nitrofuran
family of antibiotics for animals whose
products are intended for human
consumption pursuant to Commission
Decision 2002/657 and Directive
96/23/EC. Directive 96/23/EC sets out
rules for monitoring residues of
veterinary drugs, pesticides and other
contaminants. The Decision provides
rules for establishing minimum
performance limits for testing of
samples. Since March 2002, the EU has
placed import bans on honey from
China and other foodstuffs from
Thailand, Vietnam and Myanmar on
these grounds. The ban allows EU
authorities to systematically monitor
imports and remove batches as
identified from the market.
Chloramphenicol is an antibiotic which
can be detected to a level of 0.3 parts
per billion. Since March 2002, all
consignments of shrimps and poultry
from Thailand had to be tested for the
presence of residues since the presence of nitrofurans had been detected
in imported products. Thai authorities
have put in place an action plan and
guaranteed that all consignments of
shrimps are submitted to a systematic
pre shipment check to control the
presence of nitrofurans and other
residues since 21 September 2002.
Agriculture, food –
shrimp,
crayfish, honey,
poultry
Thailand,
Vietnam,
Myanmar
2002
Standards for the ban are
higher than those set in
other industrialized
economies. A proposal has
been put by the
Commission to revoke the
systematic checks for
consignments of shrimps
after this date, however the
Commission will
continue to monitor the
situation. The requirement
to test all consignments of
poultry entry into the EU
remains in place.
17
A . E N V I R O N M E N TA L T R A D E B A R R I E R S
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Directive
91/338/EEC
amending for the
10th time
Directive
76/769/EEC on
the
approximation of
the laws,
regulations and
administrative
provisions of the
member states
relating to
restrictions on
the marketing
and use of
certain
dangerous
substances and
preparations
The Directive restricts the marketing
and use of products containing
hazardous substances above a set
limit. Limits for cadmium are set at 100
ppm. Cadmium is used in the
manufacture of some articles made of
plastic and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
The relevant Directive applies to any
products produced in or imported into
the EU. Violation can occur if the
concentration of cadmium in any part
of the product exceeds the legal limit.
An importer trying to bring in goods
found to be in violation of the Directive
has three options: to sell the goods
outside the EU, send the goods back to
the country of origin, or dispose of the
goods at the cost of the importer
under the supervision of the
competent EU authorities.
Plastics and vinyl
products such as
plastic bags,
children’s toys,
also electronic
equipment.
China,
Thailand,
Indonesia
2000
Builds on Directive
76/769/EEC on the
approximation of the laws,
regulations and
administrative provisions of
the member states relating
to restrictions on the
marketing and use of
certain dangerous
substances and
preparations.
No US wide standard.
European Community Member States
18
Netherlands –
Regulation on
Formaldehyde in
Textiles
The regulation bans certain textile
products containing formaldehyde. If
trading of textile and apparel
products that may reasonably be
expected to come into direct contact
with human skin if these products:
contain more than 120ppm
formaldehyde before they are washed
once in accordance with the
corresponding washing instructions
and are not provided with the
designation “wash before first use”, or
contain more than 120ppm
formaldehyde after they have been
washed once. The designation should
be fixed to the product itself or to the
packaging intended for the end user of
the products. The regulation specifies
the test methods for deciding whether
the products concerned comply with
the requirements.
Textiles
India,
Thailand,
China,
Philippines
2000
Germany –
Ordinance on
Hazardous
Substances
26.10.93
The regulation requires products with
a formaldehyde content greater than
0.15% (1500 ppm) to bear labels. This
was revised in September 1994 to
require that textiles that may have skin
contact and contain formaldehyde of
more than 1500ppm must bear labels
stating that “product contains
formaldehyde, advised to wash before
wearing”. (Limits are 300 ppm outer
garments, 75 ppm direct skin contact
and 20ppm for baby clothes).
Textiles
China
1993
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Norway –
Regulations
Concerning the
regulation of
Certain
Chemicals and
Textiles of
8 April 1999.
The regulation bans the import and
sale of textiles containing free and
partially hydrolyzed formaldehyde in
excess of specified limits. These
include: textiles that come into direct
contact with skin 100mg/kg, indirect
contact 300mg/kg and baby clothes
30 mg/kg.
Textiles
N/A
1999
Netherlands –
Regulation
containing Rules
for the
Substance
FR-720
(Regulation
Fr-720 under the
Act on
Substances that
are Harmful to
the Environment
under Council
Regulation
793/93)
The regulation contains a ban on the
manufacture or, whether or not
processed in a preparation of a
product, the import into the
Netherlands, use or the having
available the relevant substance, the
brominated flame retardant FR-720, in
trade stocks. The substances included
are 1-1 isopropylidene, 3-5 dibromine
and 2-3 dibromine -4, 2-3 dibromine
propoxy benzene. There is a general
exemption for the intended exclusive
use of laboratory research.
Electrical and
electronic
equipment
Japan,
Germany,
France, Italy,
UK
2001
Netherlands –
Azo dyes
(Commodities
Act) Decree
Bans the trade of clothing, footwear
and bed linen containing azo dyes that
could generate aromatic amines
causing, or are suspected of causing,
cancer. The sale of clothing, footwear
and bed linen containing azo dyes that
may generate carcinogenic amines
above specified levels is prohibited.
Aromatic amines in question are listed
in Appendix I. Clothing, footwear and
bed linen containing azo dyes
exclusively in the form of a pigment
are excluded from the prohibition.
Appendix II sets out testing methods
used to determine whether the
products concerned comply with the
Decree.
Textile products
China, India,
Korea, Chinese
Taipei,
Bangladesh,
Colombia,
Pakistan
1998
Germany –
Amendments to
the Consumer
Protection Act
1994, prohibiting
the use of azo
dyes
The second amendment to the Act
prohibits the use of azo dyes on
textiles products that have direct skin
contact for a certain period
(limited to 30 ppm). Azo dyes could be
any of 20 specified aromatic amines
formed from the azo group
decomposition process. Sales of
textile products using these
substances in dying or printing
processes are prohibited. Further
amendments to the Act have added to
the list of banned dyes. The ban also
now applies to pigments based on
banned amines. Products found to
have breached the prohibition are
burnt and importers fined.
Textiles- bed linen,
bath towels,
garments
India, China,
Korea, Chinese
Taipei,
Bangladesh,
Colombia,
Pakistan
Amendments –
1995
1996
1997
Comments
There is an EU Directive
being prepared as a result
of which ploybromine
biphenyl and polybromine
diphenyl may no longer be
permitted to be used in
new electrical and
electronic equipment.
Germany, France the UK
and Italy objected to the
regulation on the grounds
that it caused trade
barriers and was not based
on a risk assessment.
19
A . E N V I R O N M E N TA L T R A D E B A R R I E R S
20
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Austria – Azo
Dyes Decree
pursuant to the
Consumer Goods
Act prohibiting
the use of
certain azo
dyestuffs and
azo pigments in
consumer
articles
Bans the manufacture, import and sale
of certain products if they have been
treated with azo dyestuffs and azo
pigments from which more than
30mg/kg of those aromatic amines set
out in the Appendix can be released.
Applies to clothing, consumer articles
made of textile material or leather that
are not only in contact with the human
body temporarily and according to
Article 6(d) of the 1975 Austrian Food
Law and other. Consumer articles
made of textile material or leather,
which, according to Article 6(f) of the
1975 Austrian Food Law, have more
than temporary contact with the
human body and which may, due to
their composition, endanger human
health when used in accordance with
their intended use.
Textiles –
clothing and
consumer articles
made of
textile material or
leather
China, India,
Korea, Chinese
Taipei,
Bangladesh,
Colombia,
Pakistan
1998
Germany –
Chemicals Act
1993 in accordance with
Article 15, Annex
1 of the
Chemical
Ordinance
20.10.93
Pursuant to EC Directive 91/173 EEC,
this regulation prohibits the
manufacture, marketing and use of
PCPs, its salts and compounds,
preparations containing more than
0.01% of such substances and
products which, following treatment
with preparations, contain the said
substances in a concentration of more
than 5 mg/kg ppm. Any imports or
traded goods containing PCP or its
salts higher than this standard are
prohibited. Applies to textiles, leather
and other commodities and all
products traded on the market.
Textiles and
forestry -leather
and heavy duty
textile and wood
products
1994
Comments
The EC Directive 91/173
prohibits the marketing and
use of PCPs (pentachlorophenol) and its
salts in a concentration
greater than 1000 ppm by
mass in substances and
preparation but allows for
four exceptions: wood
preservation, impregnation
of fibers and heavy duty
textiles, as a synthesizing
agent and/or processing
agent in industrial processes and for the situ treatment of buildings of cultural and historic interests.
Under the exceptions PCPs
content must be less than
4ppm. EU members implement national measures
pursuant to the Directive.
The German regulation
does not contain the
exceptions of the EC
Directive 91/173, but has
been endorsed as legal by
Commission.
No regulations in USA or
Canada.
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Denmark –
Statutory Order
from the
Ministry of
Environment and
Energy No.289 of
22 June 1983 on
restricting
formaldehyde in
chipboard,
plywood and
similar broad
materials used
in the
manufacture of
furniture,
fixtures and
fittings and
similar revenue.
The regulation sets limits on the
amount of formaldehyde used in glues
and adhesives in wood
products. It covers all chipboard,
plywood and similar broad materials,
especially those used in the
manufacture of furniture and fixtures
and fittings. Use of formaldehyde in
the manufacture of furniture, fixtures
and fittings is limited to 0.15 milligrams
of formaldehyde per cubic metre of air.
Where it is impossible to document
that the conditions have been met,
only boards with a maximum free
formaldehyde content of 25 milligrams
per 100 grams dry substance in the
board are permitted. Applies to anyone
manufacturing or importing furniture,
fixtures and fittings similar.
Wood products –
panels,
chipboard and furniture
N/A
1983
NetherlandsDecree to
amend the
Decision on
Coatings
containing
Polycyclic
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
under the
Chemical
Substances Act
1998 (creosote
treated wood)
The Royal Decree prohibits the import
of and the use of or supply to others of
creosote treated wood for applications
involving contact with surface water or
groundwater. Anyone who imports,
supplies or keeps available for sale on
the market, creosote treated wood that
does not fall under the ban must keep
a record of the wood and show if
required that the creosote treated
wood in question is not intended for
applications to which the ban relates.
Creosote is principally and almost
exclusively used as a wood preserving
agent. Large scale industrial and
professional applications are the most
important. The national measure bans
wood treated with creosote containing
0.005% by mass.
Wood products –
Wood used for
railway sleepers,
poles for
electricity
transport and
hydraulic
engineering,
fences and stakes
N/A
1998
These national regulations
are stricter than the EU
Directive governing the
same thing. The national
measure bans wood
treated with creosote
containing 0.005% by mass.
The EU Directive 76/769/EC
as amended by 94/60/EC
allows for this treated
wood to be used in
industrial applications. The
Commission has approved
the Dutch national
provisions as admissible.
Germany –
German
Pesticide
Residue Law
The German law sets maximum
residue limits for pesticides and import
tolerances for all agricultural products.
The competent authorities normally set
MRLs to reflect the residues that one
would obtain using minimum quantities
of pesticide necessary to achieve
adequate pest control, applied in such
a manner that the amount of residue is
the smallest practicable and is
toxicologically acceptable. However,
where there is insufficient data to
assess a particular pesticide’s risk,
Germany applies a default value based
on the limit of determination for the
pesticide – the lowest level at which
the residues of the pesticide can be
detected, quantified and confirmed in
the product, close to zero tolerance.
For example, it sets limits of pesticide
residues for tea such as Ethion 2mg/kg
and for Tetrafidon 0.01mg/kg.
Food,
Agriculture
India
1995
These standards are
stricter than international
and US levels. The default
to zero tolerance if no
measure is in place would
not appear to be
scientifically justifiable.
There are no Codex
standards set for
tetrafidon and standards
for ethion are set at
7.0 mg/kg.
21
A . E N V I R O N M E N TA L T R A D E B A R R I E R S
Japan
22
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Japanese Law
No 112, 1973
Law for the
Control of
Household
Products
Containing
Harmful
Substances
The law restricts the content of
several harmful substances in
household products, including the
amount of formaldehyde allowed in
textile articles in order for them to be
imported. The regulations governing
the level of formaldehyde in infants
clothing require that formaldehyde not
be detectable in baby clothes,
effectively a zero limit.
Consumer goods,
textiles – leather
products
N/A
1973
The level for infant
clothing is set below
international and EU
levels.
An order was issued to
collect underwear for
infants imported from
Canada for the reason that
formaldehyde exceeding
the standard mentioned
above was detected when
watchmen for household
articles’ hygiene
conducted an on-the-spot
inspection. The retailer had
obtained, however, when
importing them, a
certification that the
standard mentioned above
was met from a designated
certification organization
and claimed damages from
the complainant, putting
the blame on it. Hence the
problem of different
measuring standards when
the limits are very strict.
Along these lines, the EU
has said “The Japanese
regulations governing the
permitted level of
formaldehyde in infant
clothing impede EU
exports, since they impose
a “zero limit” in baby
clothing. This causes
significant technical and
interpretative problems.”
Standards for marketing approval
European Community
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Directive
90/220/EC
amending
Directive
2001/18/EC
governing
approval of
biotechnology
products,
including seeds
and grains for
environmental
release and
commercialisation.
Approval of GMO products in the EU is
based on both general and specific
legislation. A company intending to
market GMOs in the community must
first submit an application to the
competent national authority of the
member state where the product is to
be first placed on the market. If the
national authority gives a favourable
opinion on the placing of the market of
the GMO concerned, the member state
informs the other member states via
the Commission. If there are no
objections the product may be placed
on the market. If objections are raised
a decision is taken at community level.
Scientific opinion through a Scientific
Committee is then considered. If
favourable, the decision goes back to
the Commission to a regulatory committee composed of member states. If
favourable the Commission adopts the
decision. If not, the decision goes to a
Council of Ministers for adoption or
rejection.
Agriculture, GM
crops
United States,
Canada
2002
See prospective measures
for proposals to change the
regulation and proposed
rules on labeling.
Regulation No
1274/91
introducing
detailed rules for
implementing
Regulation No
1907/90 on
certain
marketing
standards for
eggs
Sets out detailed rules for the
marketing of eggs in the EU. Eggs
intended for sale to consumers must
bear labels for grading as “A”,”B” or
“C”. Article 18 states that Grade A
eggs or small packs carrying such
eggs may carry a list of certain terms
which indicate the type of farming. The
terms may only be used for eggs
which are produced in poultry
enterprises that meet the criteria set
out in an Annex to the Regulation. The
Annex sets out minimum criteria to be
met by poultry enterprises producing
eggs. For example, eggs bearing the
words “free range eggs” must be
produced in enterprises where hens
have access to open air runs, and the
ground where they have access is
mainly covered in vegetation. There
are also minimum criteria for eggs
labeled as “semi intensive eggs”,
“deep litter eggs” and “barn eggs”
which set out requirements for the
area the hens run in and material
covering on the ground.
Food and beverages – wines
India, Canada,
United States
1991
Regulation
No.1774/2002 of
the EU
Parliament and
Council laying
down health
rules concerning
animal by products not intended for human
consumption
The Directive requires animal by products not intended for human consumption, including blood products, hides
and pet food, to be derived from the
carcasses of animals deemed fit for
human consumption. The legislation
prohibits the use of any rendered protein which was obtained from animal
carcasses that were unfit for human
consumption as animal feed ingredients or pet food. For example, fallen
stock will not be permitted in feed.
Agriculture, Food
– hides, skins, gel
bones, pet food,
gelatin and other
products
All
Approved
2002,
implementation date
proposed
is May
2003
The US launched a WTO
challenge to EU rules in
May 2003.
In February 2003, USDA
Secretary Veneman sent a
letter to EU Commissioner
Byrne stating that
Regulation 177/2002
creates onerous and
scientifically unjustified
new restrictions on US
exports of hides, skins, pet
food, gelatin and other
products.
23
A . E N V I R O N M E N TA L T R A D E B A R R I E R S
Standards for product harvesting
United States
24
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Section 609 of
Public Law
101-162 Relating
to the Protection
of Sea Turtles in
Shrimp Trawl
Fishing
Operations 1989,
16USC1826
(Large-scale
driftnet fishing),
50CFR222
(Endangered
and Threatened
Marine Species)
Shrimp harvested with technology that
may adversely affect certain sea
turtles may not be imported into the
United States unless the harvesting
nation has been certified to have a
regulatory program, and an incidental
take-rate, comparable to that of the
United States, or that the particular
fishing environment of the harvesting
nation does not pose a threat to sea
turtles. All shipments of shrimp and
shrimp products into the United States
must be accompanied by a declaration
attesting that they have been
harvested either under conditions that
do not adversely affect sea turtles or
in waters subject to the jurisdiction of
a nation currently certified pursuant to
Section 609. Since January 1999,
revisions have been issued to the
guidelines implementing Section 609.
All shrimp harvesting nations are
subject to the import ban, but the US
has certified sixteen nations as having
sea turtle protection programs
comparable to that of the US, and 25
nations as having fishing environments
that do not pose a danger to sea turtles.
Agriculture, Food
– shrimp
India Malaysia
Thailand
Pakistan
1989,
implementing
guidelines
amended
2000.
In 1996, Malaysia, India,
Pakistan and Thailand
brought a joint complaint to
the WTO against the import
prohibition under section
609. The WTO Appellate
Body found that the
measure was not justified
under Article XX of the
GATT 1994. In November
2000 Malaysia brought a
complaint against the US
implementation of this
ruling. The original panel
was reconvened and found
in favor of the US.
16USC1412
(Dolphin
Conservation
Program),
16USC1385
(Dolphin
Protection),
16USC1361
(Marine
Mammal
Protection Act)
In 1972, the US enacted the Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)
which placed an embargo on tuna
imports from countries failing to protect dolphins when fishing in the
Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean.
Congress appointed the Secretary of
Commerce to ensure that the kill rates
of the importing countries did not
exceed 2 times the take rate of the
U.S. fleet in 1989 and 1.25 times the
U.S. rate in 1990. If countries did not
meet these standards the Secretary
was required to implement a direct
tuna embargo. To further ensure
compliance with the MMPA’s Direct
Embargo Provision, Congress included
the Intermediary Nation Provision, the
Pelly Amendment and the Dolphin
Protection Consumer Information Act.
During the period of 1990/1991, the U.S.
implemented tuna embargoes on
Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, Panama,
and Vanuatu. The import ban was
successfully challenged by Mexico
under the GATT and was removed on
imports from countries found by the
US to be in compliance with the
International Dolphin Conservation
Program. Under the MMPA as amended in 1997 to implement the IDCP, a
country may export yellow fin tuna to
the US if it submits evidence that it
participates in the IDCP and takes
certain conservation measures.
Fisheries – yellow
fin tuna
Belize, Bolivia,
Colombia, El
Salvador,
Guatemala,
Honduras,
Nicaragua,
Panama,
Spain, Vanuatu
and Venezuela
1990/91
The measure was
subsequently
supplemented by the
International Commission
for the Conservation of
Atlantic Tunas.
Since 1999, two countries
have been certified as
meeting the requirements.
Imports of yellow fin tuna
from the Eastern Tropical
Pacific Ocean must be
accompanied by evidence
supplied by the exporting
country that dolphin mortality limits permitted for
the country have not been
exceeded. Exporting countries are also required to
be, or to have taken steps
to become, a member of
the Inter-American Tropical
Tuna Commission.
Producers meeting these
requirements may label
their products as dolphin
safe tuna.
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Pelly
Amendment (22
U.S.C. 1978) to
the Fishermen’s
Protective Act of
1967
This amendment authorizes the US
Secretary of Commerce to certify a
country for activities that diminish the
effectiveness of an international
conservation program. (The original
section just covered fish under
international fish conservation
programs – the Pelly Amendment
extends this to wildlife and all fish not
previously covered) A certification
triggers a process for the President to
consider the imposition of import
restrictions against the country, to the
extent that such restrictions are
sanctioned by the WTO.
Fisheries and
wildlife – whales
Japan, Taiwan
1978
In September 2000, the
Secretary of Commerce
certified Japan under the
Pelly Amendment for
undermining international
efforts to protect whales.
Certification was based on
Japan’s decision to kill two
additional species of whales
under its research program
in the North Pacific. In
December 2000, the
President sent a letter to
Congress stating that he
did not believe that import
prohibitions would further
US objectives at that time,
but directed certain
executive agencies to keep
Japan’s whaling activities
under active review.
Import prohibitions were
imposed on wildlife products
from Taiwan under the
Pelly Amendment. They
were lifted in 1995 after a
significant reduction of
illegal Taiwanese trade in
rhino horn and tiger bone.
In 1996, Taiwan was
removed from the Pelly
Amendment ‘watch list’.
Under the Law Concerning Special
Measures to Strengthen the
Conservation and Management of
Tuna Resources, Japan has enacted
the Basic Policy for Conservation and
Management of Tuna. This allows for
the restriction of imports of tuna
products from countries that do not
modify fishing practices despite
Japan’s requests, if restrictions are
viewed as appropriate and necessary.
In such cases, Japan will act in
accordance with provisions set force
by related international organizations
such as the WTO, and agreements.
Under the International Commission
for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna
(ICCAT) Japan agreed in 1999 to act,
consistent with the relevant laws, to
urge importers and other concerned
business people to refrain from
engaging in transaction and
transshipment of tuna and tuna-like
species caught by vessels flying flags
of convenience. The Director General
of Fisheries Agencies under the
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and
Fisheries, issued a letter to importers,
transporters and equipment manufacturers, requesting that tuna captured
by flags-of-convenience vessels that
do not abide by international treaties
for marine conservation, should not be
imported. The order effectively
constitutes a ban on such imports.
Fisheries – tuna
N/A
1996 (1999)
Under the ICCAT,
contracting parties
(including Japan, US, EU
and many others) have
agreed to ban the
importation of certain
species from specified
countries of export (flags of
convenience). ICCAT
recommendations for
import restrictions have in
the past covered species
such as blue fin tuna and
swordfish and affected
countries have included
Belize, Honduras,
Equatorial Guinea,
Cambodia, St Vincent and
Grenadines and Sierra
Leone. Import restrictions
are imposed and lifted in
accordance with ICCAT
recommendations.
Japan
Law Concerning
Special measures for the
Conservation
and Stronger
Management of
Tuna Resources.
The legislation
was passed in
accordance with
the International
Commission for
the Conservation
of Atlantic Tuna
(ICCAT)
25
A . E N V I R O N M E N TA L T R A D E B A R R I E R S
Product waste, disposal and recycling obligations
European Community
26
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Directive
2002/96/EC on
Waste Electrical
and Electronic
Equipment
(WEE)
The Directive requires member states
to set up a collection system under
which final holders and distributors of
electrical and electronic equipment
can return such equipment from
private households free of charge.
Producers (which includes in its
definition importers) must provide for
the collection of waste other than from
private households. By 31 December
2005 members must achieve a
minimum rate of separate collection of
four kilograms on average per
inhabitant per year of waste electrical
and electronic equipment from private
households. Producers of electrical
and electronic equipment must set up
waste treatment systems using best
available treatment, recovery and
recycling techniques. Treatment must
include the removal of fluids and a
selective treatment in accordance
with Annex II to the Directive. Member
states must also ensure that producers
set up systems for recovering waste
electrical and electronic equipment.
Electronics and
electrical
equipment
United States,
Thailand
2003
Five years after the entry
into force of the Directive,
producers must provide for
the financing of the collection, treatment, recovery
and environmentally sound
disposal of waste electrical
and electronic equipment
from private households
deposited at collection
facilities set up as above
and also waste from other
than private households.
For products put on the
market later than August
2005, each producer must
be responsible for financing the operations relating
to waste from its own
products. Electrical and
electronic equipment is set
out in an Annex to the
Directive. The trade impact
of this measure will depend
on how member states
implement it.
Directive
2000/53/EC of the
European
Parliament and
of the Council on
End of Life
Vehicles
The Directive covers vehicles and end
of life vehicles and their components
and materials. It defines producers as
vehicle manufacturers or professional
importers of vehicles into EU member
states. Economic operators are
defined as producers, distributors,
collectors etc. It sets out standard
obligations that member states must
ensure are met nationally. The
obligations imposed on economic
operators are as follows: Collection:
Member states must ensure that
economic operators set up systems for
the collection of all end of life vehicles,
and as far as technically feasible, of
waste parts removed when passenger
cars are repaired. Member states
must also ensure that producers meet
all, or a significant part of, the costs of
implementation ensuring the delivery
of the vehicle to an authorized
treatment facility and/or take back end
of life vehicles under the same
conditions. Reuse and recovery:
Member states must also take all
necessary measures to ensure that
economic operators attain targets for
the reuse and recovery of all end of
life of vehicles. The Commission is to
set detailed rules necessary to control
compliance of member states with the
necessary targets.
Automotive –
vehicles
N/A
2000
The Directive also establishes coding standards:
Member states must also
ensure that producers use
material coding standards
and provide dismantling
information for each type
of new vehicle put on the
market within six months
after the vehicle is put on
the market.
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Council
Directive
94/62/EC of 20
December 1994
on Packaging
and Packaging
Waste
The Directive aims to harmonize
national measures concerning
packaging and packaging waste. It
covers all products placed on the
market and all packaging waste.
Economic operators include importers
and suppliers of packaging. The
Directive requires member states to
implement national laws for measures
that set targets for the recovery of
packaging waste, and ensure the
return, recovery and collection
systems are in place. It also requires
members to ensure all packaging
placed on the market complies with
“essential requirements”, for example,
that packaging be designed, produced
and commercialized in such a way as
to permit its reuse or recovery,
including recycling and minimizing the
impact on the environment. Members
must also ensure concentration levels
of certain substances in packaging do
not exceed mandated levels.
Packaging
N/A
1994
Automotivevehicles
N/A
2002
Comments
European Member States
Netherlands –
Decree on
Management of
End of Life of
Vehicles,
Designation of
Hazardous
Waste Decree
1994 and Car
Tyres Disposal
Decree 1995
The Decree on the end of life of
vehicles implements the EC End of Life
Vehicle (ELV) Directive 200/53.
Manufacturers and importers of
vehicles are required to take
preventative measures so as to
prevent or limit the emergence of
disposal of vehicle waste. In addition,
manufacturers and importers are
required to set up a collection and
processing system for vehicles that
are introduced onto the market, which
have reached waste stage. The
Designation of Hazardous Waste
Decree requires that among ELV
components, LPG tanks and fuels
derived from ELVs are defined as
dangerous waste. They must be
dismantled, drained and treated in a
separate manner. The Care Tyres
Disposal Decree regulates a take back
system under producer responsibility.
Producers are defined as producers
and importers of car tyres. For tyres
from ELVs, car producers are defined
as responsible producers.
Implements regulations for
prevention, for promoting
use and recovery and with
regard to coding
components and materials,
which are stricter than the
EU Directive. The trade
impact will depend on how
the measure is
implemented.
27
A . E N V I R O N M E N TA L T R A D E B A R R I E R S
28
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Germany –
German
Packaging
Ordinance
(Topfer Decree)
Applies to all types of packaging
manufactured or brought into
circulation into Germany. It obliges
manufacturers, users and distributors
to take back packaging for reuse or
recycling outside the public waste
disposal system. All packaging must
be returned to the retailer unless a
separate collection system is set up.
Under the Ordinance: 80% of waste
packaging is to be collected by industry
by 1995, with specific targets
established for certain types of
packaging, 80-90% of the collected
material must be sorted, with 100% of
the sorted material being recycled or
reused. All retailers are obliged to levy
a charge on non-reusable packaging
unless the collection and recycling of
such packaging can be guaranteed.
Combustion with energy recovery is
included as a valid recovery option. In
response to the Ordinance, industry
has established the “dual” system to
collect and recycle domestic use
packaging. This system permits
manufactures to use a “green dot”
which signifies the fee has been paid,
thereby ensuring that products are not
excluded from retail stores. The green
dot indicates to the consumer that the
packaging material is recyclable and
the product price includes the cost of
packing, collection and sorting for
recycling.
Consumer goods
All
1993
In 1995, Germany was
warned by the EU
Commission about the
consistency of the
measure with EU legislation
following numerous industry
complaints. Germany
advocated it would make
some changes in 1998, but
when no substantial
changes were made, the
European Commission
decided to refer Germany
to the European Court of
Justice (complaint from
Belgium). In 2001 the EU
took Germany to court over
the re-use quota for drinks
packaging on the grounds
that it imposed an unfair
burden on producers of
natural mineral waters that
import their products over
long distances. The
Packaging Ordinance
favours refillable mineral
water containers rather
than one trip bottles based
on life cycle analysis. The
Ordinance was the impetus
for the 1994 EC Packaging
and Packaging Waste
Directive. Reportedly
Germany now exports a
large amount of packaging
waste to other countries as
its recycling facilities
cannot keep pace with the
amount.
Belgium –
Cooperation
Agreement on
the Prevention
and
Management of
Packaging
Waste
The three Belgian Regions, pursuant
to the EU Directive 94/62/EC set
targets to be achieved by economic
operators for recycling and recovery.
The Cooperation Agreement sets out
the obligation for economic operators
(packaging fillers and users, including
importers in case the packaging was
filled outside Belgium) to take back
and recycle/recover the packaging
material contained in the packaging
waste out on the market, either
individually or by contracting a third
party, and to achieve quantified
targets for recycling and recovery:
45-70% by 1998 and 50-80% by 1999.
Consumer goods
N/A
1996
Prospectively the burden
falls disproportionately on
the importer.
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
United Kingdom
– UK Packaging
Essential
Requirements
Regulation
(S.I 1998/1165)
Implemented pursuant to EC Directive
94/62/EC, the regulation mandates that
no persons responsible for packing or
filling products into packaging or
importing packed or filled packing into
the UK may place that packaging on
the market unless it fulfills the
Essential Requirements and heavy
metal concentration limits. Packaging
is defined as all products made of any
material of any nature used for the
containment, protection, handling,
delivery and presentation of goods
from raw materials to processed goods
from the producer to the user to the
consumer. The Essential Requirements
are: 1) that packaging shall be so manufactured that the packaging volume
and weight be limited to the minimum
adequate amount to maintain the necessary level of safety, hygiene and
acceptance for the packed product
and for the consumer, 2) Noxious or
hazardous substances in packaging
must be minimal in emissions, ash or
leachate for incineration or landfill and
3) Packaging must be recoverable
through one of either, material
recycling, incineration with energy
recovery, composting or biodegradable.
The regulations also set limits for the
concentration of lead, cadmium,
mercury and haxavalent chromium in
packaging. The importer must keep
documentation to demonstrate
compliance with the regulations. It
does not apply to products for export.
Paper and pulp –
cardboard and
paper
N/A
1998
Fisheries, Food
N/A
2002
Comments
Packaging and labeling requirements
European Community
Commission
Regulation No
2065/2001
laying down
detailed rules for
the application
of Council
Regulation No
101/2000 as
regards
informing
consumers
about fishery
and aquaculture
products
Fish and fisheries products must bear
a label identifying the species name,
production method and catch area.
Producers are defined as physical or
legal persons using the means of
production to produce fishery products
with a view to first stage marketing of
them. Fishery products are defined as
products caught at sea or inland
water.
29
A . E N V I R O N M E N TA L T R A D E B A R R I E R S
30
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
EC Regulation
881/98 laying
down detailed
rules for the protection of the
additional traditional terms
used to designate certain
types of quality
wine produced
in specified
regions (quality
wines psr)
The regulation limits the use of
additional traditional terms for the use
of quality liqueur and semi-sparkling
wines. The use of these terms on
labels of products is limited to where
the term is used to traditionally
designate quality wines produced in
the member state which refers in
particular to a method of production,
preparation or ageing or to a quality,
colour or type of wine and which is
recognized in law of the member state
as originating in that territory.
Traditional names protected in third
countries will only be permitted to be
displayed or to use those terms in the
EU where they fulfill the requirements
applicable to domestic producers,
where they have presented an
application to the Commission or are
part of a list of exceptions that is
annexed to the Agreement.
Food and
beverages –
wines
Argentina,
Chile, Mexico,
Canada,
Uruguay,
United States,
New Zealand
Adopted
April 1988,
effective
October
1999
Council
Regulation
EEC.2092/91 on
organic production of agricultural products
and indications
referring thereto
on agricultural
products and
foodstuffs
The regulation applies to unprocessed
agricultural crop products, animals and
unprocessed animal products, products
intended for human consumption composed essentially of one or more ingredients of plant origin that are intending
to or bear indications referring to
organic production methods. The regulation provides for a set of minimum
production and processing rules that
must be satisfied in order for a product
to be labeled “organic” and a specific
inspection regime that is obligatory for
all operators involved in the placing of
products from organic farming on the
market, whether they are produced in
the EU or imported from third countries.
Products may only be labeled as organic where they relate to a particular
method of agricultural production and
the product was produced in accordance with specified rules of production, and where imported, where the
importer was subject to specified
inspection measures. The regulation
requires member states to set up
inspection systems operated by designated inspection authorities.
Certification is through both semi government and private bodies, although
there are some restrictions on private
bodies. It requires imported organic
products to have come from a country
which has an equivalence agreement
with the EU (Argentina, Australia, the
Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, New
Zealand and Switzerland) or provide
satisfactory proof that the product was
produced and inspected in accordance
with EU rules. The new regulation mandates that original certificates of
inspection must now be represented at
the point of entry into the EU.
Accreditation must be by official EU
accredited bodies. Implementation and
enforcement is by individual member
states and requirements can differ
between the EU member countries.
Food, agriculture
Mexico, Chile,
Uganda
1991, 2002
Comments
The EU has a logo for
organic products, but it
can only apply to products
originating within the EU.
Several members have
also developed labels of
their own. For example,
France’s AB logo can only
be used on foodstuffs
containing plant products
produced in a third country
if within the EU.
Commission regulation
1788/2001 and 1918/2002 lay
down detailed rules for
certificates of inspection
for imports from third
countries.
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
European
Parliament and
Council
Directive
94/62/EC on
Packing and
Packaging
waste
The Directive applies to all packaging
placed on the market in the Community
and all packaging waste, whether it is
used or released at industrial,
commercial, office, shop, service,
household or any other level,
regardless of the material used.
Economic operators include packaging
producers and importers, distributors
etc. The Directive requires members to
implement systems to ensure that
return, collection and recovery
systems are implemented, that return
and recovery targets are met and
ensure, within three years that
packaging is only placed in the market
where it complies with the essential
requirements of the Directive. These
include requirements specific to the
manufacturing and composition of
packaging (be limited to a minimum
amount for health and safety needs, be
designed to permit recycling and
reuse) requirements specific to the
reusable nature of packaging (physical
properties and characteristics,
possibility of processing), fulfill
requirements for recoverable
packaging and requirements specific
to the recoverable nature of packaging
( be manufactured in such a way as to
enable recycling, meet energy
recovery requirements, and be of a
biodegradable nature when used for
composting).
Consumer goods –
packaging
material
All
1994
Legislation has so far been
adopted in the UK (The
Packaging Essential
Requirements Regulations
S.I. 1998/1165) and in
France (Decree 98-638 of
July 20, 1998).
A new draft Directive sets
new higher targets for
recycling and material
specific targets, set for a
five year period up to 30
June 2006. Its final
adoption is not likely to be
before the end of 2003.
Council
Regulation (EC)
No 1493/1999 on
the Common
Organization of
the Market in
Wine,
Amendments No
1622/2000 (1), No
2585/2001 (2)
Regulation 1493/1999 on the Common
Organization of the market in wine sets
out rules governing wine production
potential, market mechanisms,
producer organizations and sectoral
organizations, oenological practices
and processes, description,
designation, presentation and
protection, quality wines and trade
with third countries. The regulations
require wines imported into the EU to
be produced only with those
oenological practices that are
authorized for the production of EU
wines. It also sets out rules pertaining
to the description, design and
presentation of products covered by
the regulation in relation to containers,
labeling and packaging and according
to geographical origin. For example, it
lays down the compulsory particulars
that must be presented on labels. It
establishes rules concerning the
optional terms that can be included on
labels, in particular the vintage year
and wine varieties used in the wine
production. Some countries are able to
import wines made from different
processes through exceptions granted
under bilateral agreements.
Beverages –
wines
Argentina,
Australia,
Canada, Chile,
Uruguay,
United States,
New Zealand
1999
31
A . E N V I R O N M E N TA L T R A D E B A R R I E R S
32
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Commission
Regulation (EC)
No 753/2002
Laying down
certain rules for
applying Council
Regulation No
1493/199 as
regards the
description,
designation,
presentation and
protection of
certain wine
sector products
The regulation lays down the compulsory particulars that must be presented on
labels of wines for them to be
marketed in the EU. It establishes rules
concerning the optional terms that can
be included on labels, in particular the
vintage year and wine varieties used in
the wine production. It prohibits the presentation on imported wine, information
important for the marketing of wine
unless certain conditions are met (e.g. a
geographical indication must appear on
the label or the terms used must be regulated in the importing country). It also
imposes restrictions on the use of “traditional terms” listed in the Regulation,
in some cases granting exclusive use of
a term to an EU producer akin to an
intellectual property right. It also places
restrictions on the use of certain types
of bottle by third countries.
Beverages –
wines
Argentina,
Australia,
Canada,
Bolivia, Brazil,
Mexico,
Paraguay,
Peru, Uruguay,
United States
2002
Council
Directive
88/378/EEC
on the
approximation of
the laws of the
member states
concerning toys
The Directive requires toys to meet
certain essential safety requirements.
Products that do not meet the
requirements cannot be sold on the
market. The requirements, such as
permitted chemical properties, are set
down as minimum standards in an
Annex to the Directive. For example,
the Directive limits the maximum
content of extractable chromium in
toys. Member states must take all
steps necessary to ensure toys are not
placed on the market if they do not
meet the requirements. Toys with the
EC mark affixed to them are presumed
to be in compliance with the Directive,
otherwise toys must obtain an
examination certificate from an EC
body verifying that they have met the
criteria. Member states can require
testing to be undertaken at the
manufacturer’s expense in order to
verify standards have been met and
can also require certain requirements
be displayed in the language of that
member, for example, on the label of
the product where a label is required.
Textiles,
Consumer goods,
toys
N/A
1990
Comments
United States
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
7 CFR Part 205
National Organic
Program
(Standards) –
Subchapter M of
the Organic
Foods
Production
Action
Provisions (1990)
7USC/Chapter94
(Organic
Certification)
The US has standards for what
agricultural products can be sold as
organic, whether grown in the US or
imported. Only agricultural products
meeting USDA standards can be sold,
labeled or represented as “organic” in
the US. Standards offer a definition of
the term organic, and detail the
methods, practices and substances
that can used in producing and
handling organic crops and livestock,
as well as processed products and
specifically prohibit the use of genetic
engineering methods, ionizing radiation
and sewage sludge for fertilization.
They also establish criteria for the use
of the words or phrase “organic” etc.
Processed products must identify each
organically produced ingredient and
be able to provide the name and
address of the agency certifying that it
meets the USDA criteria for organic
food production.
Food, Agriculture
– organic foods
Chile
2002
Energy
Efficiency Act
(1992, c.36) and
associated
regulations
The energy efficiency regulations set
efficiency standards for listed energyusing products, including labeling
requirements before the energy using
product can be released onto the
market. The regulations apply to
dealers who import energy using
products into Canada.
Consumer
products –
freezers,
refrigerators,
household
appliances etc
N/A
1992,
amended
for certain
products
up to 2002
Japan’s regulation for labeling of
organic plant products applies to
organic plant products and processed
products thereof. It specifies that the
words “organic” may not be used
without the Japanese organic mark.
The standard relates not to the
properties of the final product itself,
but how the products are processed. A
product can qualify for the Japanese
organic mark through certification by a
Japanese certified agency, a
registered foreign body in another
country (by establishing equivalence)
or through use of contracted
inspection services of Japanese
registered authorities.
Food
China,
Thailand
2000
Comments
There have been recent
amendments to the
regulations to increase the
stringency for the energy
efficiency standards by
product and to add new
products to the coverage
of the regulation.
Japan
Japanese
Agricultural
Standard of
Organic
Agricultural
Products and
Japanese
Agricultural
Standard of
Organic
Agricultural
Product
Processed
Foods. Both
Standards are
governed by the
Law concerning
the Standardization and
Proper Labeling
of Agricultural
and Forestry
products (Law
No. 175 of 1950).
33
A . E N V I R O N M E N TA L T R A D E B A R R I E R S
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
The Law
Concerning
Standardization
and Proper
labeling of
Agricultural and
Forestry
Products (Law
No. 175 of 14950)
JAS Standards set criteria for
agricultural and forestry products
relating to quality such as grading,
composition and performance or
relating to production methods.
Products that pass the grading of the
Japanese Agricultural Standard (JAS)
(inspection as to whether they meet
the JAS standards) are permitted to
display the JAS mark (Article 14).
Items covered are foods, agricultural
and forestry products, etc. Foreign
products are also subject to this
system. At the same time,
international standards should be
taken into account (Articles 7 and 9).
Furthermore, the JAS standards
should be reviewed every 5 years
(Article 9-2).
Agriculture,
Forestry, Food
Australia,
Canada, New
Zealand,
United States
1950
(amended
1999)
Comments
Standards mandating energy efficiency/emissions reductions
Canada
On-Road Vehicle
and Engine
Emissions
Regulations
under the
Canadian
Environmental
Protection Act
(CEPA) (1999)
(C-15.31)
34
The regulations introduce more
stringent national emission standards
for on road vehicles and engines and a
new regulatory framework under the
Canadian Environmental Protection
ACT 1999. The proposed regulations
for controlling emissions from on road
vehicles and engines will come into
effect on 1 January 2004. The
proposed regulations will therefore
replace the emissions regulations
previously adopted under the Motor
Vehicle Safety Act. The regulations set
out technical standards for vehicles
and engines respecting exhaust,
evaporative and crankcase missions,
on-board diagnostic systems and other
specifications related to emission
control systems. For most vehicle
classes and on a per vehicle basis, the
targeted standards represent an
average reduction in the allowable
levels of smog forming emissions of
about 90% relative to current regulated
limits. The proposed regulations will
reduce emissions of volatile organic
compounds, carbon monoxide, oxides
of nitrogen, particulate matter and air
pollutants listed as toxic substances in
Schedule 1 to CEPA. The regulations
will apply to persons in the business of
manufacturing, distributing or importing
on road vehicles and engines for sale
in Canada. They also set requirements
for on road vehicles and engines being
imported by individuals.
Automotive –
engines and
vehicles
N/A
Due to
enter into
force on
1 January
2004.
Proposed
date of
entry into
force
September
2003
The standards continue the
approach of aligning with
federal emission standards
of the US EPA, which are
generally recognized as
the most stringent national
emissions standards in the
world.
Regulations pursuant to MEAs and other international treaties
European Community
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Regulation
2037/2000 pursuant to the
Montreal
Protocol on
Substances that
Deplete the
Ozone Layer and
the Vienna
Convention for
the Protection of
the Ozone Layer
The Regulation applies to the production, importation, exportation and
placing on the market, use, recovery,
recycling and reclamation and
destruction of chlorofluorocarbons
and fully halogenated chlorofluorocarbons and to products and equipment
containing these substances.
It provides for phasing out of all ozone
depleting substances in the EU at a
faster timetable than that agreed
under the Montreal Protocol. The
Regulation proposes phase out of
HDFCs by 2001. The existing regulation
required the air conditioning industry
to phase out by 2001, with most other
industries having until 2004 to phase
out. Controlled substances imported
from third countries are only permitted
under a license and not permitted from
states not party to the Montreal
Protocol.
Consumer goods
N/A
2001
Comments
35
B. PROSPECTIVE MEASURES
European Community
36
Proposed
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Proposal for a
Council
Directive
1999/29/EC on
the undesirable
substances and
products in
animal nutrition
The Draft Directive is part of an overall
strategy and “integrated approach” to
reduce the levels of dioxins throughout
the food chain, for feed and food. It
seeks to incorporate maximum levels
of dioxins in feed materials and animal
products already established in
Directive 2001/102/EC. The Directive
would replace existing national
measures put in place pursuant to
Directive 1999/29/EC. There are three
pillars of proposed measures: 1)
establish maximum levels for dioxins
and furans, 2) establish action levels
that trigger a response from operators
and authorities to take action and 3)
establish target levels over time to
reduce dioxins.
Agriculture, food –
all feed materials
of plant origin
including
vegetable oils,
minerals for feed
use, animal fats,
milk and egg
products, fish oil,
fish and other
aquatic products
other animal
feedstuffs
N/A
Proposed
date of
entry into
force is
January
2002
2001 White
Paper on
Strategy for a
Future
Chemicals
Policy
The Commission has proposed a new
EU – wide regulatory framework
applicable to all existing and new
chemicals. The proposed system is
called REACH – Registration,
Evaluation and Authorization of
Chemicals). It places a duty on all
companies that manufacture, import
and use chemicals to use substances
in such a way that health and the
environment are not adversely
affected. Under the system, chemical
companies and downstream users
(producers, user and importers) would
be responsible for testing chemicals,
carrying out risk assessments and
making this information available to a
central database run by the European
Chemicals Bureau. This implies a
reversal of the burden of proof. The
European Council and Parliament have
endorsed the White Paper.
Chemicals and
products
containing
chemicals
N/A
White
Paper
2001, legislative
proposals
expected
to be
issued in
2003
Commission
Position (EC) No
29/2002 of 14
February 2002
adopted by the
Council acting in
accordance with
the procedure
referred to in
Article 251 of the
Treaty establishing the EC, with a
view to adopting
a Directive of
the European
Parliament and
Council amending Directive
76/768EEC on the
approximation of
laws of Member
states relating to
cosmetic
products
This proposes incorporating into
Directive 76/768 a marketing ban on
cosmetic products when the final
product or its ingredients have been
subjected to animal testing using a
method other than an alternative
method after the validation,
acceptance and publication of such
methods by the OECD. It also would
include a prohibition to perform tests
on animals in the EU, which shall be
implemented immediately for finished
cosmetic products and progressively
for cosmetic ingredients according to
the availability of scientifically
validated alternative testing methods,
including those which reduce the
number of animals used or diminish
their suffering.
Cosmetics
N/A
Comments
The US notes in its Report
on Foreign Trade Barriers
for 2003 that at this point it
is not clear how polymers,
intermediate chemicals
and the end product are to
be treated. Virtually every
industrial sector, from
automobiles to textiles
could be affected. Formal
legislative proposals are
currently being drafted.
Proposed date of adoption
2002, proposed date of
entry into force April 2004.
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Commission
Decision of
February 2003
authorizing
member states to
take decisions
under Directive
1999/105/EC on
forest
reproductive
material
produced in third
countries
The Commission Decision authorizes
member states to take decisions in
respect of marketing of forest
reproductive material under Article 19(3)
of Directive 1999/105/EC. Forest
reproductive material includes seeds,
plants of plants and planting stock etc.
The decision applies to suppliers which
includes importers under the Directive.
The Decision requires member states to
set out rules which determine that only
approved basic material is to be used for
the production of forest reproductive
material which is to be marketed. It must
also be derived in manner set out in the
Directive and can only be marketed by
suppliers who are registered.
Reproductive material must also be
labeled by the supplier which includes
certain information including whether
the material has been vegetatively
propagated, or where it contains GMOs.
Member states can also authorize a
prohibition on reproductive material
where it would have an adverse effect
on forestry, the environment, genetic
resources or biodiversity. The Council
determines whether forest reproductive
material produced and approved in third
country affords the same assurances as
regards the approval of basic material
and measures taken for its production
with a view to marketing. The Council
will also determine the species, type of
basic material and categories of forest
reproductive material which may be
permitted to be marketed. Until this time,
member states are authorized to take
this decision. Article 19(3) authorizes
member states to take this decision until
it is determined by the Council.
Forestry – seeds,
planting stock
N/A
Proposed
date of
adoption
February
2002. Enter
into force
from date
of the
decision
taken by
the
member
states
pursuant
to the
decision
Adoption of the
Common
position adopted
by the Council on
17 March 2003
with a view to the
adoption
of a Regulation of
the EU Parliament
and of the Council
concerning the
traceability and
labeling of GMOs
and traceability
of food and feed
products
produced from
GMOs,
amending
Directive
2001/18/EC
The rules concern the traceability and
labeling of GM food and feed products,
as well as food and feed products
derived from GMOs. It aims to set up a
harmonized community system which
will require member states to ensure
traceability and labeling of food and feed
products containing or produced from
GMOs at all stages of their placing on
the market. Labeling rules require foods
and feed products that contain GMOs or
are derived from GMOS, irrespective of
whether there is GM in the final product,
to be labeled. Traceability obligations
require business operators (defined to
include persons placing products on the
market, including from a third country) to
transmit and retain information about
products that contain or are produced
from GMOs are each stage of placing
them on the market. Operators shall have
in place systems and procedures to
identify to whom and from whom
products are made available, transmit
specified information concerning the
identity of a product in terms of the
GMOs it contains or whether it is
produced from GMOs, and retain other
specified information.
Food, Agriculture
United States,
Canada
Enter into
force
October
2003
Comments
37
B. PROSPECTIVE MEASURES
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
Directive
91/414/EC
The EU is proposing to ban 110 s
ubstances used in plant protection
products, such as insecticides,
herbicides and fungicides from the EU
market by December 2003. For all
banned substances, EU MRLs are
reduced to the level of determination
unless data are provided to justify an
import tolerance for these substances.
Withdrawal of substances is part of
the European Commission’s review of
active substances in plant protection
products under Directive 91/414.
Agriculture
United States
Dec 2003
USDA reports that the proposed banned substances
are in addition to 320 that
are already to be withdrawn by July 2003.
Directive
67/548/EEC
The Directive adopts a hazard
classification for substances
considered dangerous on the basis of,
amongst other things, reproductive
and developmental toxicity. It sets out
three categories of levels of toxicity
and requires products to be labeled
with a “danger” symbol accordingly.
Category I products are banned.
Category 2 and 3 products must be
labeled with a danger sign. The EU has
recently proposed classifying boric
acid and simple sodium borates in
Category 3, including the requirement
for products containing them to
display a danger symbol.
Timber products
Malaysia
2003/2004
decision
intended
to be
taken
Sweden has already
classified boric acid as a
Category 2. Denmark
classifies it as an
undesirable substance.
European Member States
38
Switzerland –
Draft Ordinance
relating to
Environmentally
Hazardous
Substances,
Annex 4.4 of the
Ordinance on
Substances,
Wood
Preservatives
SR 814.013
Annex 4.4 currently provides that
wood shall not be imported as a
commercial good if it has been treated
with a wood preservative containing
substances that are prohibited in
Switzerland for the intended
application. The Draft proposes to
introduce the following new
requirements concerning the approval
of wood preservatives: new limit
values for benzo(a)pyrene and water
soluable phenols in creosotes 50ppm
and 3% respectively. The supply of
creosote treated wood (used sleepers
included) will be limited to applications
not hazardous to men and livestock;
the supply of used sleepers treated
with creosotes of old quality will be
prohibited for non railway applications
by January 1 2005.
Forestry – wood
sleepers
N/A
Proposed
date of
entry into
force is
2001.
Notified to
WTO in
2000
Not yet known whether
changes are in force.
Netherlands –
Bill from
Member of
Parliament M
Vos. Amending
the Act on
Environmental
Protection
(Sustainably
Produced
Timber)
The proposed law obliges sellers of
wood products to keep records of the
origin of wood and wooden
products and later, mark them with a
positive label (sustainable forest
management guaranteed) or a
negative one (sustainable forest
management not guaranteed). The
certification for the positive label
would use criteria very similar to that
of the Forest Stewardship Council.
Forestry
Malaysia,
Indonesia,
Cameroon,
Gabon,
Canada,
Ecuador,
Norway,
Poland
Proposed
1999, not
known if
yet in
force
Proposal was being
discussed by the Dutch
Parliament in 1999/2000
due to concerns about
WTO inconsistency and
complaints from Malaysia
and Indonesia. It is not
clear whether it has been
aborted.
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
N/A Austria
Denmark and
Germany
EU member states have proposed
legislation pursuant to the Kyoto
Protocol to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate
Change. Austria has proposed
banning the use of three fluorinated
gases controlled under the Kyoto
Protocol on Climate Change. HFCs,
perflourocarbons and sulfur
hexafluoride will be prohibited from
use in new sprays, solvents and fire
extinguishers from mid 2003. Their use
in foams will be phased out between
mid 2003 and the end of 2007. The
proposed ban appears to exempt
production of HFCs for the export
market. Denmark has proposed a ban
on HFCs, PFCs and SF6 with the first
phase-out dates being January 1, 2006.
The ban covers the import, use and
sale but does not cover HFCs for the
export market. There are numerous
exemptions, such as for cooling
systems with between 150kg and 10kg
of HFC gas, mobile refrigeration units,
vehicle air-conditioning units and
vaccine coolers. In late 2002, the
German Environment Ministry
submitted a proposal for public
consideration regarding reduction and
eventual elimination (over 10 years) of
HFCs, PFCs and SF6s. The proposal is
in early stages of review within the
German Government.
N/A
N/A
2002
The US Report on Foreign
Trade Barriers notes that
serious objections were
raised by some member
states which forced the
Austrian government to
lessen the proposal,
especially with regard to
the export exemptions.
The result is to be
examined again by the EC.
These will allow Canada to implement
the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to
the Convention on Biological Diversity.
The Protocol provides a framework for
the assessment and management of
risks to conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity from the
transboundary movement of living
modified organisms (LMOs).
Food and
agriculture
N/A
N/A
Canada
Draft Living
Modified
Organisms
Regulations
39
C . R E L AT E D M E A S U R E S
United States
40
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA, 1947, as
amended), the
Federal Food,
Drug and
Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA) and
associated
regulations:
7USC136o,
21USC1401 and
40CFR152-180.
The Acts were
both amended
(inc section 136)
in the FIFRA in
1996 under the
Food Quality
Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA)
The US FDA and EPA rules maintain
raw products are illegal if they contain
residues of pesticides not authorized
by, or in excess of tolerances
established by EPA regulations. About
1% of imports are tested for
compliance. Shipments found in
excess of the tolerances or that
contain residues above tolerable
levels must be brought into
compliance, destroyed or re exported.
FIFRA provides for the regulation, sale,
distribution and use of pesticides in
the US and allows the EPA to review,
register and cancel the registration of
a pesticide. It gives the EPA the ability
to regulate pesticide use through
labeling, packaging, composition and
disposal. The FFDCA authorizes the
EPA to set maximum residue levels, or
tolerances for pesticides used in or on
foods or animal feed. Importation of
pesticides is governed by FIFRA
section 17(c).
Agriculture, Food
– raw products
N/A
From 1996
Toxic
Substances
Control Act and
the Federal
Hazardous
Substances Act
The EPA has designated formaldehyde
as a hazardous air pollutant, water
pollutant, waste constituent, and inert
ingredient of pesticide products. Under
the authority of the Federal Hazardous
Substances Act, the Consumer
Product Safety Commission requires
warning labels on household products
containing 1% or more of formaldehyde. It has also banned the use of
urea-formaldehyde foam insulation in
residences and schools. The
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) issues
permissible exposure limits for
formaldehyde and regulates
formaldehyde. The EPA operates
under an range of acts and regulations
to regulate formaldehyde (Clean Air
Clean Water Act, Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(Superfund); Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act; Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act; Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act; and Toxic
Substances Control Act.)
Forestry – wood
panels
N/A
N/A
7CFR 319.40
Restrictions on
solid wood
packaging
material from
China – US Entry
Requirements
longhorn beetle.
Revised as of
January 1, 2002
The US Department of Agriculture
(USDA) ruled that all Solid Wood
Packing Materials (SWPM) associated
with cargo from mainland China and
Hong Kong must be accompanied by
an official certification that it has been
heat-treated, fumigated or treated with
preservatives before being shipped to
the US. The quarantine import restrictions are designed to prevent further
infestation of the Asian Longhorn
Beetle (native to China). Inter-state
restrictions within the US also apply.
Forestry –
packaging
materials
China
Effective
December
1998
Comments
TSCA – 1976, Hazardous
Substances Control Act –
regulations – 1992
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
9CFR417.2
(HACCP
Systems: Hazard
Analysis Critical
Control Point)
HACCP is a system of process control
designed to prevent hazards to the
food supply and to act as a tool in the
control, reduction and prevention of
pathogens such as E. coli and
Salmonella in raw meat and poultry.
Failure to meet the requirements can
result in automatic detention of the
product. This means the product must
be sampled and tested before it gains
entry into the country, which means
delay, storage cost and a regime that
may have a substantial refusal rate.
Fisheries, Food
(meat, poultry and
eggs)
India
1996
Energy Policy
and Conservation
Act, as amended
by the National
Energy
Conservation
Policy Act and
the National
Appliance Energy
Conservation Act
and the National
Appliance Energy
Conservation Act
and the National
Appliance
Energy
Conservation
Amendments.
The Acts prescribe energy
conservation standards for certain
major household appliances. They
require that appliance manufacturers
must produce products that either
meet the minimum level of energy
efficiency, or that consume no more
than the amount of energy that the
standard allows. These rules do not
affect the marketing of products
manufactured before the standards
went into effect. Any products already
made and in stock can be sold.
Consumer goods –
household
appliances such
as refrigerators,
freezers, clotheswashers, dryers
and dishwashers
N/A
1987,
amendments
1993,1994
Light Truck
Average Fuel
Economy
Standards
Model Years
2005-07 49 CFR
Part 533
The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration proposes corporate
fuel economy standards (CAFE) for
light trucks manufactured in model
years 2005 through 2007. The administration is proposing to set the standard
for light trucks at 21.0 mpg for model
years 2005, 2.16 mpg for model years
2006 and 22.2 mpg for model year 2007.
Automotive – light
trucks
N/A
Japan requires necessary fumigation
for a number of imported fresh
horticultural product. It routinely
requires that imported produce be
fumigated for insect species that are
already present in Japan.
Agriculture –
Fruits and
vegetables,
cut flowers
United States
Comments
.
Japan
N/A
The US Report on Foreign
Trade Barriers 2003 notes
that this practice is inconsistent with international
practice and with the International Plant Protection
Convention (IPPC)
41
C . R E L AT E D M E A S U R E S
42
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
The Food
Sanitation Law
administered by
the Ministry of
Health, Labor
and Welfare
(MHLW) for
public health,
and the JAS
Law (Law
concerning
Standardization
and Proper
Quality Labeling
of Agricultural
and Forestry
Products, 1950
Law No.175)
administered by
the Ministry of
Agriculture,
Forestry, and
Fisheries, both
amended 1999
The amendment introduces mandatory
requirements for the safety
assessment of food and feed additives
produced by recombinant techniques,
and establishes the procedure for
safety assessment of such feed and
feed additives, the standard of
manufacturing for such feed and feed
additives, and the maximum
permissible amount (1%) of presence
of non approved feed in Japan that
finished a safety assessment by a
foreign government. Feed and feed
additives produced by recombinant
DNA techniques that have not finished
a safety assessment shall be neither
imported nor sold in Japan. Any foods
produced by recombinant DNA
techniques that have no safety
assessment may not be imported or
sold in Japan after April 1, 2001.
Agriculture- Feed
and feed additives
N/A
2001
Safety
Regulations for
Road Vehicles
In March 2003 the Ministry of the
Environment finalized very stringent
2005 exhaust emission standards for
both light and heavy vehicles, under
the Safety Regulations for Road
Vehicles. Japanese emission
standards for on-road vehicles and
engines are adopted by the Ministry of
the Environment and the Ministry of
Land, Infrastructure and Transport.
The standards are based on
recommendations by the Central
Environment Council (CEC), an
advisory body of the Ministry of the
Environment Amendment to the Safety
Regulations for Vehicles, for all
domestically manufactured and
imported trucks, buses, diesel
passenger vehicles and so on, and the
use of motor vehicles in specific areas
(metropolitan districts with heavy
environmental pollution). Two types of
standards are established, both being
parts of COs and HCs per output of
exhaust as relative to weight of the
vehicle in question. The two standards
are denoted as “mean” and “max”.
The “mean” standards are to be met
as a type approval limit and as a
production average. The “max”
standards are to be met generally as
an individual limit in series production
and as a type approval limit if sales
are less than 2000 per vehicle model
per year.
Automotive –
trucks, buses,
diesel passenger
vehicles
N/A
Adopted
2003,
proposed
date of
entry into
force by
2005
Comments
The objective of the
measure is to prevent
environmental pollution by
nitrogen oxides (NOx) and
particulate matter PM) in
metropolitan districts. The
standards are based on
recommendations by the
Central Environment
Council (CEC), an advisory
body of the Ministry of the
Environment.
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
The Food
Sanitation Law.
See also the
JAS Law (Law
Concerning
Standardization
and Proper
Labeling of
Agricultural and
Forestry
Products both
amended 1999.
Article 7,
Paragraph 1 of
the Quality
Labeling
Standard for
Processed
Foods and on
Quality Labeling
Standards for
Perishable
Foods as promulgated by the
Ministry of
Agricultural and
Forestry
Products.
According to the law, products
containing unapproved GM products
are prohibited from being marketed.
The amendment introduced the
provision for mandatory labeling for
GM agricultural products to indicate
the changed composition or nutrient
content and to state that they are GM.
Products containing less than 5%
approved GM crops are to be labeled
as non-GMO. This applies to products
which are not equivalent to
corresponding existing ones in their
composition or nutritional value and
processed foods mainly made of such
agricultural products. The amendment
introduces the provisions for
mandatory labeling to indicate the
changed composition or nutrient
content and to state that they are
genetically modified. High oleic acid
soybeans obtained through techniques
of genetic modification and processed
foods mainly made of such soybeans
(including foods subsequently
processed from such foods) are
designated as those covered by the
provisions mentioned above.
Agriculture, Food
N/A
2001
Sulfur in Diesel
Fuel Regulations
(SOR/2002-254)
The regulations fix maximum limits on
the concentration of sulfur in Diesel
fuel for use in on road vehicles. They
revoke and replace the present Diesel
fuel regulations and set a maximum
limit of 15ppm for sulfur in on-road
diesel fuel that is produced or
imported for use or sale in Canada and
on road diesel fuel offered for sale.
The present regulations set a
maximum of 500ppm. The regulation
applies to refiners or importers of
diesel fuel and all persons who sell or
offer for sale diesel for use in on road
vehicles.
Fuels
N/A
Effective
2002,
proposed
amendments by
2005
Sulfur in
Gasoline
Regulations
(SOR/99 – 236),
and amendments
The regulations set limits on the
amount of sulfur in gasoline produced
or imported into Canada starting in
January 2002. They limit the level of
sulfur in gasoline to an average of 150
parts per million and further reduce
the limit to 30 ppm starting in 2005.
They prohibit the sale of gasoline with
a sulfur content exceeding the
prescribed concentration.
Comments
Canada
43
C . R E L AT E D M E A S U R E S
44
Legislation
Features
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Comments
On road vehicle
and engine
emission
regulations
The regulations introduce more
stringent national emission standards
for on road vehicles and engines and a
new regulatory framework under the
Canadian Environmental Protection
ACT 1999. The proposed regulations
for controlling emissions for 2004 and
later model on road vehicles and
engines will come into effect in
January 2004. The proposed
regulations will therefore replace the
emissions regulations previously
adopted under the Motor Vehicle
Safety Act. For most vehicle classes
and on a per vehicle basis, the
targeted standards represent an
average reduction in the allowable
levels of smog forming emissions of
about 90% relative to current
regulated limits. The proposed
regulations will reduce emissions of
volatile organic compounds, carbon
monoxide, oxides of nitrogen,
particulate matter and air pollutants
listed as toxic substances in Schedule
1 to CEPA. The regulations will apply to
persons in the business of
manufacturing, distributing or
importing on road vehicles and
engines for sale in Canada. They also
set requirements for on road vehicles
and engines being imported by
individuals.
Automotive –
engines and
vehicles
N/A
Proposed
date of
entry into
force
September
2003
The proposed standard
continues past the
approach of aligning with
federal emission standards
of the US EPA, which
are generally recognised
as some of the most
stringent national
emissions standards in
the world.
D . T R A D E M E A S U R E S U N D E R M U LT I L AT E R A L E N V I R I N M E N T A G R E E M E N T S ( M E A s )
MEA
Key features
Trade Measure
Products and
sectors affected
Exporters
affected
Date
Basel
Convention on
the Control of
Transboundary
Movements of
Hazardous
Waste and their
Disposal
Parties are to create a national
inventory of hazardous materials.
Hazardous materials are listed in an
Annex. Exporting Governments must
prohibit exports unless the importing
country indicates they are acceptable
and the exporting government is
satisfied environmental controls in the
importing country are satisfactory.
Parties are prohibited from trading
with non-parties unless the latter
apply the measures specified in the
Agreement. A Protocol to the
Convention bans trade in products
covered by the Convention between
developed and developing members of
the Convention.
Parties may not export
unless formally satisfied
that environmental policies
in the importing country are
satisfactory. Parties may
not trade with non parties
unless the latter apply
policies like those
mandated in the
Convention. In the Protocol,
trade between developed
and developing parties to
the Convention is
prohibited.
Electronics – used
lead acid batteries
Philippines
1989
Montreal
Protocol on
Substances that
Deplete the
Ozone Layer and
the Vienna
Convention for
the Protection of
the Ozone Layer
The Protocol includes an ultimate ban
on the production and consumption of
fluorocarbons. It also includes a
phase-out of production and
consumption. Developing countries
are required by the Protocol to phase
out the consumption of methyl bromide
by 2002, achieve a 20% reduction by
2005 and phase it out completely by
2015. There is also a ban on trade with
non parties.
Sets an ultimate ban on the
production and
consumption of ozone
depleting substances
(ODS). Parties must ban
imports and exports with
non parties.
Consumer goods
Thailand,
China
1987
Cartagena
Protocol on
Biosafety to the
Convention on
Biological
Diversity
Establishment of an international
system for notification of release of
products containing living modified
organisms (except pharmaceuticals).
There are obligations on exporters to
advise importers of exports and to
secure prior approval of exports of
non-food living modified organisms.
Importers have rights to restrict
imports with extensive discretion
based on a wide interpretation of the
precautionary principle and an explicit
right to act without scientific
justification. Risk assessments are
provided for, but are not an essential
prerequisite for, imposing import bans.
The Protocol gives
importers unilateral rights
to restrict trade. Importers
are explicitly authorized to
restrict trade without
scientific justification.
Food, agriculture
N/A
Not yet in
force.
Expected
to be
September
2003.
Convention on
Trade in
Endangered
Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora
Endangered species are scheduled.
Threatened species are scheduled.
Trade in endangered species is
banned. Trade in threatened species is
banned or regulated. A specific ban on
trade in ivory was adopted by parties
to the Convention in 1989.
Bans on trade in animals
and animal parts which are
scheduled as endangered.
Trade with non-parties on
threatened species is
banned.
Live animals
Korea
1973
Stockholm
Convention on
Persistent
Organic
Pollutants
(POPs)
Identifies chemicals, the use of which
is to be prescribed. Restricts the use
and production of those chemicals.
Bans exports to non-parties in those
chemicals.
Exports of prescribed
chemicals to non-parties is
banned
Chemicals
N/A
2001
45
6. Bibliography of Official Documents
WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION DOCUMENTS
Country Notifications
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
Notification
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
of
the European Communities 26 March 2003 G/TBT/N/EEC/29
the Netherlands 24 May 2002 G/TBT/N/NLD/44
the European Communities 26 March 2003 G/TBT/N/EEC/28
the European Communities 5 December 2002 G/TBT/N/EEC/23
Switzerland 22 December 2000 G/TBT/Notif.00/613
France 18 august 2000 G/TBT/Notif.00/356
the European Communities 5 august 2002 G/TBT/N/EEC/17
the European Communities 26 July 2002 G/TBT/N/EEC/16
the European Communities 11 January 2002 G/TBT/N/EEC/9
the European Communities 11 January 2002 G/TBT/N/EEC/8
the European Communities 5 June 2002 G/TBT/N/EEC/14
the Netherlands 26 July 2002 G/TBT/N/NLD/46
the Netherlands 26 July 2000 G/TBT/Notif.00.312
the European Communities 10 June 2002 G/TBT/N/EEC/15
the European Communities 30 August 2001 G/TBT/N/EEC/7
the European Communities 30 August 2001 G/TBT/N/EEC/6
the European Communities 6 August 2001 G/SPS/N/EEC/134
Belgium 26 July 2001 G/TBT/N/BEL/18
Austria, European Communities 26 October 2001 G/SPS/N/AUT/2
the European Union 15 September 2000 G/TBT/Notif.00/428
the Netherlands 24 August 2001 G/TBT/N/NLD/29
the Netherlands 21 August 2001 G/TBT/N/NLD/26
the Netherlands 2 September 1998 G/TBT/Notif.98.448
Canada 9 April 2002 G/TBT/N/CAN/32
Canada 14 October 2002 G/TBT/N/CAN/46
Canada 6 February 2003 G/TBT/N/CAN/56
Japan 23 December 2002 G/TBT/N/JPN/65
Japan 1 February 2002 G/TBT/N/JPN/34
Japan 17 February 2003 G/TBT/N/JPN/74
Japan 10 April 2003 G/TBT/N/JPN/79
the United States 8 January 2003 G/TBT/N/USA/30
SECRETARIAT DOCUMENTS
• Technical Barriers to the Market Access of Developing Countries, Background Note by the Secretariat 25 January
1999 WT/CTE/W/101, G/TBT/W/103
• The Effects of Environmental Measures on Market Access Especially in Relation to Developing Countries, in particular the Least Developed among them Note by the Secretariat 26 March 1996 WT/CTE/W/26
• Market Access Impact of Eco-labeling Requirements Note by the Secretariat 9 March 1998 WT/CTE/W/79
• Item 4: Provisions of the Multilateral Trading System with respect to the Transparency of Trade Measures Used for
environmental purposes, and environmental measures and requirements which have significant trade effects, environmental Database for 2000 Note by the Secretariat 20 June 2001 WT/CTE/W/195
• Environmental Database for 2001 31 May 2002 Note by the Secretariat WT/CTE/EDB/1
• Specific Trade Concerns Related to labeling brought to the Attention of the Committee since 1995 Note by the
Secretariat 2 October 2002 G/TBT/W/184
46
E U R O P E A N U N I L AT E R A L I S M
Environmental Trade Barriers and the Rising Threat to Prosperity through Trade
Country Proposals
• The Effects of Environmental Measures on Market Access Especially in Relation to Developing Countries, in particular
the Least Developed among them, Submission from India 21 May 2002 WT/CTE/W/207
• The Study of the Effects OF Environmental Measures on Market Access, Communication from India 27 October
2000 WT/CTE/W/177
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT (UNCTAD) DOCUMENTS
• Report of the Expert Meeting on Environmental Requirements and International Trade 8 November 2002
TD/B/COM.1/EM.19/3
• Report of the Meeting on Possible Trade and Investment Impacts of Environmental Management Standards, particularly
the ISO 14000 series, on developing countries, and opportunities and needs in this context 10 November 1997
TD/B/COM.1/10
ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD) DOCUMENTS
• Eco labeling: Actual Effects of Selected Programmes, 1997 OCDE/GD (97) 105
• The Development Dimension of Trade and Environment: Case Studies on Environmental Requirements and Market
Access Joint working Party on Trade and Environment 19 November 2002 COM/ENV/TD (2002) 86/FINAL
NATIONAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
• Laws and Regulations as extracted in the Annex
• Report on United States Barriers to Trade and Investment 2002, European Commission, Brussels, November 2002
• 2003 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, United States Trade Representative, 2003
• White Paper on Environmental Liability European Commission 9 February 2000 COM (2000) 66 final
• Green Paper on Integrated Product Policy Commission of the European Communities February 2000 COM (2001) 68 final
• White Paper Strategy for a future Chemicals Policy Commission of the European Communities February 2001 COM
(2001) 88 final
• White Paper on Food Safety Commission of the European Communities January 2000 COM (1999) 719 final
OTHER
• Veena Jha, Strengthening Developing Countries’ Capacities to respond to Health, Sanitary and Environmental
Requirements A Scoping Paper for Selected Developing Countries Paper #1, Preliminary Draft, April 2002
• Veena Jha, Strengthening Developing Countries’ Capacities to respond to Health, Sanitary and Environmental
Requirements A Scoping Paper for South Asia, Preliminary Draft, April 2002
• Veena Jha, Reconciling Trade and Environment: Lessons from Case Studies in Developing Countries, 1999
• Veena Jha, Trade, Environment and Sustainable Development: A South Asian Perspective, 1997
47