tutorial video tutorial video Discover the CiteMap in 3 minutes
Source(s) of the information:
Source(s) of the information:

Report of the Panel

TABLE OF CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT

Short TitleFull Case Title and Citation
Argentina – Footwear (EC) Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear ("Argentina – Footwear (EC)"), WT/DS121/AB/R, adopted 12 January 2000, DSR 2000:I, 515.
Argentina – Hides and Leather Panel Report, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and Import of Finished Leather, WT/DS155/R and Corr.1, adopted 16 February 2001, DSR 2001:V, 1779
Australia – Salmon Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon, WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, 3327
Canada – Autos Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry ("Canada – Autos"), WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 19 June 2000, DSR 2000:VI, 2985.
Canada – Dairy Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products ("Canada – Dairy"), WT/DS103/AB/R, WT/DS113/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 27 October 1999, DSR 1999:V, 2057.
Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports Panel Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain, WT/DS276/R, adopted 27 September 2004, upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS276/AB/R, DSR 2004:VI, 2817
Chile – Price Band System Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products ("Chile – Price Band System"), WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, 3045.
Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes Appellate Body Report, Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Sale of Cigarettes, WT/DS302/AB/R, adopted 19 May 2005.
EC – Asbestos Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/AB/R, adopted 5 April 2001, DSR 2001:VII, 3243
EC – Asbestos Panel Report, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, WT/DS135/R and Add.1, adopted 5 April 2001, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS135/AB/R, DSR 2001:VIII, 3305
EC – Bananas III Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997, DSR 1997:II, 591
EC – Hormones Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13 February 1998, DSR 1998:I, 135
EC – Hormones (US) (Article 22.6 – EC) Decision by the Arbitrators, European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), Original Complaint by the United States – Recourse to Arbitration by the European Communities under Article 22.6 of the DSU, WT/DS26/ARB, 12 July 1999, DSR 1999:III, 1105
EC – Tariff Preferences Panel Report, European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries, WT/DS246/R, adopted 20 April 2004, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS/246/AB/R, DSR 2004:III, 1009
EEC – Parts and Components GATT Panel Report, European Economic Community – Regulation on Imports of Parts and Components, L/6657, adopted 16 May 1990, BISD 37S/132
India – Autos Panel Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector, WT/DS146/R, WT/DS175/R and Corr.1, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, 1827
Korea – Various Measures on Beef Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, DSR 2001:I, 5
Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages, WT/DS308/AB/R, adopted 24 March 2006
Mexico – Telecoms Panel Report, Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services, WT/DS204/R, adopted 1 June 2004, DSR 2004:IV, 1537
Thailand – Cigarettes GATT Panel Report, Thailand – Restrictions on Importation of and Internal Taxes on Cigarettes, DS10/R, adopted 7 November 1990, BISD 37S/200
Turkey – Textiles Appellate Body Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products ("Turkey – Textiles"), WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted 19 November 1999, DSR 1999:VI, 2345.
Turkey – Textiles Panel Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, WT/DS34/R, adopted 19 November 1999, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS34/AB/R, DSR 1999:VI, 2363
US – Carbon Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany ("US – Carbon Steel"), WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX, 3779.
US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan ("US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review"), WT/DS244/AB/R, adopted 9 January 2004, DSR 2004:I, 3.
US – Gambling Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20 April 2005
US – Gasoline Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, DSR 1996:I, 3
US – Gasoline Panel Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WT/DS2/R, adopted 20 May 1996, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS2/AB/R, DSR 1996:I, 29
US – Line Pipe Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea, WT/DS202/AB/R, adopted 8 March 2002, DSR 2002:IV, 1403
US – Line Pipe Panel Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea, WT/DS202/R, adopted 8 March 2002, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS202/AB/R, DSR 2002:IV, 1473.
US – Section 337 Tariff Act GATT Panel Report, United States Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, L/6439, adopted 7 November 1989, BISD 36S/345
US – Shrimp Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, WT/DS58/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VII, 2755
US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 – Malaysia) Appellate Body Report, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Malaysia, WT/DS58/AB/RW, adopted 21 November 2001, DSR 2001:XIII, 6481
US – Taxes on Automobiles GATT Panel Report, United States – Taxes on Automobiles, DS31/R, 11 October 1994, unadopted
US – Tuna (EEC) GATT Panel Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, DS29/R, 16 June 1994, unadopted
US – Tuna (Mexico) GATT Panel Report, United States – Restrictions on Imports of Tuna, DS21/R, 3 September 1991, unadopted, BISD 39S/155
US – Upland Cotton Appellate Body Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton ("US – Upland Cotton"), WT/DS267/AB/R, adopted 21 March 2005.
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 May 1997, DSR 1997:I, 323

I. INTRODUCTION

A. COMPLAINT OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

1.1.
On 20 June 2005, the European Communities requested consultations with Brazil under Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994") and Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU") regarding Brazil's imposition of measures that adversely affect exports of retreaded tyres from the European Communities to the Brazilian market.1
1.2.
Consultations were held on 20 July 2005. These consultations have allowed a better understanding of the measures at issue and the respective positions but have not led to a satisfactory resolution of the matter.
1.3.
On 17 November 2005, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 28 November 2005, the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") deferred the establishment of a panel until a second request had been made by the European Communities.2

B. ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL

1.4.
At its meeting on 20 January 2006, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the European Communities in document WT/DS332/4, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.3
1.5.
At that meeting, the parties to the dispute agreed that the panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the European Communities in document WT/DS332/4, the matter referred to the DSB by the European Communities in that document, and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements."

1.6.
On 6 March 2006, the European Communities requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 16 March 2006, the Director-General composed the panel as follows:

Chairman: Mr Mitsuo Matsushita

Members: Mr Donald M. McRae

Mr Chang-Fa Lo

1.7.
Argentina, Australia, China, Cuba, Guatemala, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and the United States reserved their third-party rights.

C. PANEL PROCEEDINGS

1.8.
On 22 June 2006, the Panel received an unsolicited amicus curiae brief from Humane Society International. On 4 July 2006, the Panel received another unsolicited amicus curiae brief from a group of organizations.4 At the first substantive meeting, Brazil informed the Panel of its decision to include the two amicus curiae briefs as part of its exhibits.5
1.9.
On 23 June 2006, the Panel received a letter from the Center for International Environmental Law ("CIEL"), requesting that the Panel consult with the parties to consider the possibility of web-casting the first substantive meeting of the Panel, to be held on 5-7 July 2006. Parties were invited to offer any views they might have in respect of this letter. In light of the views expressed by the parties, the Panel decided that the substantive meeting with the parties, as well as the related third-party session, would be held in closed sessions in accordance with the Working Procedures adopted by the Panel at the beginning of the proceedings.
1.10.
The Panel met with the parties on 5-7 July 2006 and on 4 September 2006. The Panel met with third parties on 6 July 2006.
1.11.
The Panel submitted the Interim Report to the parties on 12 March 2007. The Panel submitted the Final Report to the parties on 23 April 2007.

II. FACTUAL ASPECTS

A. PRODUCTS AT ISSUE

2.1.
This dispute concerns retreaded tyres which are produced by reconditioning used tyres by stripping the worn tread from a used tyre's skeleton (casing) and replacing it with new material in the form of a new tread and, sometimes, new material covering also parts or all of the sidewalls.
2.2.
Retreaded tyres can be produced through a number of different methods all encompassed by the generic term "retreading." These methods are: (i) top-capping, which consists in replacing only the tread; (ii) re-capping, which entails replacing the tread and part of the sidewall; and (iii) remoulding or "bead to bead" method, which consists of replacing the tread and the sidewall including all or part of the lower area of the tyre.6
2.3.
There are different types of retreaded tyres which correspond to the different types of casings used to produce them, namely: passenger car retreaded tyres, commercial vehicle retreaded tyres, aircraft retreaded tyres and other. Under international standards, passenger car tyres may be retreaded only once.7 By contrast, commercial vehicle and aircraft tyres may be retreaded more than once.
2.4.
Under the Harmonized System nomenclature, retreaded tyres are classified under HS heading 4012 "Retreaded or used pneumatic tyres of rubber; solid or cushion tyres, tyre treads and tyre flaps, of rubber", and in particular under four sub-headings: 4012.11, which refers to retreaded tyres of a kind used on motor cars, including station wagons and racing cars; 4012.12, which includes the kind of retreaded tyres used on buses or lorries; 4012.13, which refers to the kind used on aircraft; and 4012.19, which comprises all other types of retreaded tyres. Consequently, for international trade purposes, retreaded tyres are to be distinguished from both used tyres and new tyres. Used tyres are classified under the HS sub-heading 4012.20, whereas new tyres are classified under HS heading 4011.

B. MEASURES AT ISSUE8

2.5.
On 17 November 2005, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel in relation to the following measures of Brazil:9

(a) The imposition of an import ban on retreaded tyres, notably by virtue of Portaria 14 of 17 November 2004 of the Secretariat of Foreign Trade of the Brazilian Ministry of Development, Industry and International Commerce (SECEX) that prohibits the issuance of import licenses for retreaded tyres.

(b) The adoption of a set of measures banning the importation of used tyres, which are sometimes applied against imports of retreaded tyres. In a footnote to this paragraph, the European Communities identifies the following measures banning the importation of used tyres: Portaria No. 8 of the Department of Foreign Trade Operations (DECEX) of 13 May 1991; Portaria DECEX 18 of 19 July 1992; Portaria 138-N of the Brazilian Institute of the Environment and of Renewable Resources (IBAMA) of 22 December 1992; Portaria 370 of the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism (MICT) of 28 November 1994; Interministerial Portaria 3 of 12 September 1995 of the Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Tourism and of the Ministry of the Economy; Resolution 23 of the National Council of the Environment (CONAMA) of 12 December 1996, and CONAMA Resolution 235 of 7 January 1998.

(c) The imposition, by virtue of Presidential Decree 3919 of 14 September 2001, of a fine of 400 BRL per unit on the importation, as well as the marketing, transportation, storage, or keeping in deposit or warehouses of imported, but not of domestic retreaded tyres.

(d) The maintenance of measures at the level of Brazilian States which prohibit the sale of imported retreaded tyres. For instance, Law 12,114 of 5 July 2004 of Rio Grande do Sul which bans the commercialisation of used tyres, as which are considered inter alia retreaded tyres that have been manufactured outside of Brazil from the casings of used tyres and imported into Brazil.

(e) The exemption of retreaded tyres imported from other MERCOSUR countries from the import ban by means of Portaria SECEX 14 of 17 November 2004 and from the above-mentioned financial penalties by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 4592 of 11 February 2003, in response to the ruling of a MERCOSUR panel established at the request of Uruguay.

2.6.
The European Communities also noted that for each of the measures referred to above, its request also covers any amendments, replacements, extensions, implementing measures or other related measures.

1. The Import prohibition on retreaded tyres

2.7.
In its first written submission, the European Communities identifies Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14 of 17 November 2004 ("Portaria SECEX 14/2004") as the current legal basis of the ban on the importation of retreaded tyres in Brazil. Article 40 reads as follows:

"Article 40 – An import license will not be granted for retreaded and used tyres, whether as a consumer product or feedstock, classified under NCM code 4012, except for remoulded tyres, classified under NCM codes 4012.11.00, 4012.12.00, 4012.13.00 and 4012.19.00, originating and proceeding from the MERCOSUR Member States under the Economic Complementation Agreement No. 18.

Sole paragraph – Imports originating in and coming from MERCOSUR must comply with the technical regulations adopted by the National Institute for Metrology, Standardization and Industrial Quality (INMETRO) for the product in question and with the regulations under MERCOSUR rules of origin and regulations of the environmental authorities."10

2.8.
Portaria SECEX 14/2004 was preceded by a number of regulations that previously prohibited the importation of retreaded tyres. These measures are:

(a) Portaria SECEX 8 of 20 September 2000, the first measure in Brazil explicitly banning the importation of "retreaded tyres" classified under heading 4012 of the MERCOSUR Common Nomenclature (NCM); and

(b) Portaria SECEX 17 of 1 December 2003, which replaced Portaria SECEX 8/2000, prohibiting the issuance of licenses for imports of retreaded tyres and excluding from this prohibition only the remoulded tyres originating in other MERCOSUR countries.

2.9.
Before the importation of retreaded tyres was expressly banned by means of Portaria SECEX 8/2000, Brazil adopted several measures dealing with the importation of used goods, including used tyres. The European Communities indicated in its first written submission that these measures included the following:11

(a) Portaria DECEX 8 of 13 May 1991, in force in the version of Portaria MICT 370 of 28 November 1994, which prohibits the importation of used consumer goods, including 'used tyres', and

(b) Resolution CONAMA 23 of 12 December 1996, establishing that inert waste is free from import restrictions except for the importation of used tyres, which is therefore prohibited.

2. Fines on importation, marketing, transportation, storage, keeping or warehousing of retreaded tyres

2.10.
On 14 September 2001, through Presidential Decree 3,919, Brazil amended Decree 3,179 of 21 September 1999, which provides for the specific sanctions applicable to conduct and activities harmful to the environment, and other provisions. The amendment introduced Article 47-A, which subjects the importation as well as the marketing, transportation, storage, keeping or warehousing of imported used and retreaded tyres to a fine of R$400/unit. Article 1 of Presidential Decree 3,919 provides:

"Art. 1. The following article is added to Decree 3,179 of September 21, 1999:

'Article 47-A. Importing used or retreaded tyres:

Fine of R$ 400.00 (four hundred reais) per unit.

Sole paragraph: The same penalty shall apply to whosoever trades, transports, stores, keeps or maintains in a depot a used or retreaded tyre imported under such conditions. (NR)'"12

3. State Law restrictions on the marketing of imported retreaded tyres

2.11.
On 5 July 2004, Rio Grande do Sul issued Law 12,114, prohibiting the commercialization of imported used tyres within its territory, which includes imported retreaded tyres as well as retreaded tyres made in Brazil from imported casings. This Law, however, does not prohibit the marketing of retreaded tyres produced in Brazil from domestic casings. Article 1 of Law 12,114 reads:

"Art. 1. It is forbidden to sell imported used tyres in the State of Rio Grande do Sul.

Sole paragraph. An imported used tyre is considered for the purposes hereof as follows:

I – the simple carcass of the used tyre from any other country;

II – the carcass of a used tyre that has been retreaded by top-capping, remoulding or recapping processes abroad and imported in this condition;

III – the carcass of a used tyre from any other country and retreaded in Brazil by any of the industrial processes mentioned in the preceding item."13

2.12.
On 28 November 2005, the state of Rio Grande do Sul amended Law 12,114 through Law 12,381, which allows the importation and marketing of imported retreaded tyres provided that the importer proves to have destroyed tenused tyres in Brazil for every retreaded tyre imported. Law 12,381, however, requires the destruction of only oneused tyre per imported tyre in the case of imports of used tyre casings. Article 1 of Law 12,381 reads:

"Article 1 – The sole paragraph of Article 1 of Law 12,114 of 5 July 2004, prohibiting the sale of used tyres imported into the State and from other sources becomes paragraph 1, and the following paragraphs 2 and 3 are added:

§1° – …

§2° – The following shall be permitted:

I – the import of a used tyre carcass where importers can demonstrate that they will collect on Brazilian territory and destroy, in an environmentally adequate manner, 1 (one) existing used tyre on the domestic territory for each used tyre carcass to be imported;

II – the import of a carcass of a tyre retreaded by means of top-capping, remoulding, or recapping, outside of Brazil, where importers can demonstrate that they will collect within the domestic territory and destroy, in an environmentally-adequate manner, 10 (ten) existing used tyres within the domestic territory for each used tyre carcass to be imported.

§ 3º – tyre retreaders shall have the right to import one used tyre carcass for each used or retreaded tyre exported without having to comply with the environmental counterpart referred to in part I of paragraph 2 of this Article."14

4. Exemption of MERCOSUR countries from the import ban and the fines

2.13.
After the adoption of Portaria SECEX 8/2000, the first measure explicitly banning the importation of "retreaded tyres", Uruguay requested, on 27 August 2001, the initiation of arbitral proceedings under MERCOSUR against this Brazilian measure. On 9 January 2002, the MERCOSUR arbitral tribunal decided that the import ban on retreaded tyres imposed by Portaria SECEX 8/2000 was incompatible with MERCOSUR Decision 22/2000, which requires MERCOSUR partners not to introduce new restrictions to commerce among themselves.
2.14.
Following this arbitral award, Brazil eliminated the ban for remoulded tyres imported from MERCOSUR countries by means of Portaria SECEX 2 of 8 March 2002. Article 1 of Portaria SECEX 2/2002 provides:

"Art. 1. The import license for remoulded tyres is hereby authorized, classified under NCM codes 4012.1100, 4012.1200, 4012.1300 and 4012.1900, when proceeding from MERCOSUR member States under the Economic Complementation Agreement no. 18."15

2.15.
This exception was maintained in Portaria SECEX 17 of 1 December 2003, and it is currently contained in Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004, transcribed above.
2.16.
Similarly, through Presidential Decree 4,592 of 11 February 2003, Brazil exempted retreaded tyresimported from other MERCOSUR countries from the financial penalties set out in Presidential Decree 3,919. Article 1 of Presidential Decree 4,592 reads as follows:

"Article 1: Article 47-A of Decree 3,179 of 21 September 1999 shall apply with the addition of the following paragraph, and the current sole paragraph shall be renumbered as (1):

paragraph (2) – Imports of retreaded tyres classified under heading MCN 4012.1100, 4012.1200, 4012.1300 and 4012.1900, originating in the MERCOSUR member countries under Economic Complementation Agreement No. 18 shall be exempt from payment of the fine referred to in this Article."16

III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REQUESTED BY THE PARTIES

3.1.
The European Communities requests the Panel to find that:17

(a) Brazil has acted inconsistently with Article XI:1 of GATT 1994 by instituting and maintaining a prohibition and restriction other than a duty, tax or other charge on the importation of a product of the territory of another Member, made effective through import licences and other measures.

(b) Brazil has acted inconsistently with Article XI:1 and/or Article III:4 of GATT 1994 by instituting and maintaining a restriction other than a duty, tax or other charge on the importation of a product of the territory of another Member, made effective through a fine imposed on the importation of retreaded tyres in the amount of 400 BRL per unit.

(c) Brazil has acted inconsistently with Article III:4 and/or Article XI:1 of GATT 1994 by imposing a fine in the amount of 400 BRL per imported retreaded tyre that is marketed (sold), transported, stored, kept or kept in deposit or warehouses. Thereby, Brazil has failed to accord, to products of the territory of the European Communities imported into the territory of Brazil, treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin in respect of laws, regulations and requirements affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, transportation, distribution or use.

(d) Brazil has acted inconsistently with Article I:1 of GATT 1994 by eliminating the import ban and the above-mentioned financial penalties for retreaded tyres imported from other MERCOSUR countries, while maintaining those measures for other imports, notably from the European Communities. Thereby, Brazil has failed to accord an advantage granted, with respect to rules and formalities in connection with importation, and with respect to matters referred to in paragraph 4 of Article III, to products originating in other countries immediately and unconditionally to the like products originating in the territory of the European Communities.

(e) By applying the above-mentioned import ban on retreads as well as the financial penalty on every unit of retreaded tyres imported from the European Communities, but not to those imported from other MERCOSUR countries, Brazil acts inconsistently with Article XIII:1 of GATT 1994, because it applies a prohibition and restriction on the importation of a product of the territory of another Member, although the importation of the like product of all third countries is not similarly prohibited or restricted.

3.2.
The European Communities also requests the Panel to recommend, in accordance with Article 19.1 of the DSU, that Brazil bring its measures into conformity with the covered agreements.18
3.3.
In turn, Brazil requests the Panel to dismiss all the claims made by the European Communities in its first written submission and to find that:19

(a) Brazil's import ban on retreaded tyres (contained in Portaria SECEX 14/2004) is justified by Article XX(b) of the GATT because it is a measure necessary to protect human, animal and plant life and health.

(b) The anti-circumvention fines (applied pursuant to Decree 3,919 of 14 September 2001) are justified by Article XX(b) and (d) of the GATT because they are necessary to protect human and animal life and health and the environment, and to secure compliance with the import ban, which itself is not inconsistent with the GATT.

(c) The limited exemption of MERCOSUR countries from Brazil's import ban (made effective through Portaria SECEX No. 14 of 17 November 2004) is authorized by Article XXIV, because it was adopted pursuant to Brazil's obligations under MERCOSUR – a customs union that is consistent with Article XXIV.

(d) The limited exemption of MERCOSUR countries from the ban is also justified by Article XX(d), because it is necessary to secure compliance with Brazil's obligation under MERCOSUR, which itself is not inconsistent with the GATT.

(e) The state measure of Rio Grande do Sul (Law 12,114 of 5 July 2004) is justified by Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994 because it is a measure necessary to protect human, animal and plant life and health.

3.4.
Brazil also states that in any event, it is not necessary for the Panel to reach an independent conclusion on the state measures because these measures do not have any independent legal effect.20

IV. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES

4.1.
The arguments presented by the parties in their written submissions and oral statements are reflected below. This Part contains arguments of the parties as summarized in Parties' executive summaries and includes additional arguments taken from submissions and replies to questions as suggested by the Parties in their comments to this Part. Further arguments are contained in the replies and comments on replies annexed to the Panel report.

A. THE BAN ON THE IMPORTATION OF RETREADED TYRES

1. Article XI:I of GATT 1994

4.2.
The European Communities submits that Article 40 of Portaria SECEX 14/2004 provides that no import licences shall be granted for the importation of retreaded tyres into Brazil; however, such import licences are necessary in order to import retreaded tyres into Brazil. Therefore, the European Communities claims that Portaria SECEX 14/2004 prohibits the importation of retreaded tyres of any other WTO Member, including the European Communities, into Brazil. Accordingly, the European Communities claims that Brazil imposes a prohibition on the importation of retreaded tyres incompatible with Article XI:1 of GATT 1994.21 The European Communities notes that Brazil has not contested that its import ban on retreaded tyres violates Article XI:1.22
4.3.
Brazil claims that Article XX exceptions "relate to all of the obligations under the General Agreement,"23 and thus allow Brazil to maintain the ban even if it is prima facie inconsistent with Article XI:1.24 Brazil submits that the European Communities questions the right of Brazil to adopt a ban that seeks to avoid the generation of unnecessary dangerous waste and reasonably deal with the disposal challenge – even though it recognizes the adverse health and environmental effects caused by waste tyre accumulation and disposal.25

2. Article XX of GATT 1994

4.4.
Brazil claims that the ban on retreaded tyres is justified by Article XX(b) of GATT 1994.26 Brazil submits that a Member invoking Article XX(b) must show: (i) that the measure falls within the scope of paragraph (b); and (ii) that the measure is applied in a manner that is consistent with the chapeau of Article XX.27 Brazil claims that it meets that burden of proof.28
4.5.
Brazil recognizes and shares the systemic concern that findings upholding an import ban, when necessary, should not lead to abuse of the general exceptions of Article XX. Because of the unique facts of this case, however, Brazil argues that there is no risk that a finding in favour of the ban could serve as a basis for other Members to invoke Article XX to justify an import ban that is not a legitimate measure necessary to protect human health and the environment.29
4.6.
Brazil argues that this dispute presents a number of complex legal issues as well as fundamental facts that underlie those issues.30 First, Brazil contends that this dispute cannot be seen outside its broader context: it involves legitimate concerns about health and environment issues, particularly sensitive for developing countries.31 Brazil argues that the market for retreaded tyres in developed countries is small and getting smaller and the number of undesirable tyre casings that must be disposed of is getting higher. Brazil submits that consumers in developed countries tend to look with disfavour on retreaded tyres, considering them to be less safe even though retreaded tyres must be made to exacting safety applications. Brazil submits further that consumers in developing countries, including Brazil, are very price-oriented and therefore are more likely to buy retreaded tyres than consumers in the developed world.32 Moreover, Brazil explains that from an exporting country point of view, every exported casing and every exported retread is a disposal problem also to be exported. Brazil stresses, on the other hand, that from an importing developing country point of view, along with the retreaded tyres comes the disposal problem. Brazil argues that it has enough disposal problems and does not need to import more.33
4.7.
Second, Brazil stresses the necessity to protect life and health.34 However, Brazil contends that while it is often easy to identify the steps that must be taken to protect health and the environment, it is not always easy to take them. Brazil argues further that the "polluter pays" principle may be a sound environmental principle, but the reality is that most polluters do not want to pay, and frequently they are in a position to delay – or entirely block – measures intended to protect health and the environment. Brazil is no different from any other country in this regard. Brazil argues that there are those in Brazil who want to import retreaded tyres and who want to import casings and they have strong allies and advance their interests through the political process and the judicial system. Brazil submits that the European Communities tried to convey to the Panel the false idea that Brazil has a permissive attitude towards the imports of used tyres.35
4.8.
The European Communities claims that the import ban cannot be justified under Article XX. It also claims that it is well-established case-law that the burden of proof in relation to any defence based on Article XX rests on the responding party, in this case Brazil.36

(a) Paragraph b) of Article XX

(i) Introduction

4.9.
Brazil claims that the import ban is justified by Article XX(b) because it is a measure necessary to protect human life and health and the environment and it protects Brazil's public and the environment from dangers caused by waste tyres.37 Brazil argues that the import ban avoids the unnecessary generation of additional tyre waste, and its accumulation and disposal, which presents well-recognized dangers to public health and the environment.38
4.10.
The European Communities argues that the import ban does not fulfil the conditions of Article XX(b).39 The European Communities argues that it is for Brazil, as the WTO Member invoking an exception to its WTO obligations, to demonstrate that the requirements of Article XX(b) are met.40 The European Communities submits that according to the Panel Reportin US – Gasoline and Panel and Appellate Body Reports in EC – Asbestos, the party invoking Article XX(b) must prove, first, that the policy pursued falls within the range of policies designed to protect human life or health, and, second, that the inconsistent measures for which the exception is invoked are necessary to fulfil the policy objective.41 TheEuropean Communities contends that the general explanations provided by Brazil as well as the facts on record do not fulfil these two requirements.42 According to the European Communities, the present proceedings have shown that Brazil has failed to discharge this burden with respect to every single requirement of Article XX(b).43 The European Communities recalls the Appellate Body's statement in EC – Asbestos that the words "policies designed to protect human life or health" imply the existence of a health risk.44

(ii) To protect human, animal, or plant life or health

Introduction

Policy objective

4.11.
Brazil claims that the import ban is designed to reduce waste tyre volumes, and by so doing, to reduce the incidence of cancer, dengue, reproductive problems, environmental contamination, and other associated risks.45 Brazil further claims that the ban falls squarely "within the range of policies designed to protect" human health and the environment because it is designed to avoid the unnecessary generation of tyre waste, and consequently, reduce the health and environmental risks that flow from waste tyre accumulation and disposal.46
4.12.
Brazil claims that no one questions that waste tyres are a considerable environmental burden, and the fewer of them around, the better.47 Brazil argues that waste tyre accumulation threatens public health and the environment because waste tyres:48 (i) fuel epidemics of mosquito-borne diseases; and (ii) release toxic chemicals and heavy metals into the environment.49 Brazil also submits that accumulated tyres must be collected and disposed of because they fuel mosquito-borne diseases and create fire hazards.50 Concerning the European Communities' claim that Brazil never explained the risks to animal or plant health or life resulting from the accumulation of waste tyres, Brazil directs the European Communities' attention to the submission of the Humane Society, which was incorporated into the record as Exhibit BRA-98.51
4.13.
Brazil states that because waste tyre disposal presents health risks that cannot be eliminated, only non-generation of waste tyres allows Brazil to achieve its chosen level of protection.52 Brazil argues53 that the import ban is necessary because it prevents the unnecessary generation of a dangerous waste and, consequently, reduces the risks of its disposal.54
4.14.
Brazil notes that the European Communities also admits that "waste tyres... pose a significant environmental and public health problem in Brazil".55 Brazil submits that the parties agree that the accumulation of waste tyres presents risks to human health and the environment and that measures to reduce the accumulation of tyre waste are legitimate responses to these risks.56 Brazil also submits that the European Communities has recognized that "measures designed to prevent the incidence of [diseases such as cancer and dengue] do potentially fall within the scope of Article XX(b)"57 and that58 "measures aiming to reduce the accumulation of waste tyres can constitute a legitimate response to health problems arising from waste tyres".59
4.15.
In other words, it is Brazil's view that the European Communities does not dispute that Brazil can – in conformity with its WTO obligations – pursue a waste tyre reduction policy to minimize the risks associated with waste tyres, including the imposition of a ban on imports of retreaded tyres. Brazil contends that the European Communities' claims that (i) Brazil is pursuing a goal other than health and environmental protection, and (ii) that Brazil's waste tyre management policy is not the most appropriate means of achieving its stated goal, are unfounded.60
4.16.
Brazil recalls the Panel's statement in EC – Asbestos that "a policy that seeks to reduce exposure to a risk should fall within the range of policies designed to protect human life or health, insofar as a risk exists."61 Brazil also recalls the Appellate Body's statements that WTO Members "have a large measure of autonomy"62 to determine their own environmental policies, and that "the preservation of human life and health through the elimination, or reduction" of health risks is a value that is "both vital and important in the highest degree."63
4.17.
The European Communities notes Brazil's claim that Article XX(b) is a provision that "preserves the ability of Members to prohibit imports that endanger human life or health and the environment". However, the European Communities argues that according to its wording, Article XX(b) covers only measures which are necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health. In turn, a measure designed to protect other concerns, including issues of environmental protection not related to human, animal or plant life or health, cannot be justified under Article XX(b).64 The European Communities also points out that Brazil regularly and even primarily refers to issues of environmental protection without any direct link to human, animal or plant life or health.65
4.18.
The European Communities is of the view that the analogy Brazil has attempted to draw with the prohibition of asbestos at issue in EC – Asbestos is entirely unfounded since asbestos fibres are immediately and directly harmful to human health, particularly as regards risks resulting from exposure to asbestos.66 The European Communities argues that this is not comparable to retreaded tyres, which do not constitute any particular health risk.67 The European Communities recalls that in EC – Asbestos the Appellate Body came to the conclusion that the objective pursued by the measure is the preservation of human life and health through the elimination, or reduction, of the well-known, and life-threatening, health risks posed by asbestos fibres. However, the European Communities argues that the present case is far removed from this situation as there are no "well-known and life-threatening health risks" posed by retreaded tyres. The European Communities therefore contends that it is for Brazil to establish how its measure contributes to the prevention of such risks, and the mere importance of the protection of life and health cannot absolve it from this task.68
4.19.
The European Communities argues that it has already explained that the real aim of the import ban on retreaded tyres is not the protection of life and health but the protection of Brazil's domestic industry.69

Factual description

4.20.
Brazil explains that retreading, a process that involves replacing the tyre's worn-out tread with a new tread, extends the tyre's lifespan by giving what would otherwise be a waste tyre an additional life. By retreading the tyres it consumes, Brazil claims that it directly reduces the number of additional waste tyres that would accumulate and which would have to be disposed of in its territory. Brazil is of the view that there is no effective disposal method to deal with over 40 million waste tyres generated every year in Brazil that is both environmentally sound and economically viable. Brazil submits that unlike new tyres, passenger car retreaded tyres – which in recent years comprised nearly all of European Communities' exports to Brazil – cannot be retreaded again and must be collected and disposed of in Brazil after just a single use. Brazil further submits that at the end of their useful life, these imported retreaded tyres – which cannot be retreaded again – become waste tyres that accumulate in Brazil by the millions.70
4.21.
Brazil contends that the first written submission of the European Communities reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what this case is about. Brazil explains that it prohibits imports of retreaded tyres not because they are somehow less safe, but because they have a shorter lifespan: passenger car retreaded tyres cannot be retreaded again and commercial vehicle retreaded tyres have fewer remaining lifecycles; thus, while retreaded tyres are not waste, they do become waste sooner. Brazil contends that the European Communities ignores the central issue: that the import ban avoids the unnecessary generation of dangerous tyre waste that must be disposed of in Brazil and, consequently, reduces the risks that flow from the accumulation and disposal of that waste.71 Brazil contends that the European Communities agrees that retreading "prevent[s] a used tyre from being discarded needlessly."72 However, Brazil claims that a country benefits from retreading only if it retreaded tyres consumed within its territory and that by retreading and exporting its tyres, the European Communities reduces its own waste burden, not Brazil's.73
4.22.
The European Communities claims that Brazil has tried to create the impression that the present case is about human life and health and the environment. The European Communities contends that this is not correct, as the present proceedings concern a product, namely retreaded tyres.74 The European Communities claims that there is no disagreement that retreaded tyres are new products which, when produced in accordance with the existing international standards, are as safe and durable as new tyres. The European Communities submits that tyre retreading is a mature and accepted technology, which is practiced in many countries worldwide, including in the European Communities and Brazil. The European Communities also notes that retreaded tyres are traded, and there are accepted UNECE standards facilitating such trade.75
4.23.
The European Communities argues that Brazil puts used and retreaded tyres in the same basket, while this case is only about retreaded tyres.76 Moreover, the European Communities explains that there are no differences between retreaded tyres and new tyres that would be relevant for the question at issue. The European Communities further submits that neither of them spread diseases among countries and continents: both types of tyres are products the production of which involves the use of high temperatures, pressures and solvents, eliminate viruses, bacteria or insects.77 Moreover, the European Communities argues that the risks produced by burning or disposed tyres might exist in relation to used or end-of-life tyres but are totally misplaced when referring to retreaded tyres, which are stored, sold and then installed in vehicles, in the same way as new tyres.78

Mosquito-borne diseases

4.24.
Brazil notes that the European Communities has questioned the genuineness of the cited health risks and has even requested a confirmation that "dengue or malaria cases in Brazil are linked to the presence of waste tyres".79 Brazil recalls the European Communities' acknowledgement, just two years ago, and in the context of this very dispute that80 "[c]learly, waste tyres... pose a significant environmental and public health problem in Brazil".81 Brazil notes that these risks suddenly became less "clear" to the European Communities.82
4.25.
Brazil explains that when discarded and stockpiled, tyres create ideal breeding grounds for mosquitoes that carry dengue, yellow fever, malaria, and other dangerous diseases. Brazil submits that research indicates that tyres may, in fact, be the mosquitoes' favourite breeding site. Brazil refers to a study of mosquito specimen in Londrina, State of Paraná which observed, for example83, that "[t]ires have been a preferred breeding site", possibly because of their "similarities with tree holes".84 Brazil also refers to a 1997 study that examined aedes aegypti colonization in the State of São Paulo and found that:85

Positive larvae were collected... mainly at tyre repair shops, tyre stockpiles and reprocessing units,... and deposits.... Tyres were the main culprits for the passive spread of mosquito, which occurs through intense tyre commerce... With the presence of mosquitoes that transmit both dengue and yellow fever, the region began to undergo the risk of epidemics.86

4.26.
Brazil submits that transportation of waste tyres also spreads mosquitoes and, with them, diseases. However, in some cases, transportation cannot be avoided, as for example in the Amazon region, which has only few disposal facilities because of its fragile ecosystem. Brazil notes the European Communities' argument that in regions, such as the Amazon, the import ban will not make a difference because (i) few people live there, producing little waste; and (ii) tyres will be disposed of after a single use because such regions have no retreading industry.87 Brazil claims that the argument is clearly flawed: the Amazon's population is over 20 million (with 14 million living in cities), and the region has some 119 retreaders.88 Brazil notes that the risks of waste tyre transportation are well recognized.89 One of the examples Brazil cites in support is a Japanese study that states:

"In the northernmost limit of the mosquito, Higashiyama located on the eastern side of Tohoku district, there is a cement plant in which used tires are used for fuel and raw materials. These tires, which could be infested with mosquitoes, are frequently transported from large cities nearby. It has been shown that this kind of economic activity has a strong connection to the spread of Ae. albopictus."90

4.27.
Brazil submits that three out of four dengue types co-circulate in Brazil today, which increases the likelihood of complications and the introduction of type 4 is a great threat.91 Brazil also explains that because of their shape and presence in rainy locations, tyres contribute to the proliferation of mosquitoes that carry dengue. Brazil's National Program for Dengue Control, which works to identify the mosquito-breeding sites and educate the population, recognizes deposits of tyre waste as "strategic points", and inspects and fumigates them.92 Based on his personal experience and on the results obtained so far in the National Dengue Control Program, Dr. Giovaninni Evelim Coelho from Brazil's Ministry of Health states that the import ban is necessary to prevent the spread of the disease and removing the ban will greatly increase the risk of epidemics.93
4.28.
Over the last decade, Brazil submits that it has suffered from severe epidemics of dengue, a disease that the World Health Organization (WHO) has recognized as "a major international public health concern"94, and which is a viral disease that can cause high fever, muscle and joint pain, haemorrhage, circulatory failure, and even death in the event of complications.95 Brazil submits that waste tyres fuelled Brazil's dengue epidemic, which peaked first in 1998 with 528,388 cases, and again in 2002 with 794,000 cases. Brazil explains that it collected discarded tyres and fumigated tyre stockpiles in the course of its R$4.5 billion (US$2 billion) dengue-control effort, but these measures can only mitigate, not eliminate, the risks.96 Brazil submits that between 1998 and 2002, 70 per cent of the reported dengue cases in the Americas occurred in Brazil.97
4.29.
Brazil submits that the European Communities has requested a confirmation that the dengue epidemic in Brazil is indeed linked to the presence of waste tyres. In its second written submission, Brazil notes that it provided several studies that confirm this well-recognized fact. Brazil also notes that one such study98, conducted in the State of São Paulo, found positive larvae mainly at tyre shops and stockpiles, and noted that tyres were the "the main culprits" for the spread of mosquitoes, and that the presence of mosquitoes created the risks of dengue and yellow fever epidemics.99
4.30.
Brazil contends, contrary to the European Communities' suggestion that dengue had nothing to do with tyres, allegedly because the import ban did not produce an immediate reduction in dengue100, that the progression of the epidemic depends on many factors in addition to the waste tyre volumes, such as prevalence of other containers, transportation of mosquitoes to new areas, and introduction of new types of the dengue virus. Brazil explains that an import ban by itself cannot solve the dengue problem, but it plays an important part in the solution. Brazil submits that the WHO and the government of the United States both advise targeting waste tyres.101 Brazil notes that the European Communities, in the alternative, blames Brazil's dengue problem on the historic waste tyre accumulation. However, Brazil points out that new volumes also contribute to dengue because tyres must be stockpiled before disposal and sometimes must be transported. Finally, in addition to the import ban, Brazil submits that it is collecting tyres, teaching the public about dengue prevention, and carrying out mosquito surveillance.102
4.31.
Moreover, Brazil submits that mosquitoes that breed in tyres also transmit yellow fever, which is, with its high fatality rate (over 33% in Brazil since 1999), significantly more dangerous than dengue.103 Brazil explains that thus far yellow fever in Brazil has been confined to sparsely populated areas, but the risk of urbanization, aided by waste tyre accumulation and transportation, is real.104
4.32.
The European Communities notes that Brazil has incorrectly claimed that the European Communities itself recognised the public health risks of waste tyre accumulation in Brazil in the Trade Barriers Regulation Committee (TBR) Report issued by the European Commission.105 The European Communities contends that this report does not refer to public health risks of waste tyres generally, but to risks arising from tyres that "litter the countryside", i.e. to risks arising from improperly managed tyres.106
4.33.
The European Communities argues that from Brazil's submissions, it is not possible to understand how the life and health of plants are at risk due to mosquito-borne diseases, and Brazil has never explained the animal species that are in danger of being infected by mosquitoes breeding in waste tyres.107

The release of toxic chemicals and heavy metals into the environment

4.34.
Brazil submits that the European Communities has argued that the risks of waste tyre accumulation and disposal are essentially make-believe. Brazil notes that the European Communities has questioned the dangers of tyre fires and has even requested a confirmation of "their real negative effects on health" in Brazil. Brazil submits that the European Communities has argued that tyre fires are low-risk because they are difficult to ignite, yet the United Kingdom's own Health Protection Agency108 has explained that the major hazard of tyre dumps is the toxic releases during fires, noting that "[a]rson is a common problem; the cause of over half of the fires in the United Kingdom."109 Brazil submits that the emissions from tyre fires cause premature mortality, reduced lung function, suppression of the immune system, kidney problems, learning disabilities, partial blindness, respiratory problems, heart and chest problems, and cancer.110
4.35.
Brazil argues that this case turns mostly on facts, which the European Communities has persistently chosen to either misrepresent, minimize, or outright ignore. For Brazil, another example of the European Communities' reckless disregard of the facts in this case is its suggestion that the risk of tyre fires in Brazil is – for some unexplainable reason – less probable in Brazil than in the United Kingdom, Canada, or the United States; or that leaching of dangerous substances from tyre waste is less likely to occur in Brazil than in other parts of the world. Brazil argues that there may be many differences between the European Communities and Brazil, but it is safe to assume that the way natural laws apply in their respective territories is not one of them. Brazil notes that the European Communities' logic is that unless a Member has the misfortune of experiencing, first-hand, a particular environmental or sanitary catastrophe, it does not have the right to take preventive action; that clearly cannot be the case.111
4.36.
The European Communities claims that Brazil has never made any effort to explain the negative consequences of tyre fires on the life and health of animals and plants in Brazil.112 Moreover, the European Communities submits that the fire risks described by Brazil appear to be related to an incorrect management of end-of-life tyres, as explained in a document prepared in December 1999 by a Technical Working Group of the Basel Convention.113
4.37.
Brazilargues that the European Communities' claim that fires are but a consequence of improper management has no merit.114 Brazil argues that the Basel Tyre Guidelines state that even with proper control, stockpiling "can be used only for temporary storage before an end-of-life tyres [sic] is forwarded to a recovery operation," and that "landfilling and stockpiling are the least desired options."115

(iii) Necessity of the measure

4.38.
Brazil recalls the Appellate Body's statement that "determination of whether a measure, which is not 'indispensable', may nevertheless be 'necessary'" involves "weighing and balancing a series of factors"116, including: (i) the importance of the interests protected by the measure; (ii) the contribution of the measure to the end pursued; (iii) the trade impact of the measure; and (iv) the existence of reasonably available alternative measures.117
4.39.
Brazilargues that the ban is necessary because no other measure can prevent the unnecessary generation of waste tyres. Brazil submits that the required weighing and balancing of factors (interest protected, necessity, trade impact, and availability of alternatives) clearly demonstrates that the ban is necessary.118 Brazil has established that: the ban protects interests that are vital and important in the highest degree; no reasonably available alternative to the ban exists; it does not restrict trade unfairly; it makes a significant contribution to the goal pursued; and therefore, it is necessary within the meaning of Article XX(b).119
4.40.
Brazil also argues that the strength of one factor may compensate for the relative weakness of another factor. Brazil refers to the Appellate Body's statement in EC – Asbestos that120 "[t]he more vital or important the common interests or values pursued, the easier it would be to accept as 'necessary' measures designed to achieve those ends."121 While the analysis does not stop at the interest protected, Brazil argues that the protection of human health and the environment is an interest so fundamental, that it weighs substantially in favour of a finding of necessity.122
4.41.
Should it be accepted, for the sake of argument, that retreaded tyres pose a risk to human health, the European Communities argues that Brazil has still to prove that the import ban is necessary to protect human health, as interpreted by the Appellate Body in Korea – Various Measures on Beef, EC – Asbestos and Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks.123 The European Communities further argues that it cannot be maintained that the measure is "necessary" for the purposes of protecting human life and health.124
4.42.
The European Communities also recalls the Appellate Body's statement that the determination of whether a measure is "necessary" involves a process of "weighing and balancing" a number of factors: first, the importance of the interests protected by the measure; second, the contribution of the measure to the end pursued; third, the impact of the measure on import trade; and, fourth, the existence of alternative measures.125 The European Communities also notes the Appellate Body's confirmation in Korea – Various Measures on Beef that "necessity" is a high standard located considerably closer to the pole of "indispensable" than to that of "making a contribution to". In the present case, the European Communities is of the view that Brazil has not even demonstrated that its ban is making a contribution to the prevention of public health problems.126
4.43.
Moreover, the European Communities contends that Brazil is not correct to state that "the strength of one factor may compensate for the relative weakness of the other". The European Communities argues that Brazil seems to hope that the mere invocation of human life and health would be enough to render its measure immune to further legal scrutiny. However, for the European Communities, the process of weighing and balancing must be carried out taking into account all relevant factors, not just the objectives stated by Brazil.127

Importance of the interests protected by the measure

4.44.
Brazil claims that it has demonstrated – and the European Communities has not contested – that the interests protected by the import ban (protection of human, animal, and plant life and health) are fundamental; indeed, so fundamental, that they weigh substantially in favour of the necessity of the measure.128 Brazilargues that the ban seeks to protect human health and the environment129, values that are "both vital and important in the highest degree."130 Because the import ban is designed to achieve these policy goals, Brazil claims that the ban is "necessary."131
4.45.
The European Communities contests that these interests are protected by the import ban and also claims that the ban was adopted with the objective of protecting the manufacturers of new and retreaded tyres located in Brazil and not human, animal or plant life and health.132

Contribution of the measure to the end pursued

4.46.
Brazil states that the contribution of the import ban lies in the fact that it prevents the unnecessary generation of additional waste tyres that must be collected and disposed of in Brazil and thereby reduces the health and environmental dangers caused by waste tyre accumulation and disposal.133 Brazil states that unlike new tyres, retreaded tyres are shorter-lifespan products that become waste sooner. This is so, Brazil explains, because imported passenger car retreaded tyres cannot be retreaded again,134 and imported commercial vehicle retreaded tyres have fewer remaining lifecycles.135
4.47.
Brazil argues that only non-generation of waste tyres, which requires an import ban on shorter-lifespan tyres, can achieve Brazil's chosen level of protection.136 To be justified under Article XX(b), Brazil is of the view that the measure must "contribute, at least to some extent,"137 to addressing the health concerns, and "[t]he greater the contribution, the more easily a measure might be considered 'necessary'."138 For Brazil, the import ban contributes to protecting human health and the environment far more than just "to some extent" – no other practical alternative can prevent unnecessary creation of additional waste.139 Brazil argues that the ban's contribution to achieving this goal is significant because no other practical alternative can prevent the unnecessary generation of tyre waste.140 Brazil explains that the fact that not all tyres can be retreaded after their initial use does not undermine the ban's contribution because it is never possible to retread alltyres. Brazil points out that the goal is not to achieve the impossible (i.e., full retreadability), but to reduce waste to the greatest extent possible.141
4.48.
The European Communities argues that Brazil must show that the import ban on retreaded tyres makes a contribution to the protection of human, animal or plant life or health. The European Communities claims that Brazil tries to avoid this question by engaging in speculation about why the European Communities wishes to export to Brazil. The European Communities points out that these comments are beside the point for the purposes of Article XX(b) and recalls that under WTO rules, it is not the exporting Member which has to justify why it exports a good; rather, it is for the importing Member to justify why it has decided to restrict imports.142
4.49.
The European Communities claims Brazil has failed to demonstrate that the import ban on retreaded tyres makes a contribution to the protection of human, animal or plant life or health.143 The European Communities argues that the importance of life and health by itself is not sufficient to establish that a measure is necessary for the purposes of Article XX(b); rather, a Member must also show that its measure contributes to the achievement of the stated goals, and is proportionate in this respect given notably its trade impact and the availability of other reasonably available alternatives.144
4.50.
The European Communities recalls the Appellate Body's statement in Korea – Various Measures on Beef, that "a 'necessary' measure is … located significantly closer to the pole of 'indispensable' than to the opposite pole of simply 'making a contribution to'".145 In the view of the European Communities, the import ban does not even meet the threshold of "making a contribution to"; in any event, it is certainly far from being "indispensable".146 The European Communities argues that the importation of retreaded tyres does not in any way increase the number of waste tyres to be disposed of in Brazil. For this reason, the European Communities claims that the import ban on retreaded tyres cannot be necessary for preventing any risks which might be associated with the disposal of waste tyres.147
4.51.
The European Communities notes Brazil's claim that the import ban on retreaded tyres contributes to the protection of human life and health because it reduces the number of waste tyres in Brazil, which in turn could pose a problem to human life and health. However, the European Communities is of the view that the contribution alleged by Brazil is based on several assumptions which Brazil needs to prove: (i) that the ban reduces the number of waste tyres having to be disposed of in Brazil, and (ii) that such a reduction, even if it were established, reduces risks to human life and health.148 For the European Communities, the import ban does not even make a contribution to the reduction of the accumulation of waste tyres in Brazil, or to the reduction of any health problems associated therewith and in any event, the contribution is not significant.149
4.52.
Moreover, the European Communities argues that even where a measure makes some contribution, it is necessary to assess the significance of this contribution in order to be able to properly conduct the process of "weighing and balancing" required under Article XX(b). The European Communities recalls that in Dominican Republic – Import and Sale of Cigarettes the Appellate Body held that the limited effectiveness of a measure was a relevant factor for concluding that the measure was not "necessary".150

Whether the ban reduces the accumulation of waste tyres in Brazil

4.53.
Brazil argues that for every retreaded tyre that is not imported into Brazil, there is a higher likelihood that one more used tyre will be collected in Brazil, retreaded, and reused, thereby eliminating the risks of having to collect and dispose of one additional tyre. Brazil submits that more than 55 million used tyres were collected and retreaded in Brazil between 2001 and 2005. Had the import ban not been imposed, Brazil contends that millions of retreaded tyres would have entered Brazil to become waste after a single use, and millions of used tyres consumed in Brazil would not have been retreaded, exacerbating the waste tyre problem.151 Brazil maintains that a high number of tyres used in Brazil are retreadable and are retreaded.152
4.54.
Brazil argues that it has demonstrated that the import ban, in fact, reduces the amount of waste tyres that must be disposed of in Brazil. It notes that between 1999 and 2005, annual imports of retreaded tyres into Brazil fell from 18,455 tonnes to 1,727 tonnes. Brazil further notes that any reduction in the importation of shorter-lifespan products, such as retreaded tyres, necessarily also leads to a corresponding reduction in the volume of waste tyres generated in the importing country, and, consequently, a reduction in the associated health and environmental risks.153
4.55.
Brazil further argues that because the ban on used tyres and the ban on retreaded tyres both make an independent contribution to the waste tyre reduction goals, imports of casings through preliminary injunctions do not negate the ban's contribution.154 Brazil states that so long as it continues to retread the tyres it consumes, fewer imported retreaded tyres will mean more suitable casings and less waste. Brazil notes, however, that because eliminating used tyre imports would further reduce tyre waste, it has vigorously opposed the injunctions.155
4.56.
According to the European Communities, Brazil has not demonstrated that the import ban on retreaded tyres reduces significantly the accumulation of waste passenger car tyres in Brazil.156 The European Communities argues that an increase in the number of waste tyres to be disposed of in Brazil could result only if the sale of an imported retreaded tyre were to replace either (a) the sale of a new tyre, which will then be retreaded, or (b) the sale of a retreaded tyre made from a casing originating in Brazil. However, the European Communities claims that neither has been established by Brazil.157
4.57.
Moreover, the European Communities submits that retreaded passenger car tyres produced in Brazil are made overwhelmingly from imported casings.158 The European Communities argues that imported retreaded tyres will compete with domestically produced retreaded tyres.159 The European Communities claims that an imported retreaded tyre will replace either a new tyre which will generally not be retreaded, or a domestic retreaded tyre which typically has been produced with an imported casing.160 In either event, the European Communities is of the view that importation does not lead to an increase in the number of passenger car tyres arising in Brazil161 and that the import ban does not contribute at all to the reduction of waste tyres accumulating in Brazil.162
4.58.
The European Communities contends that Brazil claims, first, that Brazil retreads a comparatively high percentage of domestically-consumed tyres, and, second, that the ban has substantially contributed to the reduction of tyre waste by eliminating imports of used tyres that cannot be retreaded. The European Communities notes that the second argument is irrelevant for our case because the European Communities does not challenge the import ban on used tyres that cannot be retreaded, though one has to observe that the importation of used tyres has not been eliminated, but has skyrocketed.163
4.59.
The European Communities notes that Brazil has exclusively relied on the fact that such tyres, unlike new tyres, cannot be retreaded again.164 For the European Communities, this fact would only matter if passenger car tyres would be retreaded in Brazil to any significant extent.165 The European Communities claims that only an insignificant percentage of passenger car tyres used in Brazil is actually retreaded.166 The European Communities notes Brazil's claim that "for every retreaded tyre that is not imported into Brazil, there is one more used tyre that is collected in Brazil and retreaded". However, for the European Communities, this statement could be true only if 100 per cent of all new tyres consumed in Brazil were retreaded; this is not the reality in Brazil.167

Data on retreading activities in Brazil

4.60.
Brazil contends that it has presented168 hard suitability data, aggregated by Mazola – a company that selects casings for Brazil's leading tyre retailer, DPaschoal – which shows that about 30 per cent of Brazilian casings are retreadable169, and Brazil's Exhibit BRA-95 also demonstrates that domestic casings are indeed being retreaded.170 Brazil submits that an updated version of the report by the Brazilian Association of the Retreading Industry (ABR), which separates the data by tyre type, shows that most passenger car retreaded tyres are made from domestic casings.171 Brazil claims that it has always produced more retreaded tyres than it has imported casings and that the gap necessarily has to have been filled by domestic casings. Brazil argues that under the most conservative scenario, which assumes that all imported casings were retreaded, some 70 per cent of passenger car retreaded tyres were made from domestic casings as recently as 2002. Brazil points out that the rate did not decline until 2004 and 2005, when very high numbers of casings were imported.172
4.61.
The European Communities submits that Brazil tries to defend the supposedly high retreading rate of domestic casings, on two grounds: first, with the data aggregated by Mazola on unusable automobile tyres in Brazil, and, second, with the report provided by ABR, to prove that domestic casings are indeed being retreaded and that the European Communities overstates the extent to which Brazilian retreaders use imported casings.173
4.62.
Concerning the first argument, the European Communities notes Brazil's claim that about 30 per cent of passenger car tyres in Brazil remain suitable for retreading. The European Communities submits that in support of this statement, Brazil has not been able to provide any other evidence than a table prepared by a private company, Mazola. However, it is not clear to the European Communities that this table indeed reflects only passenger car tyres, as Brazil claims, and how the term "unusable" is to be understood. The European Communities is of the view that it does not appear that this term only excludes tyres which are "retreadable", but rather it might also exclude tyres which can be used for other purposes, including mid-life tyres, or tyres than can be used for material recycling. The European Communities also remarks that Mazola collects used tyres left by customers at DPaschoal, which is the largest distributor of Goodyear tyres in Brazil. The European Communities submits that it is not clear to which extent figures collected in this context are representative for Brazil overall. Moreover, for the European Communities, information provided by a company associated with new tyre retailers does not appear credible for the purposes of the present proceedings.174
4.63.
Brazil argues that the purported link between the interests of new tyre manufacturers and Mazola is too attenuated: The suitability figures that Brazil has introduced do not come from Goodyear, and not even from DPaschoal, but from Mazola – a third party with no direct link to the sales of new or retreaded tyres. Brazil adds that the 30 per cent suitability figure provided by Mazola offers a representative sample of the market at large. Brazil explains that Mazola has been selecting tyres suitable for retreading for the last 15 years – something it would not have been able to do had there not been suitable Brazilian casings.175 Brazil also notes that the best testament to the retreadability of Brazil's tyres may be the fact that Brazilian retreaders have retreaded tyres since the 1950s, long before imported casings ever became available.176
4.64.
Concerning the second argument, the European Communities points out that even if a small proportion of Brazilian passenger car tyres are retreadable, this does not mean that all of these tyres are as a matter of fact retreaded. The European Communities notes Brazil's claims that in 2005 "Brazilian retreaders processed about 18 million used tyres"177 and that, according to information provided by ABR in 2005, Brazilian retreaders produced 18.7 million retreaded tyres.178 However, the European Communities notes that Brazil does not say from where these used tyres originate. As the European Communities has set out, Brazilian retreaders operate very largely with tyres imported from third countries: in 2005, Brazil imported, largely for the purposes of retreading, 10.5 million used tyres, out of which 8.4 million were from the European Communities.179
4.65.
Brazil responds that the European Communities vastly overstates the extent to which Brazilian retreaders use imported used tyres in their production. It notes that between 2001 and 2005, more than 84 million tyres were retreaded in Brazil, but only 27 million used tyres were imported; not all of those imported used tyres were suitable for retreading, but even if they had been, some 57 million tyres (two-thirds) would have still been retreaded from domestic casings.180
4.66.
In Exhibit BRA-162, Brazil provides calculations that compare Brazil's retread production with used tyre imports. The calculations set forth a conservative scenario, which assumes that all imported casings were retreadable and were, in fact, retreaded, as well as what Brazil calls a realistic scenario, based on the estimates by the Brazilian retreaders that only two-thirds of the imported casings are retreaded.181 Brazil states that the figures show that regardless of the scenario, anywhere from 83 to 89 per cent of all retreaded tyres made in Brazil were made from domestic casings in 2001 and 2002. Brazil adds that according to the calculations, the overall retreading rate from domestic casings peaked in 2003 at some 44 per cent under the realistic scenario, or 35 per cent under the conservative scenario. To Brazil, this means that of all potentially retreadable used tyres in Brazil, as much as 44 per cent were not only suitable for retreading, but were, in fact, retreaded.182
4.67.
The European Communities notes Brazil's argument that even if Brazil had retreaded all of the 10.5 million used tyres it imported in 2005, this still would have accounted for only 56 per cent of all tyres retreaded in Brazil.183 However, the European Communities argues that Brazil overlooks that the number of 18.7 million retreaded tyres indicated by ABR is an aggregate number for truck, bus and passenger car tyres, out of these 18.7 million retreaded tyres, 7.9 million were truck/bus tyres and 10.8 million were passenger car tyres. As to the origin of the casings used, the European Communities notes that ABR indicates that 20 per cent of the truck and bus casings retreaded in Brazil are imported and 80 per cent are domestic. In contrast, for passenger car tyres, the European Communities submits that ABR indicates that "the large majority, but not the totality of passenger car casings reformed in Brazil are imported". The European Communities notes that this information thus fully confirms the European Communities' view that the retreading of domestic passenger car casings represents only a very small proportion of used car tyres arising in Brazil.184
4.68.
The European Communities recalls that the ABR's report indicates that the large majority of passenger car casings retreaded in Brazil are imported. Therefore, in the European Communities' view, the evidence provided by Brazil shows the contrary of what Brazil pretends.185
4.69.
Brazil first notes that the ABR report confirms that 80 per cent of truck and bus tyres were made with domestic casings in 2005. Brazil then notes that while the report estimates that the majority of the passenger car retreaded tyres were made with imported casings in 2005, this happened only because Brazilian retreaders were able to import a very high number of casings that particular year. Brazil argues that in the previous years, when used tyre imports were substantially lower, passenger car, truck and bus retreaded tyres in Brazil were made for the most part with domestic casings.186
4.70.
Brazil argues that the ABR production data plainly demonstrates that a high proportion of passenger car retreaded tyres in Brazil is made from domestic casings. Brazil states that according to the ABR numbers, between 2001 and 2005, Brazilian retreaders produced some 43.7 million passenger car retreaded tyres, but during the same period these retreaders imported only 27.3 million casings. Brazil points out that the European Communities agrees that at least 15 per cent of the imports are discarded as "technical losses."187 Brazil argues that even if the remaining 85 per cent were all retreaded (which, Brazil argues, is unlikely) and truck and bus tyres accounted for roughly 15 per cent of the imports, imported casings would have been used to produce just 19.8 million of the 43.7 million passenger car retreaded tyres made between 2001 and 2005. To Brazil, this means that at least 23.9 million, or 55 per cent of passenger car retreaded tyres made in Brazil necessarily had to be made from domestic casings.188
4.71.
Brazil adds that from 2001 to 2003, before the imports of used tyres increased, this proportion was even higher. Brazil provides a table with these calculations from 2001 to 2005.189 Brazil notes that the table shows that even under the most conservative assumptions, as much as 74 per cent of passenger car retreaded tyres in Brazil were made from domestic casings.

Suitability of Brazilian used tyres for retreading

4.72.
Brazil submits that the European Communities incorrectly claims that the import ban does not reduce waste tyre volumes because tyres used in Brazil are not suitable for retreading.190 Brazil argues that the European Communities has built its case on flawed conclusions and, sometimes, outright misrepresentations, as for example that tyres used in Brazil are not retreadable when, in fact, they not only are retreadable, but are in fact retreaded in high numbers.191 Brazil wishes to recall that the rational explanation for the use of imported casings in lieu of domestic casings for retreading is not due to deficiencies in suitability of domestic casings, but rather to how cheap imported casings are, due to their negative value in Europe.192 Brazil states that about 30 per cent of Brazilian casings are retreadable. Brazil points out that this retreadability level is quite high compared to the available figures for countries such as the United Kingdom, France, Australia, and the United States.193
4.73.
The European Communities claims that Brazilian authorities have recognised that Brazilian passenger car tyres are generally no longer suitable for retreading after use, as is illustrated by the fact that Brazilian retreaders have to import foreign tyres as necessary primary matter.194 The European Communities notes that Brazil has attempted to reject the relevance of the fact that Brazilian retreaders need to import foreign casings by claiming that foreign casings have "no value", or even "negative value"; this is manifestly untrue. The European Communities submits that a retreadable casing is a valuable resource for any retreader, which has a positive value, as it has been explicitly confirmed in a report by CEMPRE, a recycling initiative of Brazilian industry, and a number of invoices documenting purchases of large quantities of casings by the biggest Brazilian retreader, BS Colway S.A. in Europe.195
4.74.
Moreover, for the European Communities, there is no rational explanation for the considerable efforts spent by Brazilian retreaders on obtaining casings abroad other than the fact that these casings are not available in Brazil and this is a further illustration of the unsuitability of Brazilian casings for retreading.196 The European Communities submits that Brazil has made an attempt to explain the import of casings providing two reasons: first, they are substantially cheaper than the domestic ones, and, second, the existence of an excess capacity in the Brazilian retreading industry. The European Communities notes that Brazil also claims that "the Federal Government has worked vigorously to safeguard the integrity of the ban" and has explained the judicial decisions issued in 2006.197
4.75.
Brazil also notes that to the extent that there may be an apparent shortage in suitable domestic casings, that shortage is a reflection of excess capacity in the Brazilian retreading industry – not of low rates of suitability.198
4.76.
Concerning the argument on the lower price, the European Communities argues that it is already a step back from the previous statements by Brazil that used tyres have a "negative value" in Europe. In any case, the European Communities argues that the imported casing price quoted by Brazil in its second written submission (US$3) is wrong because it does not reproduce the price reflected in Exhibit BRA-147, which is around US$7. The European Communities submits that this price should be incremented by 15 per cent (i.e. around US$1) to take into account the technical losses in retreading tyres from abroad, plus the cost for the import retreader to discard these unretreadable casings that have become waste tyres and the costs of obtaining courts injunctions. The European Communities submits further that the final price therefore appears to be higher than the average price of a domestic casing, according to the prices given by Brazil in its second written submission, which are US$7 to US$9.199
4.77.
Brazil notes that in the European Communities, used tyres are a liability – the European Communities pays an average of €1.2 to dispose of a waste tyre. Brazil states that if exports to Brazil ended, many more used tyres would have to be disposed of in the European Communities at a higher cost.200 Brazil adds that imported casings that begin with a negative value are substantially cheaper than domestic casings, and, in fact, the value of these casings is so low that the importers typically do not insure the shipments.201
4.78.
Brazil argues that domestic casings are 2-3 times more expensive than imported casings.202 Brazil points out that Brazilian retreaders estimate that the cost of a domestic casing is between US$7 and US$ 9.203 At the same time, Brazil argues, the official figures (Exhibit BRA-158) indicate that an average final cost of an imported casing, which includes freight and taxes, is US$3.7.204 Brazil explains that the figure includes commercial vehicle casings, which are far more expensive than passenger car casings. Brazil further states that of this total amount, freight costs average a little more than one dollar, and that the legal costs involved in obtaining injunctions are very low.
4.79.
The European Communities notes Brazil's argument that "collecting casings in Brazil is more burdensome and expensive than importing them", since used tyres have a "negative value" in Europe. However, it is not clear to the European Communities why it should be more burdensome to collect casings in Brazil rather than collecting them in Europe and shipping them several thousand miles to Brazil.205 The European Communities also notes that the fact that the market share of retreaded tyres has declined in the European Communities and in other countries has nothing to do with these tyres being "inferior". Rather, for the European Communities this development is largely due to competition of increasingly cheap low-quality new tyres, some of which can no longer even be retreaded after use. The European Communities submits that Brazil also refers to the fact that the European Communities has a trade surplus in retreaded tyres. However, the European Communities points out that this is no reason under WTO law for restricting trade. In any event, it should be noted that the European Communities allows the importation of retreaded tyres.206
4.80.
Concerning the argument relating to the currently unused capacity of the Brazilian retreading industry, the European Communities is of the view that it does not support the Brazilian argument because this capacity, which is idle at a time when 10 million casings are imported for retreading, confirms the low level of retreadability of Brazilian casings. The European Communities argues that there is no reason why the unused capacity should increase demand for imported casings, rather than domestic casings, if retreadable domestic casings were available in Brazil.207
4.81.
With respect to excess capacity, Brazil points out that over the past several years, production of retreaded tyres has increased by 33 per cent and that it is possible, in principle, that retreaders now require more suitable casings than Brazil generates, even with its very high suitability levels, to sustain these higher production levels.208 Brazil states that if Brazilian retreaders indeed cannot operate at full capacity on Brazilian casings alone, excess capacity is the only plausible conclusion because Brazil has already achieved some of the highest suitability and retreadability rates reported by any country – a third of the total waste arisings are retreaded according to the retreaders' numbers.209 However, Brazil argues, it is the Brazilian retreaders that bear the risk of any excess increase in capacity. Brazil states that it has no interest in helping the retreading industry sustain its growth rates if it requires importing shorter-lifespan casings that will have to be disposed of in Brazil.210
4.82.
Furthermore, the European Communities submits that it can be assumed that the sale of retreaded tyres, including both imported and domestic, will to some extent compete with the sale of new tyres. In this respect, the European Communities points out that the import ban would only make a contribution to the reduction of the number of waste tyres arising in Brazil if it could be shown that these new tyres are actually being retreaded after having been used. The European Communities argues that this depends on a number of factors: to which extent new tyres sold in Brazil are of a kind that is suitable for retreading after use; to which extent tyres are typically suitable for retreading after use in Brazil; and to which extent retreadable casings in Brazil are actually retreaded.211
4.83.
The European Communities claims that it has provided evidence that certain types or brands of new tyres are not retreadable due to the quality or construction of the casing. Accordingly, contrary to Brazil's reply to the Panel's question No. 12, the European Communities contends that it cannot be assumed that all new tyres sold in Brazil are necessarily of such a kind as can be retreaded after use. Moreover, the European Communities also notes that, contrary to what Brazil seems to assume, the observance of international standards for new tyres does not necessarily guarantee the retreadability of the product.212
4.84.
Brazil notes that new tyres sold in Brazil (whether manufactured domestically or imported) are high-quality tyres that comply with strict technical and performance standards that are based on international standards. Brazil argues that tyres manufactured in accordance with these standards have the potential to be retreaded.213 Brazil believes that this fact is best demonstrated by the high rate of retreadability in Brazil.214 Brazil also notes that neither Brazil nor any other country, as far as Brazil understands, employs any measures "to prevent imports of cheap low quality new tyres." Brazil states that it is not aware of a means to distinguish between new tyres that are capable of being retreaded and those that are not before the tyres have actually been used.215

Retreading rate of Brazilian tyres

4.85.
Brazil points out that the European Communities' entire case depends on it being able to demonstrate that new tyres used in Brazil cannot be retreaded again, and, therefore, present the same health and environmental risks as imported retreaded tyres. Brazil states that the European Communities has failed to prove this point.216
4.86.
Brazil argues that, in contrast, it has demonstrated that tyres used in Brazil not only are retreadable, but have been and are being retreaded in high numbers.217 Brazil states that the rate of retreading from domestic casings was 25 per cent in 2005 and 32 per cent in 2003 and 2004 under the realistic scenario, and 9 per cent in 2005 and 26 per cent in 2003 under the conservative scenario.218 Brazil adds that, in comparison, Italy retreads just 14 per cent of its tyres; Germany, 11 per cent; United States, 9 per cent; Belgium and Sweden, 4 per cent; and Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovak Republic do not retread at all.219
4.87.
The European Communities submits that confirmation for the view that the retreading of domestic passenger car casings represents only a very small proportion of used car tyres arising in Brazil, can also be found in a recent overview of the Brazilian tyre market, which indicates the rate of retreading of all types of tyres in Brazil in 2005 as 9.9 per cent (which is an aggregate figure including both car and truck tyres):220 accordingly, given this very low rate of retreading of domestic passenger car tyres in Brazil, Brazil cannot claim that the importation of passenger retreaded tyres leads to any significant increase in the accumulation of waste tyres in Brazil.221 The European Communities submits that since the retreading of truck tyres in Brazil occurs with a much higher frequency than for car tyres, this means that the effective retreading rate for passenger car tyres must lie appreciably below 9.9 per cent.222
4.88.
The European Communities submits that in its second oral statement, Brazil has presented tables concerning the rate of retreadability of Brazilian passenger car tyres, according to which a conservative estimate would be a rate of retreadability in 2005 of 9 per cent. For the European Communities, the methodology according to which this table has been prepared is not clear. Accordingly, on the basis of the data contained in the LAFIS report on "Brazil – Car Parts and Vehicles: Tyres" (Exhibit EC-92) which gives the rate of retreading as 9.9 per cent for passenger and truck tyres combined, the European Communities submits that the rate of retreading for passenger car tyres must be considerably lower than 9 per cent.223
4.89.
Brazil also criticizes the European Communities' reliance on the LAFIS Report and the 9.9 per cent retreading rate that it allegedly contains.224 Brazil points out that the actual reading of the report reveals that the number comes from the controversial IPT study, which accounted for just half of the total waste tyre arisings.225 Brazil states that the study's methodology was so flawed that the author was requested to redo it. Specifically, Brazil explains that the study surveyed only "retailers and tire repair shops"226 and did not account for retreadable tyres that were retained by owners even though they comprise a third of the total waste arisings. Neither did it account for a large part of commercial tyres because these tyres do not typically pass through the retailers or tyre repair shops.
4.90.
Nevertheless, Brazil contends that should the European Communities choose to rely on this report, it should then also accept another one of the report's conclusions: that the rate of technical suitability is almost 50 per cent.227
4.91.
The European Communities notes that Brazil has criticised the 9.9 per cent indicated in the LAFIS Report as based on "a controversial IPT study", and argued that this study reflects only the views of new tyre manufacturers. The European Communities notes that, strikingly, at the same time, Brazil asks the Panel to rely on the tables provided by the company Mazola, which is equally associated with the new tyre manufacturers and retailers. For the European Communities, it appears that Brazil regards studies only as controversial when they do not suit its purpose, whereas it would claim that all evidence submitted by itself is uncontroversial. The European Communities argues that the fact that Brazilian casings generally are not retreadable is also confirmed by Exhibit BRA-157, in which the ABR confirms that due to the conditions of the Brazilian roads, a great loss of casings occurs already in the original lifespan, leading to a lack of retreadable casings in Brazil.228
4.92.
Brazil states that even in its criticism of Brazil's sources the European Communities is inconsistent: having just contested the reliability of the ABR report in its response to Panel question No. 107, the European Communities proceeds to cite the report in its response to the same question in support of its low suitability argument. Brazil points out, however, that Exhibit BRA-157, which the European Communities cites in support, is the updated ABR report.229
4.93.
In addition, Brazil points out that the European Communities has offered no evidence in support of its argument of poor road conditions. Brazil also states that the European Communities misses an important point: regardless of the road conditions in Brazil's countryside, most tyres – and especially passenger car tyres – are used in urban areas, where the roads are just as good as the roads in wealthier countries.230
4.94.
The European Communities submits that to demonstrate that the import ban on retreaded tyres reduces the accumulation of passenger car waste tyres in its territory, Brazil has attached to its second written submission a study prepared by a Brazilian economist, Professor Nastari, President of Datagro Limitada. The European Communities argues that its assessment of this study shows that it is weak in terms of economics and full of inconsistencies because the basic data are used wrongly or wrong assumptions are made. The European Communities argues that one of the main weaknesses of the study is that it assumes a rate of actual retreading of domestic casings between roughly 44 per cent and 92 per cent in Brazil, which is far too high. The European Communities submits that this mistake in the size of a key variable, results in a gross overestimation of the contribution which retreading of domestic casings makes to waste reduction in Brazil, and accordingly an overestimation of the contribution which imports of passenger cars retreaded tyres would make to waste accumulation.231
4.95.
In any event, the European Communities claims that a rate of retreading of 9 per cent, claimed by Brazil in its second oral statement, is already considerably lower than the original 30 per cent claimed by Brazil, let alone the even higher numbers used in the study prepared by Professor Nastari. To the extent that the table provided by Brazil indicates higher numbers for earlier years, the European Communities is of the view that this does not reflect the importations of used tyres into Brazil, but the fact that the Brazilian retreading industry is now operating in compliance with standards – Portaria INMETRO 133 – which impose exacting requirements on the quality of the casings to be used.232
4.96.
Brazil argues that the European Communities' criticism of the expert study is most probably due to a partial and incomplete understanding of the demonstration presented in the diagrams that depict the hypothetical cases in which imports of retreaded and/or used tyres would be allowed. In addition, Brazil states that it has demonstrated in Exhibit BRA-162 that the vast majority of tyres retreaded in Brazil were made from domestic casings.233
4.97.
Brazil argues that the evidence plainly demonstrates that the 9.9 per cent figure does not represent the actual rate of retreading, as the European Communities claims.234 Brazil states that on the contrary, the rate of retreading for passenger car tyres, using only domestic casings, was, under the more realistic scenario, 25 per cent in 2005 and 32 per cent in 2003 and 2004.235 Brazil points out that at least for the year 2005, Brazil used hard numbers – not assumptions – to arrive at the number of imported casings that were actually retreaded. Brazil states that this number was the 2005 destination estimate by BS Colway, cited in the "Raupp Opinion".236 According to this number, Brazil states, of the 11 million casings that were imported into Brazil in 2005, only 7 million were used to make retreaded tyres in 2005. Therefore, Brazil states that the realistic scenario for 2005 is based exclusively on hard numbers, and contrary to the European Communities' suggestion,237 at least 50 per cent of passenger car retreaded tyres necessarily had to have been made from domestic casings that year. Brazil concludes that this puts the rate of retreading for the passenger car tyres alone at 25 per cent for 2005 – substantially higher than the rate achieved by the European Communities itself.
4.98.
Finally, Brazil contests the European Communities' argument that the imports of used tyres into Brazil have increased because the stricter new regulation – Portaria INMETRO 133 – rendered Brazilian casings that were previously retreadable no longer suitable for retreading.238 Brazil points out that the European Communities first made this argument only in its responses to the Panel's questions following the second meeting of the parties. Brazil notes that in its first written submission, the European Communities dedicated three paragraphs to the discussion of Portaria INMETRO 133 and its equivalent for commercial vehicles239, but did not once suggest that the portaria created a shortage of suitable casings; in its second written submission, the European Communities did not mention the regulation at all.240 Brazil argues that the European Communities' belated invocation of the portaria, at the close of the proceedings, should be seen for what it is – a last minute attempt by the European Communities to bolster its faltering argument.

The INMETRO technical note 83/2000

4.99.
The European Communities argues that it has submitted evidence which proves that Brazilian tyres are not retreadable after use. According to Technical Note 83/2000 of the Brazilian standardisation authority, INMETRO, Brazilian tyres are generally no longer suitable for retreading after use, which explains why Brazilian retreaders have to import foreign tyres as necessary raw material for their business241, and the use of Brazilian casings for retreading is not economically viable.242 The European Communities notes that the same view has also been expressed by the Governor of the State of Paraná.243
4.100.
Brazil argues that the European Communities' reliance on Technical Note INMETRO 83/2000, is misplaced for two reasons: it does not reflect INMETRO's position and it talks of economic viability, and not about availability of suitable casings.244 Specifically, Brazil explains that the note's only function was to memorialize INMETRO's communications with representatives of Brazil's retreading industry. The views that the note reflects are not the official views of Brazil's authorities, as the European Communities suggests, but the views of the domestic retreaders.245
4.101.
Brazil states that INMETRO took the unusual step of specifically repudiating the note because domestic retreaders used it in courts and in the media to support the low suitability argument, as does the European Communities.246 According to Brazil, INMETRO has made clear that the note "had no validity whatsoever" and that any technical note is but an "opinion, not binding the Administration or private parties to its motive or conclusions, unless approved by... Regulations."247
4.102.
Finally, Brazil argues that the note did not mention suitability at all – it only stated that obtaining domestic carcasses was not economically viable. To Brazil, economic viability is not the same as the actual suitability of domestic casings – it merely refers to the higher costs of obtaining domestic casings.248 Brazil also notes that the Governor of Paraná did not confirm the alleged low suitability independently, but merely made a reference to the contested INMETRO note.249
4.103.
The European Communities notes Brazil's argument that Technical Note 83/2000 speaks merely of "economic viability", but does not make a statement about the suitability of Brazilian casings. However, the European Communities submits that Brazil does not offer any explanation for this lack of economic viability, other than the lack of suitable casings. The European Communities is of the view that if the price of suitable casings is excessively high, this must be due to the fact that such casings are scarce. However, the European Communities contends that given the fact that Brazil itself claims that 40 millions of waste tyres arise every year in its territory, this scarcity would seem to indicate that only a very small proportion of these waste tyres seem to be suitable for retreading.250
4.104.
The European Communities submits that Brazil has attempted to diminish the significance of the INMETRO Technical Note. First, the European Communities notes that Brazil claimed that the note "merely memorializes the position of the industry's stakeholders" and does not reflect INMETRO's position. However, the European Communities explains that the note is an official document issued by INMETRO, and is signed by three officials of INMETRO in that capacity. For the European Communities, if the note in addition reflects the position of industry stakeholders, this would seem to increase its relevance rather than diminish it.251
4.105.
Second, the European Communities notes Brazil's claim that this note has been subsequently "revoked" by INMETRO through a technical note of 9 June 2005, because domestic retreaders used it in Court and in the media to support the low suitability argument, as the European Communities does now. The European Communities claims that the repudiation of the Note, which is made for the purposes of avoiding its use in litigation against the government, lacks all credibility. In any event, for the European Communities the Technical Note contains a statement of fact, the "repudiation" of which does not mean that the statement was wrong.252
4.106.
According to Brazil, this particular note was issued by a committee of INMETRO, which consisted of various stakeholders, including industry representatives. Brazil notes that the final rule, issued by INMETRO itself made no mention of low suitability,253 and, consequently, INMETRO's pronouncement on the subject, confirmed the suitability of domestic casings.254
4.107.
Brazil clarifies that the repudiation of the note was not a revocation – the note could not have been revoked because it had no legal effect in the first place. Brazil uses the term "repudiation" to refer to the INMETRO's efforts to stop the misrepresentation and misuse of the note by Brazilian retreaders. Brazil states that it repudiated the note not to avoid its use against Brazil in the present WTO proceedings – as the European Communities claims255 – but because domestic retreaders misused the note in injunction proceedings to argue that used tyre imports should be permitted because no domestic casings were available.256

Imports of used tyres as a result of domestic court rulings257

4.108.
Brazil submits that it bans imports of not only retreaded, but also used tyres. Brazil explains that its reason is simple: used tyres will have to be discarded and disposed of either on arrival, or after a single use. Brazil argues that the prohibition also ensures that Brazilian retreaders process only casings collected in Brazil, thereby helping to solve the disposal problem of Brazil, not the disposal problem of other countries. Brazil submits that Brazilian retreaders have sought and, in some cases, have obtained preliminary injunctions that allowed some used tyres to come in spite of the ban. For these retreaders, Brazil explains that the legal fees are a small price to pay for foreign casings that are substantially cheaper – cheaper because in the European Communities they have no value. Brazil argues that they are a liability in the European Communities, not an asset, and one typically must pay to get rid of them.258 Brazil notes that the European Communities has based its argument on claims made by Brazilian retreaders, who invoke low suitability to convince courts to authorize imports259 and expend260 "resources [to] obtain the right to import retreadable casings".261 Brazil argues that the reason they do this is simple – imported casings are 2-3 times less expensive.262
4.109.
While some tyres retreaded in Brazil have been made from used tyres imported through these preliminary injunctions, Brazil argues that it has successfully reversed the vast majority of injunctions in courts, and it is confident that injunctions will soon be denied ad portas.263 Brazil explains that these preliminary injunctions were issued in ex parte proceedings. Brazil notes that when the government had an opportunity to present its case, the courts reversed their initial grant of the injunction in two-thirds of the cases. Brazil submits that on appeal the government prevailed in 92 per cent of the cases. With such an overwhelming precedent, Brazil is of the view that fewer and fewer Brazilian courts are issuing these injunctions. While some imports continue to come in as a result of the previously-issued orders, Brazil argues that the tide has now turned, ambiguities about the ban's legal effect have been all but removed, and the imports will soon end.264
4.110.
Brazil stresses that circumvention of the import ban through preliminary injunctions is but a temporary phenomenon. For Brazil, a decision guided by what will soon become a non-factor would simply mean that once the imports stop a year from now, the Government of Brazil would have to come back to Geneva and repeat the same arguments.265 Brazil notes the European Communities' claim that used tyre imports negate the contribution of the import ban.266 Brazil argues that imports of casings through preliminary injunctions do not detract from the ban's contribution (and will soon end).267 In Brazil's view, so long as Brazil continues to retread the tyres it consumes, fewer imported retreaded tyres will mean more suitable casings and less waste.268 After all, it would be absurd to suggest that the WTO-compatibility of the French ban on imports of asbestos would be negated if a judge somewhere in France were to authorize a single importation of asbestos.269
4.111.
However, because eliminating used tyre imports would further reduce waste, Brazil explains that it has vigorously opposed the injunctions. As a result, Brazil argues that the trend has turned around. So far in 2006, Brazil submits that all High Court decisions and the vast majority of the lower court decisions came out against the injunctions.270 Brazil submits further that the Federal Supreme Court is expected to uphold the import ban soon.271 Brazil notes that the President of the Republic has authorized and the Solicitor General has filed a constitutional action in Federal Supreme Court on 21 September 2006.272 Brazil explains that this challenge action, Allegation of Violation of Fundamental Precept, has the power to revoke all the judicial decisions that have allowed the importation of used tyres into Brazil and preclude future judicial decisions permitting new imports. Brazil stated that the preliminary injunction requested by the President in this action would be decided in a matter of days.273
4.112.
Brazil stresses that the Brazilian Government is fighting each and every case to fully guarantee the effectiveness of the import ban. Brazil explains that the judiciary has been overwhelmingly successful in reversing those wrong decisions. However, Brazil's task has not been made easier by the willingness of others to export their tyre disposal problem to Brazil.274
4.113.
Brazil submits that while the European Communities is eager to consider a counter-factual in the case of Brazil's new tyre industry – which proves nothing – it refuses to consider that same counter-factual in the case of used tyres. In other words, Brazil argues that while the European Communities argues that the import ban does not make a contribution because used tyres continue to be imported through the court injunctions, it refuses to consider how many more used tyres would be imported in the absence of the ban.275 Brazil recalls a saying: "Nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans" – One is not entitled to base a claim on its wrongdoing.276
4.114.
The European Communities submits that Portaria SECEX 14/2004 bans the importation of used tyres in Brazil.277 However, the European Communities submits that the importation of the tyres takes place despite the ban on the basis of court injunctions, which have been obtained by Brazilian retreaders.278
4.115.
The European Communities argues that Brazil has not contested any of these essential facts.279 The European Communities notes Brazil's confirmation that the main reason for the injunctions is that the import ban "restricts access to supplies of raw material necessary for domestic retreaders to carry on their business".280 Brazil's defence has merely been that these injunctions have been "erroneous" and are opposed by the government.281 The European Communities notes that Brazilian retreaders have confirmed that they need to import foreign casings in order to be able to conduct their retreading business in Brazil. Moreover, the European Communities points to the considerable efforts which Brazilian retreaders have invested in order to gain the right, through judicial injunctions, to import casings into Brazil.282 However, the European Communities argues that the relevant fact is that the importations are taking place, and are being allowed by Brazilian courts, for which Brazil is responsible under international law.283
4.116.
The European Communities argues that under public international law, every State is responsible for the acts of its organs. The European Communities submits that as underlined by the Appellate Body, every WTO Member is therefore responsible for the acts of all emanations of all its departments of government, including its courts. Moreover, the European Communities argues that according to Exhibit BRA-86, it is explicitly acknowledged that at the point the appeal is decided, "imports are already authorized and can no longer be de facto reverted".284
4.117.
The European Communities submits that Brazil has also tried to dismiss the large-scale importations of used tyres as a "temporary phenomenon" and claimed that "imports would soon come to a halt". In this respect, the European Communities recalls that future developments are of no relevance for the evaluation of the measure at issue in the present dispute, because the facts have to be assessed as they stood when this Panel was established. Moreover, it should be noted that the importation of used casings has been continuing since 2000, and that the numbers have been increasing steadily.285
4.118.
In addition, the European Communities argues that it does not see the basis on which Brazil claims that the granting of injunctions be ended. The European Communities submits that Brazil referred to an unidentified court proceeding which is currently pending before the Brazilian Supreme Court, and indicated that "the Government anticipates that the Federal Supreme Court will put an end to the loophole that have [sic] allowed millions of used tyres to be imported into Brazil". The European Communities does not see how Brazil can make predictions as to how the Supreme Court will decide in the future. The European Communities notes that as the Appellate Body has confirmed in US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 – Malaysia), speculation about the outcome of pending cases in national courts would be incompatible with the duty of Panels to make an objective assessment of the facts, as required by Article 11 of the DSU.286
4.119.
Moreover, the European Communities argues that the question is not only whether new injunctions are being issued; as Brazil itself has noted, imports are also continuing "because some of the previously-issued injunctions remain in effect". The European Communities argues that Brazil has not explained how a reversal of the practice of Brazilian courts in the future would affect those injunctions which are in force and no longer subject to an appeal. The European Communities submits that, in this context, the Brazilian retreader Pneuback has obtained an injunction which entitles it to import used tyres as raw material for its retreading business. The European Communities submits that this injunction has been upheld by the Brazilian Supreme Court, and is now no longer subject to any further possibility of appeal. The European Communities further submits that the biggest Brazilian retreader, BS Colway had obtained a decision by the President of the Superior Tribunal of Justice of 12 December 2003 entitling it to import casings as indispensable raw material. The European Communities notes that the Superior Tribunal of Justice subsequently rejected three appeals by the government against the decision by President Naves. Moreover, the European Communities submits that in a decision of 22 May 2006, the Federal Regional Tribunal of the Second Region of Brazil confirmed the right of Colway to continue importing used tyres.287
4.120.
The European Communities submits that Brazil has tried to liken its ban to the ban on asbestos at issue in the EC – Asbestos case by arguing that this ban would not have been negated if a "judge somewhere in France were to authorize a single importation" of asbestos. The European Communities claims that this scenario has nothing to do with the present case, where Brazil allows the importation of millions of used tyres, and in addition produces retreaded tyres itself. The European Communities does not believe that the ban on asbestos would have been upheld in similar conditions.288
4.121.
Brazil notes the European Communities' argument that some injunctions have exhausted judicial review. However, Brazil explains that the case of Pneuback, which the European Communities cites as an example, is subject to further appeal, and is in fact being appealed. Meanwhile, Brazil notes that, in describing the BS Colway case, the European Communities completely ignored the substantive March 2006 ruling – in favour of the government – and noted only the subsequent stay pending the appeal.289

Whether the reduction of the accumulation of waste tyres can reduce risks to human life and health

4.122.
Brazil argues that its campaign against dengue, which designated tyre waste reduction as a key target, has been the primary reason for the declining incidents of dengue in recent years. Brazil makes the point that by shrinking the waste tyre volumes, the import ban reduces the amount of waste tyres that will be stockpiled or illegally dumped, and, consequently, reduces mosquito breeding grounds.290
4.123.
The European Communities argues that even if Brazil had established that its ban makes a contribution to the reduction of waste tyres, this is not yet enough for Article XX(b). The European Communities is of the view that Brazil would also have to prove that this reduction in waste tyres leads to the reduction of problems for human life and health.291 This also, the European Communities claims that Brazil has failed to show.292 The European Communities contends that Brazil cannot simply evoke the existence of such health problems currently and it is not clear that there would be any additional impact on public health caused by the importation of retreaded tyres.293
4.124.
As the European Communities claims to have shown that the human life and health problems to which Brazil has referred, e.g. dengue mosquitoes breeding in tyres, are first of all not exclusively due to waste tyres, and secondly, to the extent that they are, they are related to the millions of tyres which are, according to Brazil's submissions, littering the Brazilian countryside despite the ban.294 The European Communities considers that only historic waste tyres (i.e. those discarded before the import ban on retreaded tyres was adopted) might continue producing health risks in Brazil.295 For the European Communities, any health problems which might be caused by waste tyres in Brazil are not attributable to the importation of retreaded tyres, but to the 100 million waste tyres scattered throughout the country, which are the heritage of an insufficient waste management policy.296 The European Communities contends therefore that the import ban is not a necessary measure to put an end to those possible health risks.297
4.125.
The European Communities claims that waste tyres management problems, such as large amounts of scattered tyres throughout the country and tyre fires, are not attributable to the importation of retreaded tyres because imports of retreaded tyres were banned in 2000 and the health problems continue.298 The European Communities points out that it is not clear that any additional amounts of waste tyres which might be created by the removal of the ban would lead to an increase in the health problems referred to by Brazil.299 The European Communities notes that Brazil reacts by alleging that "prohibiting retread imports clearly cannot eliminate the health and environmental harms in their entirety because tyre waste will continue to be generated". For the European Communities, it seems very difficult to reconcile this affirmation with the requirement, as declared by the Appellate Body in Korea – Various Measures on Beef, that the contribution of the measure has to be significant, this term meaning close to indispensable.300
4.126.
The European Communities submits that the system established by Resolution CONAMA 258/1999 aims at putting an end to this historic problem, though the slow pace it establishes to collect waste tyres and its insufficient implementation weakens its efficiency.301 The European Communities is of the view that this situation is irrespective of the number of retreaded tyres imported into Brazil. The European Communities submits that more imported retreaded tyres will not increment the risks described by Brazil, because these risks do not depend on the number of discarded tyres but on their correct management and other questions linked mainly to the health problems that Brazil is trying to solve.302
4.127.
The European Communities claims that Brazil has not demonstrated that the import ban contributes significantly to the prevention of life and health problems in Brazil. To succeed in that demonstration, the European Communities submits that Brazil would have to prove that a possible increase in the number of waste tyres arising from imported retreaded tyres would also lead to an increase in the life and health problems arising from mosquito-borne diseases, tyre fires and toxic leaching from "stockpiled and illegally dumped tyres". The European Communities submits further that Brazil cannot simply evoke the existence of such health problems in order to justify the need for the import ban on retreaded tyres.303
4.128.
Brazil argues that after suggesting that dengue has nothing to do with tyres, the European Communities turns around and says that in case it does, the blame lies not with new tyre accumulation, but with "the 100 million waste tyres scattered throughout the country, which are the heritage of an insufficient waste management policy."304 Brazil argues that the argument is manifestly flawed. It explains that new tyre accumulation contributes to the volumes of waste tyres in the environment and correct management alone will not eliminate the risks in their entirety. Brazil states that even if it collected all of its waste tyres – and it is doing its best to do that – these tyres would still have to be transported to the disposal location and temporarily stockpiled until their disposal. According to Brazil, both the transportation and the stockpiling would involve risks of dengue. Brazil states that, in addition, collection does not eliminate disposal risks.305

In relation to dengue

4.129.
Brazil contends that there are only a few legal issues that are in dispute in this case. Unfortunately for the European Communities, this case turns mostly on facts, which the European Communities has persistently chosen to either misrepresent, minimize, or outright ignore. Brazil submits that a good example – but certainly not the only one – is the European Communities' pretension that waste tyres are not an important factor in the spread of dengue.306 Brazil notes that based on that patently wrong factual premise, the European Communities concludes that Brazil's import ban does not make a contribution to the protection of human health and the environment.307
4.130.
Brazil submits that according to the European Communities tyre waste reduction may not actually help to combat dengue in Brazil. While Brazil agrees that eliminating waste tyres alone would not solve the dengue problem308, Brazil states that waste tyres receive special attention because of their great potential for breeding and disseminating mosquitoes and to ignore them would be irresponsible.309 Brazil further submits that while waste tyres are one of mosquitoes' most common breeding grounds, they are not the only ones. Brazil explains that this is why Brazil targets all of the key containers in its campaign against dengue. Brazil also promotes changes in the habits of its population through advertising and carries out mosquito surveillance.310
4.131.
Brazil also explains that waste tyres receive special attention because they have a great potential for breeding and disseminating mosquitoes: of over one thousand Brazilian municipalities surveyed, waste tyres were the most important breeding place in a quarter of them, and either the second or third most important breeding place in the remaining municipalities.311 For Brazil, to ignore waste tyres would be irresponsible.312
4.132.
In relation to the dengue problem, the European Communities submits that Brazil has explained that dengue cases jumped from 107,168 in 2004 to 214,171 in 2005, five years after the adoption of the import ban on retreaded tyres. The European Communities argues that assuming that the average life of a passenger tyre is five years, the dengue cases should have dropped down in 2005 instead of increasing. In the same way, for the European Communities, the peak in imported retreaded tyres that occurred in 1998 should have produced an increase five years later, in 2003/2004, compared with the situation in the preceding years. The European Communities argues that the figures provided by Brazil show just the opposite.313
4.133.
The European Communities claims that the incidence of dengue cases in Brazil is, therefore, not related to changes in the number of waste tyres present in Brazil, let alone to the number of imported retreaded tyres. Rather, it is the view of the European Communities that it must be assumed that the number of dengue cases must be related to other factors, such as viral patterns and behaviour, or meteorological conditions.314 Moreover, the European Communities submits that waste tyres, and less, therefore, those arising from imported retreaded tyres, are not the only element in dengue control, as it derives from the National Dengue Control Programme, adopted on 24 July 2002 by the Brazilian Health Ministry. The European Communities further submits that in its intervention before the Consumer, Environment and Minority Protection Committee on 14 April 2002 a representative of the Minister of Health explained that "even if we were to eliminate all tyres from Brazil we would still not prevent transmission of [dengue]".315
4.134.
The European Communities notes that Brazil submits a number of scientific papers that are mainly focused on the relation between tyres and breeding sites for mosquitoes which transmit dengue and yellow fever. However, the European Communities notes that these studies consider that waste tyres are not the only reason for the current epidemiological situation related to these two diseases in Brazil. The European Communities argues that there is even scientific evidence, attached to Brazil's submissions, demonstrating the importance of several other breeding sites. Moreover, the European Communities notes that the World Health Organization has confirmed that relatively small numbers of "key containers", which are not limited to waste tyres, may produce the great majority of the adult mosquitoes that trigger disease outbreaks. For the European Communities, this demonstrates that a reduction in waste tyres would not necessarily reduce the incidence of dengue.316
4.135.
Brazil argues that the European Communities continues to embrace a simplistic view that a decrease in retreaded tyre imports should immediately reduce dengue and other risks. According to Brazil, it is elemental that the progression of the dengue epidemic depends on many factors, in addition to imports of retreaded tyres and the consequent increase in waste volumes. Brazil states that these factors include the prevalence of other key containers that breed mosquitoes, transportation of the mosquitoes to new areas, and introduction of new types of the virus. Brazil maintains that while prohibiting imports of the shorter-lifespan retreaded tyres cannot, by itself, solve the dengue problem, it does play a key role in the solution.317
4.136.
Brazil points out that the WHO advises countries to target "key containers" because a "relatively small numbers of 'key containers' (e.g. old tyres, water storage containers) may produce the great majority of the adult mosquitoes that trigger disease outbreaks."318 Brazil also notes that the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention likewise emphasizes that "infestation may be contained through programs of surveillance, removal of breeding sites (especially tires), interruption of interstate dispersal of tires, and judicious use of insecticides."319
4.137.
Brazil adds that it is not sitting idly on the sidelines, waiting for the import ban to solve its dengue problem. Brazil says that it is actively collecting tyres that have been discarded in the environment: it has helped private companies set up tyre collection centresandlaunched a comprehensive campaign against dengue, which promotes habits that would reduce the number of all key containers used by mosquitoes.320

In relation to tyre fires

4.138.
Brazil explains that waste tyres in stockpiles and dumps often ignite, producing devastating consequences321 for human health and the environment and generating pyrolytic oil and noxious plumes that contain hazardous chemicals and heavy metals.322 Brazil also explains that accumulation of waste tyres in stockpiles and illegal dumps creates a risk of tyre fires and toxic leaching, which have substantial adverse effects on human health and the environment.323 Brazil contends that tyre fires are difficult to extinguish and can burn for weeks, months, and even years – a fire in Powys, Wales324 has been burning for 17 years.325 In Brazil, the State of Minas Gerais alone has experienced 338 tyre-related fires since 2000.326
4.139.
Concerning waste tyre fires on Brazil's territory, the European Communities claims that Brazil recognizes that it has no statistics;327 Brazil only explained that tyre fires are a genuine threat in Brazil as they are elsewhere in the world.328 However, the European Communities argues that as the Appellate Body declared in US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, the mere assertion of a claim cannot amount to proof. The European Communities argues further that risks from waste tyre fires depend very much on the location, dimension, distribution, and existence of fire prevention and extinction measures.329 The European Communities considers that a reference to some specific cases of waste tyre fires that occurred in the past in the United States and the United Kingdom, or a general reference to waste tyres fires in Brazil without providing information on their location, origin/causes, dimension and duration and an assessment of their real negative effects on health, are not enough to meet the burden of proof that Brazil has under Article XX(b).330 The European Communities argues that the risk of a fire occurring should be considered as low, taking into account that tyres are very difficult to ignite. The European Communities explains that the fact that, in the case of a fire, the negative consequences on health may be important does not imply that the risk of fire from waste tyres is high. Besides, for the European Communities, it should not be forgotten that there are means of minimising the negative consequences of a fire if the preventive measures to which the European Communities made reference in its first oral statement are taken.331
4.140.
The European Communities submits that the problems which Brazil seems to have with tyre fires reflect difficulties of fighting the causes of such fires. The European Communities argues that even if it were the case that a certain incidence of such fires was statistically unavoidable, Brazil's problems again seem to be in the first place related to the lasting problem of waste tyres that are still not adequately disposed of. In such a situation, the European Communities is of the view that where Brazil incidentally has not been able to solve its problems in a measurable way six years after the imposition of the import ban, it should not be allowed to maintain an import ban which makes no significant contribution to such solution.332
4.141.
In respect of leaching of hazardous substances from tyres, the European Communities notes that a study attached by Brazil shows the results of the leaching behaviour under extreme conditions not corresponding to field trials. In any case, the European Communities argues that only trace quantities of cadmium and lead were found and the report admits that the amounts of zinc could result from surface contamination of the tyres. The European Communities argues that a second report, with very general observations in relation to field trials, shows that groundwater quality was not deteriorated. Moreover, the European Communities notes that Brazil has provided no explanations and evidence on leachate from waste tyres in its territory.333
4.142.
Brazil states that it has provided information on tyre fires in the States of Paraná, Minas Gerais and in the Federal District.334 Brazil explains that it has not been able to obtain information on tyre fires in other states because fire brigades of those states do not maintain records that distinguish between tyre fires and other fires. Brazil notes, however, that unavailability of these records does not mean that tyre fires do not occur in other states.335
4.143.
Brazil argues that there is no need to assess the negative effect on human, animal or plant life or health of tyre fires specifically in Brazil because there is extensive evidence of the risks resulting from fires all over the world. Brazil states that fires in Brazil are no different from fires elsewhere.336 Brazil states that the European Communities' argument is based on what is referred to as the problem of induction, i.e., reasoning that just because experience shows that event A has always followed event B, it does not mean that it will do so again. Brazil argues that Governments cannot base their decisions on this reasoning: prudent governments believe that if stockpiles of used tyres can be set on fire by lightning or arson elsewhere, the same can happen in their territory; likewise, prudent governments also believe that if those fires emitted deadly pollutants elsewhere, the same will happen in their territory.337 Brazil notes that it was aware of the devastating tyre fires in Wales, in California, in Ontario, and in many other locations, both in Brazil and in other countries.338 Brazil adds that it was also aware of studies showing the toxic risks of such fires.339
4.144.
Brazil states that no prudent government could or would have ignored such warnings with the unsound reasoning that, simply because tyres caught fire elsewhere, and simply because those fires emitted deadly toxins into the atmosphere elsewhere, there is no basis on which to conclude that the same could happen in its territory. Brazil concludes that it saw those warning signs and acted on them – responsibly and prudently.340

Contribution of the import ban on retreaded tyres for commercial vehicles and aircraft

4.145.
Brazil argues that commercial vehicle retreaded tyres pose the same type of health and environmental risk as passenger car retreaded tyres.341 Brazil explains that retreaded tyres in both categories have fewer remaining lifecycles and become waste sooner. Brazil adds that the level of risk from the commercial vehicle retreaded tyres is frequently higher than that from the passenger car retreaded tyres because (1) commercial vehicle retreaded tyres are substantially heavier and, thus, produce more waste, and (2) a commercial vehicle retread that is imported closer to the end of its useful life could have less than 20 per cent of its useful life left compared to the 50 per cent in the case of the passenger car retread.342
4.146.
The European Communities argues that Brazil also bans retreaded tyres for commercial vehicles and for aircraft, which can be retreaded more than once343, depending on the specific conditions of their use.344 In fact, the European Communities makes the point that it is not even clear whether Brazil is invoking Article XX(b) in respect of these tyres.345 The European Communities argues that Brazil has made no effort to demonstrate the effect of its ban as regards a reduction of the waste from truck and aircraft tyres.346 However, for the European Communities a separate demonstration of the contribution of the import ban on truck and aircraft tyres would be most necessary, since such tyres can be retreaded multiple times, and therefore contribute less to the accumulation of waste tyres than passenger car tyres.347 Moreover, the European Communities notes that Brazil refers merely to the fact that passenger car tyres "have made up nearly all of the European Communities' retread exports to Brazil in recent years".348 However, the European Communities points out that it challenges Brazil's import ban on retreaded tyres as such and as a whole. It further argues that the WTO-compatibility of an import restriction does not depend on whether and in what quantity imports have taken place, or might take place if the ban was removed.349
4.147.
The European Communities notes that it is true that the retreading of truck and also of aircraft tyres appears to occur in Brazil. However, the European Communities submits that this fact is more than offset by the fact that truck and aircraft tyres can be retreaded more than once, and in the case of aircraft tyres sometimes up to 10 times or more. Moreover, the European Communities remarks that truck and aircraft tyres are typically retreaded without any change in ownership.350 Accordingly, the European Communities argues that trade in such tyres is not likely to occur at a large scale, and where it occurs, it is not likely to have a significant net impact on the amounts of waste tyres to be disposed of.351 Finally, the European Communities submits that it seems that Brazil does not retread all of its truck and aircraft tyres.352
4.148.
The European Communities argues that Brazil's arguments as regards tyres for commercial vehicles and aircraft are weaker than as regards passenger car tyres.353 The European Communities points out that it is not clear why the importation of retreaded tyres for commercial vehicles and aircraft should increase the amount of waste tyres to be disposed of in Brazil. On the contrary, the European Communities submits that certain low-quality new truck tyres, even though conforming to the applicable technical regulations/standards, cannot be retreaded at all after first use. In this sense, the European Communities argues that the importation of a retreaded truck tyre made from a good-quality casing is even preferable, since such retreaded tyres can normally be retreaded again.354
4.149.
The European Communities notes that Brazil has tried to defend its ban on truck and aircraft retreaded tyres by arguing that such tyres "nevertheless have fewer remaining lifecycles before they, too, must be collected and disposed of". However, for the European Communities this statement is largely conjectural, and does not allow evaluating the precise contribution made by Brazil's ban to the reduction of waste tyres. The European Communities recalls that there are no legal limits on the number of times a truck or aircraft tyre may be retreaded again. The European Communities submits that conservative estimates based on the practice of retreaders indicate that commercial vehicle tyres can be retreaded up to three or four times, whereas aircraft tyres can be retreaded up to eight times. However, the European Communities submits further that it is not excluded that in individual cases, a tyre can be retreaded even more frequently.355
4.150.
The European Communities argues that Brazil is thus banning the importation of retreaded truck and aircraft tyres which have been retreaded only once, and can still be retreaded multiple times. The European Communities explains that such a ban does not make any demonstrable contribution to the reduction of the amount of waste tyres accruing in Brazil. The European Communities submits that this is all the more so since the proportion of Brazilian truck tyres actually retreaded still seems to be considerably below 100 per cent.356
4.151.
The European Communities notes that Brazil has also referred to the fact that commercial vehicle tyres are substantially heavier than passenger car tyres, and thus produce more waste. The European Communities notes further that while it may be true that truck tyres (but not necessarily aircraft tyres) are heavier than passenger car tyres, it is also true that truck tyres typically reach a far higher mileage compared to passenger car tyres. Moreover, the European Communities submits that the number of truck tyres in Brazil appears to be far inferior to that of passenger car tyres. Accordingly, the European Communities argues that the assumption that truck tyres somehow create "more waste" than passenger car tyres is not accurate.357
4.152.
Finally, the European Communities submits that Brazil imported basically no retreaded truck and aircraft tyres from the European Communities before the imposition of the ban. The European Communities notes that Brazil chose to impose a ban on these products even though there was hardly any trade, and therefore certainly no waste management problem created by such trade.358
4.153.
Brazil notes that while it is certainly true that commercial vehicle tyres can be retreaded more than once, all things being equal, when imported, they will have at least one-fewer lifecycle remaining. Consequently, they too will turn into waste sooner than new tyres and augment Brazil's waste tyre burden.359 Brazil argues that the harm is even greater when a commercial vehicle retread is imported close to its end of life, because it might have to be disposed of after a single use, whereas a new tyre could have served 3-4 lifecycles. Finally, Brazil notes that because a commercial vehicle tyre is substantially heavier than a passenger car tyre, it will produce exponentially more waste with every unused lifecycle than a passenger car tyre.

Quantification of the contribution

4.154.
The European Communities notes Brazil's argument that it cannot be asked to quantify the reduction in the number of waste tyres accumulating in Brazil due to the import ban. The European Communities points out that in EC – Asbestos the Appellate Body was referring to the risks to human life or health as such and noted that where direct risks to human life and health are concerned, it may not be possible to evaluate such risks in purely quantitative terms, such as numbers of persons dead or sick, or in terms of threshold values for exposure to certain substances. The European Communities is of the view that this has nothing to do with the present case, where, before even addressing the question of risks to human life and health, Brazil must prove its assertion that removing the import ban would result in "higher volumes of waste tyres" to be disposed of in Brazil. The European Communities notes that "higher volumes" is clearly a quantitative concept, and therefore requires a quantification of the volumes of waste tyres at issue.360
4.155.
The European Communities notes Brazil's claim that there are 40 million tyres which become waste in Brazil every year and that there are currently "over 100 million waste tyres scattered around the country". The European Communities believes that if it is possible to provide this information, it must also be possible to provide information on by how many tyres the import ban reduces the number of waste tyres accruing in Brazil.361 In the absence of this information, the European Communities does not see how the Panel could even begin to assess the contribution which the import ban might make to the prevention of risks for human life and health resulting from waste tyres. Clearly for the European Communities, such an assessment requires that the impact of the import ban is put into a relationship to the number of waste tyres already accumulating in Brazil.362
4.156.
Overall, the European Communities notes that Brazil has resoundingly failed to quantify the contribution made by its ban to the reduction of waste tyres. In this context, the European Communities notes that Brazil still contests that it must proceed to such a quantification, and even argues that it is immaterial whether there are five hundred fewer waste tyres or five million. For the European Communities, this argument is manifestly wrong. The European Communities argues that imposing an import ban on retreaded tyres just because of five hundred waste tyres, when there are already 100 million of waste tyres in Brazil, would manifestly be disproportionate.363
4.157.
The European Communities recalls that in response to the Panel's question No. 40 on how much less waste Brazil accumulates as a result of the import restriction, Brazil answered by simply recalling the numbers of retreaded tyres imported into Brazil per year. Accordingly, the European Communities argues that Brazil seems to maintain its untenable view that every imported retreaded tyre leads to an additional waste tyre to be disposed of in Brazil. With these statements, it is the European Communities' view that Brazil fails to discharge its burden of proof under Article XX as a justification under Article XX cannot be based merely on conjecture and untested assumptions.364
4.158.
Brazil notes that the European Communities and some third parties have asked Brazil to quantify by how much the import ban reduces the waste tyre risks.365 Brazil objects to the European Communities' argument that quantification of the contribution is "a necessary precondition in the contribution analysis required by Article XX(b)".366 Brazil contends that it is common sense that while some risks can be easily quantified, others cannot; that is the reason why the Appellate Body in EC – Asbestos has recognized that "a risk may be evaluated either in quantitative or qualitative terms".367
4.159.
In the EC – Asbestos case, Brazil recalls that the Appellate Body categorically rejected the argument that a "quantification" of risks is necessary and made it clear that "there is no requirement under Article XX(b)... to quantify, as such, the risk to human life or health."368 For Brazil, there is absolutely nothing in the text of Article XX(b) that requires quantification, and the Appellate Body has explicitly held that there is "no requirement" to quantify the risk.369 Brazil argues that this holding was in no way limited to concepts that are difficult to quantify. Brazil explains that the more waste tyres there are, the higher the risks. Brazil argues that these risks are reduced every time the generation of a waste tyre is avoided and it is immaterial for the analysis of the contribution under Article XX(b) whether there are five hundred fewer tyres or five million.370
4.160.
Brazil states that when an imported retread displaces a Brazilian retread made from a domestic casing, one less suitable domestic casing will be retreaded, and when imported retreaded tyres displace new tyres, they increase the waste tyre volumes by about a third (Brazil's rate of retreading). Brazil states that waste reduction lies between these two points and, regardless of whether it is closer to one or the other, it is substantial. Brazil also explains that a more precise quantification of the waste reduction requires a complex calculation of price elasticities, which, as a practical matter, is impossible. According to Brazil, calculation of elasticities requires collection of detailed economic data that simply does not exist for this industry, or for many others. Brazil states, however, that it is obvious that imported shorter-lifespan retreaded tyres become waste sooner than new tyres, and thereby increase the waste volumes.371
4.161.
While it is impossible to give the exact count of mosquitoes, dengue cases, tyre fires, or dioxins that every imported retread would create, Brazil is of the view that one fact remains self-evident: higher volumes of waste tyres bring about an increase in the risks that flow from their accumulation and disposal. For Brazil, the logic could not be more straightforward: if elimination of tyre stockpiles helps control mosquitoes and tyre fires, then the fewer waste tyres will mean less dengue and fewer fires; if waste tyre disposal harms public health and the environment, then fewer tyres disposed will mean less harm. In this context, Brazil refers to the British Environment Agency, which said that when it comes to dealing with tyre waste, the best one can do is "to prevent or reduce its production".372
4.162.
Brazil argues that the import ban does precisely that – it prevents unnecessary generation of a dangerous waste and whether the imports involve passenger car, truck, or airplane retreaded tyres makes absolutely no difference. For Brazil, a retreaded tyre, no matter the type, will always have fewer remaining lifecycles and a shorter lifespan than a retreadable new tyre373, and the fact remains that imports of retreaded tyres increase waste tyre volumes, and with them the associated risks. Brazil claims that without the import ban, Brazil could not effectively eliminate these risks.374

Impact of the measure on international trade

4.163.
Brazil argues that, while the import ban, by definition, will always be restrictive, this does not make the measure unnecessary.375 Brazil argues that what is relevant is that the ban's trade impact is not unfair or inequitable, because Brazil's waste tyre program also imposes substantial burdens376 on domestic manufacturers:377 it subjects domestic tyre manufacturers and importers to costly disposal obligations378 and significantly raises production costs for domestic retreaders by banning imports of foreign casings.379 Moreover, Brazil argues that the unique facts of the present case justify Brazil's measures. Brazil points out that unlike other waste streams, tyres cannot be recycled into new tyres and cannot be landfilled. Brazil argues that because their disposal presents significant risks, the less tyre waste generated, the better.380
4.164.
Brazil notes the European Communities' point that even though it has a tyre disposal problem, it has not found it necessary to impose an import ban. Brazil argues that what the European Communities conveniently leaves out – or overlooks – is that it does not have a significant market for retreaded tyres and, therefore, does not face imports of retreaded tyres. Brazil further argues that it is disingenuous for the European Communities, therefore, to suggest that the conditions prevailing in Brazil and in the European Communities are alike.381
4.165.
Brazil also points out that a number of countries besides Brazil have restricted used and retreaded tyre imports. According to Brazil, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Nigeria, Pakistan, Thailand, and Venezuela all prohibit imports of both used and retreaded tyres; Morocco, Macedonia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Jordan demand previous import licenses for used and retreaded tyres.382
4.166.
The European Communities argues that when assessing the necessity of the measure, the impact of the measure on the import trade is the most severe that a WTO Member can adopt383, as the Appellate Body observed in US – Gasoline.384 The European Communities argues that this characteristic makes it impossible to consider as "necessary" the measure challenged in this case.385 The European Communities contends that this element is important in the weighing and balancing analysis to assess whether the import ban can be regarded as "necessary" for the protection of life and health.386 The European Communities recalls the Appellate Body's statement in Korea – Various Measures on Beef that "a measure with a relatively slight impact upon imported products might more easily be considered as 'necessary' than a measure with intense or broader restrictive effects".387 The European Communities argues that not only does Brazil not clearly reply to these arguments, but also the fact that its domestic producers may be required to comply with other costly obligations is irrelevant for the "necessity" test set out in Korea – Various Measures on Beef.388 Moreover, the European Communities submits that Resolution CONAMA 258/1999 expressly includes imported retreaded tyres in the recovery programme and imposes on importers of retreaded tyres the highest disposal burden. The European Communities is also of the view that some extra costs incurred by the domestic industry in Brazil are not equivalent to an import ban. The European Communities explains that the protection created by Brazil's import ban has caused considerable harm to the retreading industry of the European Communities.389
4.167.
The European Communities notes that the only reaction by Brazil concerning the impact on international trade in its first oral statement is that "in other cases, import bans have been found to be justified under Article XX". The European Communities argues that this reference to EC – Asbestos is incorrect, because it does not take into account that the measure in that case was not primarily an import ban, which is the only measure in the present case, but that it was a general ban on the product, including an internal prohibition on the production, processing and marketing, coupled with export and import bans. The European Communities explains that in contrast Brazil has banned imports of retreaded tyres, whereas both the domestic production and marketing, as well as the exportation of retreaded tyres, remain allowed.390
4.168.
The European Communities submits that Brazil has taken the radical step of banning the importation of a product which it produces and exports itself, including to the European Communities. The European Communities points out that with this measure, Brazil is almost alone. The European Communities and the overwhelming majority of WTO Members do not restrict the importation of retreaded tyres, which are traded freely between many countries. The European Communities submits that following the two disputes initiated by Uruguay, this is the case even within MERCOSUR.391
4.169.
The European Communities contends that due to the import ban, many European retreaders have lost an important market for their products. The European Communities submits that simultaneously, Brazil allows the importation of retreaded tyres from MERCOSUR countries, and the production in Brazil of retreaded tyres, most of which are produced with used tyres imported from the European Communities. Accordingly, retreaders of the European Communities have been injured twice. The European Communities explains that retreading firms are typically small and medium enterprises, which cannot easily adjust to the loss of an important market. The European Communities further submits that as a consequence, Brazil's ban has driven several firms into closure, or has forced them to cut jobs.392

(iv) Existence of reasonably available alternatives

Burden of proof
4.170.
The European Communities claims that it is upon Brazil to prove that there are no reasonably available alternatives to the import ban on retreaded tyres.393 The European Communities notes Brazil's claim that the burden of identifying a reasonably available alternative is incumbent upon the European Communities as complaining party and that the European Communities has not met this burden of proof. The European Communities contends that this claim is unfounded and relies on a distorted reading of the WTO case law. The European Communities recalls that in its Report in US – Gambling, the Appellate Body placed the burden of proof to demonstrate that an alternative is not reasonably available not on the complaining party, but on the responding party. The European Communities argues that the latter is only relinquished from the obligation to identify the universe of alternative measures, which shall be advanced by the complaining party or may also be identified by the responding party.394
4.171.
The European Communities argues that there are alternative measures to the import ban on retreaded tyres that Brazil could take to improve the management of waste tyres on its territory395 and that the European Communities has presented several such alternatives in its first written submission and first oral statement.396 The European Communities explains that further to measures to ensure and increase retreading, it has concentrated its arguments on three alternatives, each of them including several possibilities: controlled stockpiling and landfilling; energy recovery; and material recycling.397 Moreover, the European Communities notes that Brazil has also referred in its first written submission to some alternatives.398
4.172.
The European Communities contests Brazil's statement that the European Communities wishes to flood Brazil with waste tyres. To the extent that Brazil is referring to the exportation of retreadable casings, the European Communities notes that it has already explained that such casings are not waste, and that their importation is precisely for that reason, allowed by Brazilian courts. To the extent that Brazil refers to actual waste tyres, the legislation of the European Communities in fact prohibits the exportation of such tyres to countries which do not allow such imports. Moreover, the European Communities points out that it has not challenged Brazil's ban on the importation of used tyres.399
4.173.
Therefore, the European Communities argues that the application of the Appellate Body's interpretation to the present case implies that the burden of proving that those alternatives are not reasonably available rests with Brazil.400 The European Communities claims that Brazil has not met this burden401 in relation to neither measures reducing the number of waste tyres in Brazil nor measures improving the management of waste tyres.402 However, in order to assist the Panel in the resolution of the case, the European Communities develops further arguments to support the existence of waste tyres management activities that are WTO-consistent alternatives to the import ban.403
4.174.
Brazil is of the view that the main point of disagreement between the parties is whether the ban is necessary to protect human health and the environment and this question comes down largely to whether there is a reasonably available alternative.404 Brazil contends that an alternative measure is not "reasonably available" if it is merely theoretical, if it imposes an "undue burden," if it does not achieve the "desired level of protection,"405 or if its result or outcome is uncertain.406 Brazil argues further that the complaining party407, i.e. the European Communities, bears the burden of identifying a less trade-restrictive measure that is reasonably available.408
4.175.
Brazil claims that the European Communities has not met its burden of proof because it has not identified a disposal method that is safe, adequate, and viable.409 Moreover, Brazil submits that no third party has proposed a viable alternative to the ban on retreaded tyres for reducing the number of waste tyres that must be disposed of and that remains the case. Brazil notes that the European Communities has acknowledged that it has not had time to carry out a full assessment of the alternative measures. In addition, Brazil submits that some of the third parties made confused statements on this issue and in response to questions they replied that they would go back to capitals for further information.410
4.176.
Brazil claims that the import ban is "necessary" because no alternative measure can eliminate the risks caused by the unnecessary generation of waste tyres411 and no alternative to the import ban is reasonably available.412 Brazil contends that while some disposal methods are less harmful than others, these methods cannot handle high volumes of waste tyres.413

Measures presented as alternatives

Measures to reduce the number of waste tyres

4.177.
The European Communities argues that Brazil has not done all it could to reduce the number of waste tyres accumulating in Brazil.414 The European Communities argues that, strikingly, Brazil does not even have a system of mandatory vehicle inspections in place which could contribute to ensuring that used tyres remain retreadable after their use. Even more strikingly, the European Communities submits that Brazil allows the importation of huge amounts of used tyres into Brazil, most of which are used for retreading, but some of which are even discarded immediately.415
4.178.
Brazil submits that the import ban on retreaded tyres avoids the unnecessary generation of additional waste tyres and, therefore, reduces the volume of waste tyres that must be incinerated or disposed of through methods that pose health and environmental risks.416 Brazil also argues that the incontrovertible fact is that the fewer tyres Brazil must dispose of, the better. Brazil contends that the import ban is the most important vehicle for increasing retreadability of local casings because imported retreaded tyres reduce the number of retreadable tyres in Brazil.417 Brazil points out that imports of tyres that cannot be retreaded again "prejudice efforts to address the used tyre issue,"418 as the British Used Tyre Working Group has recognized.419 Brazil also notes that it has already implemented a number of measures that encourage non-generation420 and that it has a system of vehicle inspections.421

Measures to ensure that Brazilian tyres remain retreadable after use

4.179.
The European Communities notes that one of the main obstacles to the retreading of domestic tyres in Brazil remains the low suitability of Brazilian passenger car tyres for retreading. Therefore, for the European Communities measures to ensure that Brazilian tyres remain retreadable after use constitute one reasonable alternative to reduce the amount of waste tyres in Brazil.422
4.180.
The European Communities argues that Brazil could take further measures to reduce the number of waste tyres, such as: (i) measures to promote the use of retreaded tyres, e.g. in public procurement423; (ii) measures to reduce the use of tyres for individual transport, e.g. by promoting public transport424 or campaigns on better driving habits425; and (iii) measures to ensure regular inspections of automobiles.426 The European Communities contends that Brazil has so far not responded to these reasonable alternatives.427
4.181.
The European Communities submits that one effective measure to be taken in this context are regular inspections of automobiles, including their tyres, since in this way it can be ensured that tyres are replaced before they reach or surpass the minimum thread depth, and thus at a time when they are typically still retreadable.428 The European Communities notes that Brazil has referred to a draft bill (5,979/2001) which would replace state-specific vehicle safety requirements with national standards. Therefore, for the European Communities, Brazil recognises that it does not currently have a system of regular mandatory vehicle inspections in place. The European Communities submits that there is no system in place that would ensure that tyres are replaced before they become so worn that they can no longer be retreaded.429
4.182.
The European Communities notes that Brazil merely argues that a system of mandatory inspections might be introduced in the future. At the point of time of the Panel's establishment, the European Communities submits that the establishment of a system of mandatory vehicle inspections is a reasonably available alternative, which has not been used by Brazil. For the European Communities, whether Brazil will implement such a system in the future is therefore irrelevant for the purposes of the present discussion.430 The European Communities notes further that there is no guarantee that Brazil will indeed implement a system of mandatory inspections.431 The European Communities submits that Brazil has provided no firm indication as to when the bill will be adopted, or as to when the mandatory inspection system would finally take effect throughout Brazil.432
4.183.
Brazil submits that it has introduced demanding manufacturing standards for new tyres, which assure that more tyres remain suitable for retreading after the first use. Brazil explains that the National Code of Traffic (Law 9,503/1997) establishes a system of mandatory vehicle inspections in Brazil.433 Brazil points out that the Code requires examination of the vehicle's safety, including tyres, and its compliance with emission rules. Brazil explains that under the law, states have the jurisdiction to develop and enforce safety standards and inspection procedures in their individual territories and, at present, that is what happens. Brazil further explains that the Legislature is currently considering a bill to establish uniform federal inspection standards (Bill 5,979/2001) (Exhibit BRA-167).434
4.184.
Brazil also notes that the absence of nationwide rules at present does not mean that Brazilian states and municipalities cannot in the interim use local rules to carry out regular inspections – they can and they do. In addition, Brazil notes that the inspections are not limited to the annual inspections: vehicles are inspected when first licensed, when their ownership changes, and also when the vehicle owner moves to a different state. Brazil points out that according to the National Traffic Department, 30 per cent of the Brazilian automobile fleet is annually inspected because of a change in ownership or the owner's move to a different state.435
4.185.
Brazil also notes that it is developing an annual vehicle inspection plan designed to increase the frequency of tyre replacement, and consequently the number of suitable casings.436 Brazil notes that the European Communities proposes four alternatives to achieve the non-generation goal: "better vehicles maintenance," "educational campaigns on better driving habits," promotion of public transportation, and public procurement rules to encourage use of retreaded tyres.437 Brazil submits that it has already implemented a number of measures that encourage non-generation: (i) a public transportation campaign is hardly necessary, however, in developing countries such as Brazil, where most of the population do not own cars and already use public transportation; and (ii) public procurement rules are also unnecessary because Brazil already has a substantial demand for retreaded tyres.438 However, Brazil argues that these "alternatives" will not allow Brazil to achieve its chosen level of protection, because the goal is to prevent as much waste as possible and, without the ban, some waste that could have been prevented would not be prevented.439 Therefore, Brazil argues that measures such as these complement the import ban, but they cannot replace it.440

Measures against imports of used tyres441

4.186.
The European Communities argues that Brazil has not taken effective measures to prevent the constant and growing flow of used tyres into Brazil.442 The European Communities claims that Brazil imports a growing number of used tyres.443 In 2005 alone, the European Communities submits that Brazil imported a total of 10.5 million tyres from third countries, including 8.4 million from the European Communities444 and in the first seven months of 2006, another 4.5 million casings have been imported.445 The European Communities contends that a large majority of these tyres are used for the fabrication of retreaded tyres in Brazil. However, unlike in the case of importation of retreaded tyres, the European Communities argues that a small proportion of the imported used tyres, because they are unsuitable for retreading or for other reasons, will get discarded immediately.446 Accordingly, the European Communities submits that, following the logic of Brazil, the importation of used tyres should be prevented even more urgently than the importation of retreaded tyres.447
4.187.
In response to Brazil's claims that the importation of used tyres will soon end, the European Communities submits that presently ongoing legislative developments are moving in the direction of permitting the importation of casings (and retreaded tyres). The European Communities contends that two such draft laws enjoy considerable support in Brazil's Federal Chamber and the Federal Senate, respectively. The European Communities further submits that draft law 203/91 was approved by the Special National Waste Policy Commission by a majority of 22 votes against 4 votes. The European Communities also submits that draft law 216/03 on 16 December 2005 was approved by the Federal Senate's Social Affairs Commission in a vote of 18 against one, with only one abstention.448 The European Communities submits that Brazil only claims that "the Federal Government has worked vigorously to safeguard the integrity of the ban" and explains the judicial decisions taken in 2006.449
4.188.
However, the European Communities contends that the reality is that injunctions are in force under which Brazilian retreaders continue to import casings for retreading in Brazil. For the European Communities, Brazil's assurances that Brazilian courts are no longer or, in the future, would no longer grant injunctions, and that the importation of casings would stop, remain contradicted by the facts. The European Communities notes that it has already provided evidence challenging Brazil's statement that all 2006 decisions in the High Court upheld the government's position. The European Communities argues that although Brazil stresses its judicial victories over several importers of used tyres, the biggest retreaders of the country continue to operate with the permission to import the casings needed for their production.450
4.189.
Brazil submits that to further promote retreading of tyres it consumes it prohibits imports of used tyres, compelling its retreaders to process casings from domestic and imported new tyres collected within Brazil's territory.451

Waste management measures

Controlled stockpiling and landfilling

4.190.
The European Communities understands controlled stockpiling as the activity consisting of storing waste tyres in adequate installations, which are designed to prevent fires and pests (including mosquitoes). The European Communities argues that stockpiling is different from "landfilling" in that the latter consists in discarding large amounts of waste tyres directly on or into the ground. The European Communities explains that landfilling has been normally done by tossing waste into piles, a method that requires little effort or handling by a site operator but also requires the most storage space and where randomly stacked tyres are a greater fire risk because they expose more tyre surface area and create greater volumes or air between other tyres than other stacking methods.452
4.191.
The European Communities further explains that waste tyres are stockpiled in several ways. The European Communities submits that besides the random stacks system, which is common in landfills but rarely used in controlled stockpiling because of storage space and handling requirements, the alternative methods of storing tyres at waste tyres facilities are: barrel stacks, laced stacks, bundling and shredding. For the European Communities, all these, to a different degree, take advantage of space, reduce interior spaces decreasing potential insect habitats and exposes less surface area of the tyres to a fire.453
4.192.
The European Communities does not agree with Brazil's argument that stockpiling is a dangerous454 and unsound disposal method because it poses substantial hazards455, provides breeding grounds for mosquitoes and contaminates the soil through the leaching of hazardous substances. However, for the European Communities, this is a description of the hazards arising from improperly managed installations, which could be avoided by implementing properly the Basel Convention Technical Guidelines and the California Code of Regulations.456 The European Communities notes that Brazil refers as evidence to some documents from the United Kingdom, France, the United States and the European retreaders. The European Communities argues that those documents do not refer to properly managed installations, but to illegal dumps or historic landfills. The European Communities is of the view that they cannot, therefore, serve to contradict the European Communities' position on this question.457 Moreover, the European Communities claims that it has no relevance that the Basel Guidelines signal that stockpiling can be used only for temporary storage before a waste tyre is forwarded to a recovery operation.458 The European Communities argues that stockpiling plays an important role acting as a buffer to other disposal operations and its duration and capacity can be adjusted to the specific needs of the relevant country.459
4.193.
The European Communities argues that stockpiling allows the management of waste tyres in a controlled and surveyed manner, thus reducing, or even eliminating in well designed and managed installations, the risks arising from mosquitoes and fires. For the European Communities, relevant evidence of their non-dangerous nature is the fact that waste tyre stockpiling installations are not subject to compulsory environmental impact assessment in Brazil and under the only existing international agreement on environmental impact assessment: the Espoo Convention of 25 February 1991 on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.460
4.194.
Brazil claims that stockpiling is a dangerous practice that is no longer accepted as a legitimate waste tyre management solution. Brazil argues that stockpiling is not a disposal method at all because it does not eliminate tyre waste. In addition, Brazil submits that stockpiling presents a risk of mosquitoes, toxic leaching, and dangerous emissions during fires.461 Brazil draws the attention of the Panel to Exhibit BRA-25, which contains images of tyre stockpiles and tyre fires and shows that stockpiling is hardly safe. Brazil argues that the European Communities' cavalier treatment of these well-recognized risks exemplifies its treatment of all disposal alternatives.462
4.195.
Brazil notes the European Communities' claim that these "hazards aris[e] from improperly managed installations" and refers the Panel to the management practices outlined in the Basel Tyre Guidelines and the California regulations.463 Brazil notes that the European Communities says that the Basel Tyre Guidelines endorse stockpiling.464 However, in reality, Brazil contends that the Basel guidelines are explicit that even with proper control, stockpiling "can be used only for temporary storage before an end-of-life tyres is forwarded to a recovery operation," and that "landfilling and stockpiling are the least desired options".465 Moreover, Brazil submits that California's Tyre Recycling Act466 names among its key objectives "[c]leanup, abatement, or other remedial action related to waste tyrestockpiles."467
4.196.
Brazil notes that the European Communities points to a number of documents and reports that Brazil has supposedly misread.468 Brazil submits some information on the content of those reports concerning stockpiling – a disposal method that is entirely environmentally sound, according to the European Communities:469 (i) the British Environment Agency, in its publication "Tyres in the Environment" (Exhibit BRA-1), says that "[s]tockpiled tyres... are a fire risk..." and "[f]ires in the past have caused severe air and water pollution, so we need to reduce this risk"470; and (ii) the Basel Tyre Guidelines.471
4.197.
Brazil submits that the environment agencies of the European Communities member States recognize the dangers of stockpiling and are working to eliminate stockpiles.472 Brazil submits further that the United Kingdom, for example, has a Stockpile Working Group to provide guidance for clearance of stockpiles.473 Brazil also notes that in the United States, most states prohibit new tyre stockpiles and require stockpile owners and operators to cease accepting new tyres and to develop plans to eliminate the stockpiles.474
4.198.
The European Communities notes that controlled landfilling is also an alternative and that Brazil accepts landfilling of grinded or cut tyres, and, therefore, this must also be considered as an alternative in Brazil to the import ban.475 The European Communities submits that Article 1 of Joint Resolution SMA/SS 1/2002 of 5 March 2002 conditions final tyre disposal in waste landfills to previous decharacterization by grinding or cutting the tyre and to the previous mixing of these parts with household waste or its spread over the latter.476 The European Communities submits that the penultimate recital of this Joint Resolution reminds that Resolution CONAMA 258/1999, stipulates that final disposal of waste tyres shall be carried out through environmentally sound measures. Consequently, for the European Communities, it has to be concluded that Brazil considers landfilling of shredded tyres as creating no environmental risks. The European Communities argues that the statement made by Brazil that "shredding of tyres … does not prevent potential leaching of harmful organic chemicals" and heavy metals contradicts its own legislation and must be considered unfounded.477
4.199.
With respect to landfilling, Brazil is not sure what the European Communities means by "controlled" landfilling, but landfilling of any kind is prohibited in the European Communities since July 2006.478 Brazil submits that both Brazil and the European Communities prohibit landfilling of tyres479 because they damage the landfill's structure and can leach harmful contaminants into the environment.480 Brazil is of the view that there is no good reason why Brazil should accept something that the European Communities has rejected. Brazil notes the European Communities' claim that Brazil permits landfilling, but the regulation the European Communities cites is a provisional state measure with no nation-wide application that was adopted in response to an acute dengue crisis in the state.481

Energy recovery and waste co-incineration

Activities of energy recovery and waste co-incineration

4.200.
The European Communities contends that both parties in this dispute allow energy recovery through the co-incineration of waste tyres.482 The European Communities submits that in Brazil, Resolution CONAMA 264 of 26 August 1999 is the relevant measure.483 The European Communities submits that energy recovery is one of the best waste management practices mentioned in the OECD report on "Improving Recycling Materials".484 The European Communities submits that the percentage of energy recovery from waste tyres has jumped in Europe from 11 per cent in 1994 to 30 per cent in 2003.485
4.201.
The European Communities notes that Brazil has concentrated its arguments on co-incineration in cement kilns, though co-incineration can also take place in other installations, like paper mills or steel furnaces.486 The European Communities contends that co-incineration of waste tyres or tyre-derived fuel in different installations (cement kilns, pulp and paper mills, electric arc furnaces for the manufacture of high-carbon steel products, and utility and industrial boilers) is considered a safe activity throughout the world. For the European Communities, that explains its expansion in several countries, like the United States, Australia, Japan or the European Communities.487
4.202.
The European Communities notes Brazil's acknowledgement that it has licensed some 46 companies to process waste tyres, and, presumably, several of them use waste tyres as fuel.488 For the European Communities, it is regrettable that Brazil did not provide a useful answer to the second part of the Panel's question No. 43 (What types of disposal methods are used by the Brazilian companies that are authorized to process waste tyres in Brazil?)and refused to answer to the European Communities' question No. 17 (concerning the 46 companies authorised to process waste tyres).489 The European Communities considers that the information requested is relevant to assess to what extent energy recovery is a reasonable alternative in Brazil, which the European Communities claims it is.490
4.203.
The European Communities submits that the authorities in Brazil seem to encourage energy recovery as an alternative. In its response to the Panel's question No. 43, the European Communities notes that Brazil admitted that co-processing in cement kilns and co-processing with bituminous schist are disposal methods usually approved by state environmental authorities in the framework of the implementation of Resolution CONAMA 258/1999.491 In any case, for the European Communities, it is clear that energy recovery plays already an important role in Brazil. The European Communities submits that the report "Panorama dos Resíduos Sólidos no Brasil" (Solid Waste Panorama in Brazil) states that, in 2004, 56,06 per centof waste tyres in Brazil were used to produce alternative fuel.492 The European Communities has already explained that, in view of its capacities as country and its important participation in the cement and paper mills industries and energy, Brazil cannot claim to have difficulties in implementing energy recovery as an alternative measure. The European Communities points out that according to the World Bank country fiche, Brazil's industrial sector represents 40 per cent of its economy, and the publication "World Steel in Figures" by the International Iron and Steel Institute, ranks Brazil in the ninth post among the major steel-producing countries in 2005.493
4.204.
Brazil argues that outside of landfilling, only incineration can handle the large existing volumes of waste tyres, but incineration produces harmful emissions that can cause cancer, as well as a variety of respiratory, reproductive, and immune system problems.494 Brazil points out, for example, that the US EPA study found that a "well-designed, well-operated, and well-maintained combustion device" could mitigate the added harm from the TDF emissions; however, "it is not likely that a [well-designed] solid fuel combustor without add-on particulate controls could satisfy air emission regulatory requirements in the United States," and "there is serious concern that emissions [from poorly designed or primitive combustion devices] would be more like those of an open tire fire than a well-designed combustor."495

Safety of energy recovery and waste co-incineration

4.205.
Brazil argues that it is entitled to opt for the highest level of protection, and that is precisely what Brazil is doing.496 Brazil explains that Brazil, the European Communities, and other WTO Members continue to incinerate tyre waste not because the practice is safe, but because landfilling and stockpiling are even more dangerous, and the less risky disposal methods cannot absorb the volumes generated.497 Brazil argues that incineration of waste tyres in cement kilns and similar facilities does not allow Brazil to achieve its chosen level of protection.498 Brazil claims that while there is clearly an overwhelming consensus on the dangers of incineration, Brazil needs only to show that it is relying, in good faith, on qualified and respected, even if divergent, opinion.499 Brazil notes that the European Communities admits that500 "some governments and scientific communities have expressed concern about incinerating waste tyres".501
4.206.
The European Communities argues that Brazil distorts the European Communities' arguments in order to give the impression that co-incineration in cement kilns is dangerous. The European Communities notes that Brazil continues with the surprising affirmation that dumping is a less harmful disposal method than incineration. The European Communities contends that contrary to what Brazil claims co-incineration will continue to be used in the medium term until recycling is fully developed, especially in the current international scenario of petrol prices. For the European Communities, this explains why, in 2004, 56.06 per cent of waste tyres in Brazil were used to produce alternative fuel. Moreover, the European Communities notes that Brazil has not alleged that co-incineration is not an adequate system to eliminate tyres, as mosquito-breeding places, or to reduce open tyre fires.502
4.207.
The European Communities argues that Brazil has not demonstrated either that co‑incineration of waste tyres increases emissions of hazardous substances. The European Communities claims that all its evidence is based on studies issued ten years ago or more, precisely when the discussions to regulate co-incineration started, and the studies correspond to installations using old technology, like the wet cement kilns, or burning other fuels.503
4.208.
Brazil states that the incineration was not safe ten years ago, and it still is not safe today. Brazil further argues that the studies provided by Brazil are the most recent studies available on the subject. Brazil states that the European Communities has only been able to provide one study that is more recent, which specifically addresses the safety of waste tyre incineration.504 That very study, according to Brazil, reported significant increases in dioxin emissions during the incineration of waste tyres. Brazil also notes that a British report, dated 2002, prepared with the British Government's participation, observed that "public and regulatory concern over emissions makes consents [to incinerate tyres] difficult to obtain."505

Emissions of dioxins, furans and other persistent organic pollutants (POPs)

4.209.
Brazil notes that the European Communities concedes that506 incineration "can lead to emissions of dioxins, furans and other persistent organic pollutants".507 Brazil submits further that the European Communities yet argues that (i) safety of incineration is beside the point because Brazil permits it; and (ii) emission controls could make it safe.508 Brazil claims that both arguments are flawed.509
4.210.
First, Brazil and other countries permit incineration not because it is safe, but because other, less risky methods cannot absorb the existing volumes of tyre waste, even if used in combination. According to the European Environment Agency, incineration is appropriate only "if no other outlet is possible".510 Brazil notes that the European Communities makes a half-hearted attempt at defending the safety of incineration. However, the studies it cites support Brazil's arguments.511 Brazil submits that the study prepared for the cement industry describes tests conducted at 16 German kilns since 1989 and reports a 1,233 per cent to 3,900 per cent increase in dioxin emissions when tyres are burned.512 Brazil notes that the study also acknowledges that burning alternative fuels, such as tyres, could result in release of heavy metals.513 Brazil further notes that two other studies cited by the European Communities do not measure dioxin emissions at all, and one admits that tyre material in material recycling uses leaches lead, nickel, chromium and cadmium.514
4.211.
Brazil argues that incineration produces harmful emissions (including dioxins, furans, and lead) that cause cancer, affect the immune system, and lead to reproductive problems.515 Brazil notes that it has explained in detail why incineration of waste tyres is harmful, even under controlled conditions. Brazil submits that Ontario banned incineration until it realized that there was no other way to reduce stockpiling of its tyre waste. Brazil argues that not a single study introduced by the European Communities supports its ambitious claim that incineration is entirely safe – instead, the studies document increases in dioxin emissions and leaching. Brazil points out that if waste tyres were indeed the safe and valuable fuel that the European Communities claims they are, it would seem that they would be in high demand; however, they are not.516 Brazil notes that cement kilns still charge gate fees to accept tyres and, as the British Used Tyre Working Group correctly points out, "[t]he speed of regulatory approval for cement works to consume used tyres as a replacement fuel has to date been extremely slow."517
4.212.
Brazil submits that to downplay the risks of dioxins, the European Communities explains that "[d]ioxins are found widely in the environment and the main source of exposure is via diet."518 However, Brazil notes that as the United States EPA explains in Exhibit BRA-31, dioxins enter the food chain from the emissions in the atmosphere, accumulate in the animal tissue, and are then passed on to the person who consumes the animal's meat. Brazil submits that the European Communities also argues that there is a tolerable exposure level, as established by the WHO.519 Brazil submits further that however the United States Government report, cited by the European Communities, reveals that the United States EPA disagreed that such a threshold existed, and notes that the WHO recommended that "every effort... be made to reduce exposure to the lowest possible level."520 Brazil notes that, in addition, the same US report underlines that every time the WHO has returned to the issue, it has lowered the tolerable intake level for dioxins.521 Finally, Brazil argues that the European Communities is flatly wrong when it states that dioxins are not one of the 12 POPs targeted for elimination under the Stockholm Convention; a quick look at the Annex C and Article 5 makes this clear.522
4.213.
Brazil notes that the European Communities casually dismissed the hazards presented by a deadly chemical523 by stating that dioxins are released from back-yard barbecues.524 Brazil argues that the level of dioxins released from a cement kiln – even properly operated, state-of-the-art cement kiln – is far greater than the amount released from any barbecue. If the European Communities has contrary information, Brazil would be pleased to receive it.525
4.214.
Second, Brazil contends that stricter emission standards can mitigate, but not eliminate the health and environmental harm caused by incineration.526 Brazil further argues that such emission standards require cost-prohibitive upgrades.527 Brazil submits that zero-level emissions, in principle, could eliminate the risks of incineration. However, Brazil argues that, in practice, demanding such standards will render incineration no longer technically or economically viable, and the waste previously incinerated will have to be landfilled or stockpiled, which is even more harmful. Brazil submits that because these risks are unavoidable, the only way to reduce them is to reduce the volumes of tyres that must be disposed of.528
4.215.
Brazil argues that the decision on whether a steel mill or paper mill will use tyres as fuel is a decision that the private operator of the mill will make based on various economic variables, including the cost of the fuel (in the case of tyres, most charge a fee to accept the tyres to burn), plus the cost of the burning process. Brazil submits that the higher the restrictions on that process, the higher the cost of compliance. In Brazil's view, the result is that if Brazil set the emissions standards high enough to meet its desired level of protection, the cost of meeting those standards would be so high that the operators would choose an alternative source of fuel. Paragraph 49 of Brazil's first written submission provides an example of an European Communities member State, where the use of tyres as fuel declined after the emission standards were raised. Brazil noted that in Austria, the energy recovery market share declined from 70 to 40 per cent in 2000 after introduction of stricter environmental regulations.529
4.216.
Brazil submits that the issue, therefore, is not whether Brazilian incinerators can afford the safest technology available to reduce emissions, but whether incineration of waste tyres would continue to make business sense if expensive investments were required, especially in developing countries like Brazil. Brazil points out that with the present state of technology, the fewer tyres are incinerated, the more tyres will have to be stockpiled and landfilled – at an even greater health and environmental cost.530
4.217.
Brazil argues that the European Communities has built its case on flawed conclusions and, sometimes, outright misrepresentations, as for example the fact that it portrayed a deadly chemical ‑ dioxin ‑ as a benign substance. In addition, Brazil is of the view that by downplaying the risks of waste tyre accumulation and disposal in Geneva, the European Communities has contradicted its own environmental officials in Brussels.531
4.218.
To respond to Brazil's arguments that energy recovery produces "dangerous, harmful emissions, even under its most controlled conditions", the European Communities notes that in its first oral statement several reasons to support this alternative were provided.532 The European Communities notes that it is true that burning wastes – if not properly done – can lead to emissions of dioxins, furans and other POPs; however, the incineration or co-incineration of waste destroys POPs in the waste input. The European Communities submits that the practice of waste co-incineration can also be considered in the light of the Basel Convention, which adopted in 2004 General Technical Guidelines for the Environmentally Sound Management of wastes consisting of, containing or contaminated with POPs. The European Communities submits that cement kiln co-incineration is included in the guidelines as one appropriate technology for the destruction and irreversible transformation of the POPs content in waste.533 The European Communities submits further that the techn