00-4857 MOREPRESS RELEASE
PRESS/TPRB/144
14 November 2000
TRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
REVIEW OF EUROPEAN UNION
TPRB'S EVALUATION
The Trade Policy Review Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) concluded its fifth
review of the European Communities' trade policies on 12 and 14 July 2000. The text of the
Chairperson's concluding remarks is attached as a summary of the salient points which emerged
during the discussion.
The review enables the TPRB to conduct a collec tive examination of the full range of trade
policies and practices of each WTO member countries at regular periodic intervals to monitor
significant trends and developments which may have an impact on the global trading system.
The review is based on two reports which are prepared respectively by the WTO Secretariat
and the government under review and which cover all aspects of the country's trade policies, including
its domestic laws and regulations, the institutional framework, bilateral, regional and other
preferential agreements, the wider economic needs and the external environment. A record of thediscussion and the Chairperson's summing-up together with these two reports will be published in due
course at the complete trade policy review of the European Communities and will be available from
the WTO Secretariat, Centre William Rappard, 154 rue de Lausanne, 1211 Geneva 21.PRESS/TPRB/144
Page 2
MORESince December 1989, the following reports have been completed: Argentina (1992 and
1999), Australia (1989, 1994 and 1998), Austria (19 92), Bahrain (2000) Bangladesh (1992 and 2000),
Benin (1997), Bolivia (1993 and 1999), Botswana  (1998), Brazil (1992, 1996 and 2000), Burkina
Faso (1998), Cameroon (1995), Canada (1990, 1992, 1994, 1996 and 1998), Chile (1991 and 1997),
Colombia (1990 and 1996), Costa Rica (1995), Cô te d’Ivoire (1995), Cyprus (1997), the Czech
Republic (1996), the Dominican Republic (1996), E gypt (1992 and 1999), El Salvador (1996), the
European Communities (1991, 1993, 1995, 1997 and 2.000), Fiji (1997), Finland (1992), Ghana
(1992), Guinea (1999), Hong Kong (1990, 1994 and 1998), Hungary (1991 and 1998), Iceland (1994
and 2000), India (1993 and 1998), Indonesia (1991, 1994 and 1998), Israel (1994 and 1999), Jamaica
(1998), Japan (1990, 1992, 1995 and 1998), Kenya (1993 and 2000), Korea, Rep. of (1992, 1996 and
2000), Lesotho (1998), Macau (1994), Malaysia (1993 and 1997), Mali (1998), Mauritius (1995),
Mexico (1993 and 1997), Morocco (1989 and 1996) , New Zealand (1990 and 1996), Namibia (1998),
Nicaragua (1999), Nigeria (1991 and 1998), Norw ay (1991, 1996 and 2000), Pakistan (1995), Papua
New Guinea (1999), Paraguay (1997), Peru (1994 and 2000), the Philippines (1993), Poland (1993
and 2000), Romania (1992 and 1999), Senegal ( 1994), Singapore (1992, 1996 and 2000), Slovak
Republic (1995), the Solomon Islands (1998), South Africa (1993 and 1998), Sri Lanka(1995),
Swaziland (1998), Sweden (1990 and 1994), Switzerl and (1991 and 1996), Tanzania (2000), Thailand
(1991, 1995 and 1999), Togo (1999), Trinidad and T obago (1998), Tunisia (1994), Turkey (1994 and
1998), the United States (1989, 1992, 1994, 1996 a nd 1999), Uganda (1995), Uruguay (1992 and
1998), Venezuela (1996), Zambia (1996) and Zimbabwe (1994).PRESS/TPRB/144
Page 3
MORETRADE POLICY REVIEW BODY
THE EUROPEAN UNION
CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON
We have had very informative discussions on the trade policy regime of the European Union.
I am pleased to note the large number of delegations – representing developed and developing
countries, including least-developed - that submitted questions and made statements to assist the
process of review, drawing on the extensive documentation prepared for the exercise.  I also thank the
Commission for its statements and the efforts it made to provide detailed answers to the many
questions it received, some on short notice.  This very high level of participation has permitted a
comprehensive collective review of the trade policy  regime of the European Union, which we know to
be a market of key interest to all our Members.  Synthesising this vast body of commentary is no easytask, but several key elements emerge to which I will draw your attention in my remarks.
We all agree that the improving economic environment in the Community is of great
importance to the WTO membership.  Many developing country delegations noted the singular
importance of the EU as a destination market for their exports.  We also heard from a number ofdelegations the importance they attach to the health of a market where their enterprises have located
to manufacture goods or supply services to EU consumers.  There was a consensus that the recovery
of economic activity had been assisted by the deeper integration of the Single Market, brought about
by the advent of the euro and further deregulation, in particular of service sectors.  The EU was
encouraged to make further progress towards the Single Market, including by reducing non-transposed directives, which would make a contributio n to sustaining the EU's growth in the future.
There was also a wide appreciation of the leading role of the EU in the WTO.  The EU was
commended on the generally broad scope of its commitments and the attention it gives to its
notification obligations.  On dispute settlement however the EU was urged to speedily resolve the
outstanding implementation problems in the bananas and hormones cases.  We also heard divergent
views on the EU's multi-faceted approach to trade policy, combining multilateral with regional and
bilateral initiatives.  There was in particular inte rest on the nature of the commitments exchanged on
agricultural products and services in the recently concluded agreements with South Africa and
Mexico, as well as a number of comments on the Partnership Agreement of Cotonou.  It was noted
that the EU imports on an MFN basis only from ei ght WTO Members;  may I add that the EU's own
exports benefit from MFN treatment in the markets of WTO Members except for the 17 non-EU
Members with which free trade or customs unions are in place.  There is no better testimony to the
EU's commercial interest in the bedrock principle of MFN.
We also heard comments on the planned enlargement of the Community to countries in
Central and Eastern Europe.  Members are followin g the Intergovernmental Conference with interest,
in particular with regard to the competencies of the Community and of the Member States over
policies in trade-related areas, which directly affects the modus operandi  of the EU in the WTO.  And
a number of Members that are exporters of agricultural products have a keen interest in further
progress on Agenda 2000, beyond the agreement reached last year in Berlin, to reconcile the operation
of the Common Agricultural Policy with the advent of new members.  In the period ahead, leading upto accession, third counties hoped the candidate countries would maintain open markets and avoid the
adoption of policies – whether in agriculture, other products or service sectors – that adversely impact
on their conditions of market access.  Finally, upon accession itself, the need to minimize trade
diversion was underscored.PRESS/TPRB/144
Page 4
ENDIt is also fair to say that, while Members appreciate the generally open character of the EU
market, there remain a number of specific concerns regarding the conditions of access to the EU
market.  The EU received a number of comments on the above average tariffs and quotas in the
textiles and clothing sectors.  The disappointing pace of integration of the sector under the first and
second phases of integration under the ATC was mentioned.  Hope was expressed that the EU would
do more to lift restrictions in the third phase.   The operation of the CAP was also of concern, both interms of limiting market access on the Community market and the spill-over effects on world markets
of the heavy use of export subsidies.  Concerns were raised with respect to the complexity and
protective effects of the import regime for agricultural products.  The operation of the Community's
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy instruments was also of concern, including the rising incidence of such
measures and their effect on exports of developing countries.  There were a number of remarks to the
effect that technical regulations and standards, as well as SPS measures, and conformity assessment
procedures, had become a more significant aspect of market access, in some instances a barrier, andthat policies to ensure a higher level of food safety in the EU might develop in the same direction.
With respect to market access on services, several delegations indicated their interest in better
conditions of access for natural persons, both in terms of making existing GATS commitments on
temporary movement of business persons more effective, as well as broadening the scope of the EU'scommitments on such movement.  The EU also received a number of questions on its plans for
regulatory harmonization in the sectors of financial services, telecommunications and transportation.
And a number of Members have views on the policies the EU is elaborating on electronic commerce.
With respect to the protection of intellectual pr operty rights, there was considerable interest among
the membership on plans to develop a Community-wide framework on patent rights.
I should also like to draw your attention to the stimulating discussion we had on the future of
our organization, a process in which the EU is playing a key role.  We heard from the Commission
that the EU advocates a wider scope for the remit of the WTO, encompassing investment, competition
policy, environment and dialogue on issues of soci al concern.  The EU also advocates a more open
and transparent institution.  These changes, the EU argues, will better enable the organization to
harness the process of globalization and make it work for the citizens of its Members.
On some of these points, however, I noted divergent views.  Several delegations urged the EU
to focus its attention on the negotiations on the built-in agenda, rather than await the outcome ofconsensus-building on a new round.  On agriculture, we heard support from some quarters for the
EU's approach of multifunctionality, while other delegations favoured an exclusively market-oriented
agricultural policy.  A number of delegations firmly rejected integrating a social dimension – or
indeed non-trade concerns more broadly - in the conduct of trade policy, whether in the WTO or
through the GSP.
We also heard from the Commission that another component of the EU's vision of the future
of the WTO is a better integration of developing countries into the MTS, by devoting resources to
technical assistance and capacity-building, and enacting market-opening initiatives for the least-
developed among them.  In this respect some delegations urged upon the EU on the need for duty-free
quota-free access for all products originating in LDCs.  I detected a wide appreciation for the EU's
support for a WTO that is more inclusive of developing countries, to assist their integration into theworld economy, and facilitate their development.