WT/TPR/M/284  
23 October 2013  
(13-5820)  Page: 1/69  
Trade Policy Review Body 
16 and 18 July 2013    
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
EUROPEAN UNION 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr Shahid Bashir (Pakistan) 
 
CONTENTS 
 
1   INTRODUCTORY REMARK S BY THE CHAI RPERSON ...................................................... 2  
2   OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE EU ROPEAN UNION .............. 4  
3   STATEMENT BY THE DISCU SSANT ............................................................................... 8  
4   STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS........................................................................................ 11  
5   REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND 
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ............................................................................................... 53  
6   CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON ........................................................ 68  
 
 
Note: Advance written questions and additional questions by WTO Members, and the replies 
provided by the European Union are reproduced in document WT/TPR/M/284/Add.1 and will be 
available online at http://www.wto.org/ english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
1.1.  The eleventh Trade Policy Review of the European Union was held on 16 and 18 July 2013. 
The Chairperson H.E. Mr Shahid Bashir (Pakistan) welcomed the delegation of the European Union headed by Mr Peter Balas, Deputy Director Genera l, Directorate-General for Trade; the rest of the 
delegation from Brussels; colleagues from the mission in Geneva; and the discussant, 
H.E. Mr Tim Yeend (Australia). 
1.2.  The Chairperson recalled the purpose of th e Trade Policy Reviews and the main elements of 
the procedures for the meeting. The report by the European Union was contained in document 
WT/TPR/G/284 and that of the WT O Secretariat in WT/TPR/S/284. 
1.3.  The European Union adopted the alternative timeline for its TPRB meeting. Questions by the 
following delegations had been submitted in writing at least four weeks in advance and had been 
transmitted to the delegation of the European Union: Switzerland; the United States; El Salvador; 
Colombia; Australia; Hong Kong, China; China; Ukraine; Argentina; New Zealand; Singapore; South Africa; India; Costa Rica; the Republic of Korea; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Japan; Chile; Norw ay; Brazil; Canada; Mexico; and Indonesia. The 
following six delegations submitted written qu estions after the four week deadline: Brunei 
Darussalam on behalf of ASEAN; the Dominican Republic; Pakistan; the Russian Federation; 
Turkey; Malaysia; Guatemala; Trinidad and Tobago; Ecuador; and Thailand. 
1.4.  The Chairperson congratulated the EU on it s enlargement to 28 Members, and Croatia on its 
recent accession. Even before it applied for membership in 2003, Croatia had started to undertake significant reforms, a process which continued during its accession negotiations as was noted by 
the TPR Body in its review of Croatia in 2010. 
1.5.  In the EU, the economic and financial crisis of the past few years has dominated 
developments and GDP growth has remained weak or even negative. The low level of domestic 
demand in many member States is one of th e main factors behind the subdued economic 
performance. At the same time trade, both imports and exports of goods and services has continued to grow, although the EU's share of world trade has declined as some other WTO 
Members' trade has increased even more rapidly. 
1.6.  In the EU, there were big differences in economic performance among member States, 
largely due to their exposure and response to the crisis. Hopefully, the measures taken at both the 
EU and member-State levels should lead to an improvement in economic conditions and a more 
sustainable basis for growth in the near future. 
1.7.  The EU remains a vital pillar of the WT O and the multilateral trading system, and the 
Chairperson was pleased to note in its report to the Trade Policy Review Body that the "WTO 
represents the multilateral bedrock of the European Union trade policy." But, as in the last TPR of 
the EU, there are concerns about the emphasis given to negotiating free-trade agreements, including the on-going negotiations with Canada and the negotiations with the United States that 
started last week. 
1.8.  In the 2011 review, Members welcomed the EU's use of the Generalized System of 
Preferences to provide assistance to developing  countries and the Everything-but-Arms scheme for 
least-developed countries. However, some Members have indicated concerns about the reformed 
GSP scheme which was agreed in October 2012 and is to apply from the start of 2014. 
1.9.  Concerns about regulatory obstacles to market access were raised in the last TPR and again 
in this one, particularly in relation to standards, technical regulations, and sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures. At the last TPR, the EU was encouraged to use international best 
practices for transparency and to increase its cooperation with third countries. 
1.10.  Another issue raised in past TPRs of the EU was the Common Agricultural Policy, and a 
recent development of interest to Members was the political agreement of 26 June 2013 on the 
reform of the CAP. No doubt Members would like to  hear more details about what this will mean 
for agriculture in the EU and its impact on the world's markets. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.11.  Many other points were made in the reports by the EU and the Secretariat, such as the 
complexity of some tariffs, implementation of the Services Directive, public procurement by 
member States, and intellectual property. The Chai rperson' looked forward to hearing a discussion 
of these and other issues and to delegations vi ews on developments over the past two years. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2  OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
(MR BALAS) 
2.1.  It is with great pleasure that I am here today to represent the European Union at its eleventh 
Trade Policy Review meeting. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the acting Chair, 
H.E. Ambassador Shahid Bashir of Pakistan, who agreed to replace my EU colleague Joakim Reiter 
who usually chairs the TPRB; to the distingu ished discussant, H.E. Ambassador Tim Yeend of 
Australia; and to all Members participating in this review. Before diving into the substance of our 
discussions I would also like to acknowledge the hard and good work – as usual - done by the 
Trade Policy Review Division team. 
2.2.  First of all, let me note that the EU has recently enlarged so that it is the first time that 
Croatia is part of the EU Delegation to the TPR. We now have 28 Member States even if this is not 
yet reflected in the two reports before us as Croa tia’s accession was too recent to be reported in 
t h a t  c o n t e x t .  T h i s  i s ,  h o w e v e r ,  a n o t h e r  s i g n  that the EU, the current economic difficulties 
notwithstanding, remains a successful and attractive entity. 
2.3.  Moving to today’s meeting, the EU has embarked on the adventure of undertaking to follow 
the alternative timeframe – which we have warmly supported during the last review. We very much hope it will allow us to engage in good, more interactive discussions with all of you, and that 
other WTO Members will follow our example. 
2.4.  Indeed, we feel a particular responsibili ty for providing maximum transparency because of 
our position in the world trade. The EU is a top trading partner for more than 80 Members as the Secretariat reports. We are among the most open economies as reported by the Secretariat; and 
the figures confirm this: we are the first importer of agricultural products, we represent about 17% 
of the world trade in goods and more than a quar ter of trade in services, we have maintained a 
key role in world investment flows. All this despite the financial crisis and its unprecedented impact 
on the EU. Despite the hardship, we remain open and are committed to remain open. 
2.5.  The 1268 questions we received so far from 33 of the Members demonstrate the interest our 
policies raise. We have replied in writing and by the deadline to all the advance questions that we 
received on time. Furthermore, yesterday we have also provided written answers to all the 
questions which came late and which we received until the end of June. Among the many questions we received, some address European Commission proposals for future EU legislation. I would wish to clarify that these proposals are not, and cannot yet be considered as EU legislation. 
In replying to such questions we have therefore lim ited ourselves to explaining the proposals’ main 
objectives - as it is clear that we cannot yet know when, with what content, or even if they will eventually be adopted by the EU legislators.  
2.6.  Let me start with the EU’s economic situation which has improved quite a bit since the last 
EU TPR, even if our recovery is still very fragile. 
Macroeconomic outlook 
2.7.  At the time of the last EU TPR, the impact of the economic and financial crisis was still being 
strongly felt in the world economy and EU was se riously affected. Today, our economy is slowly 
emerging from the recession. Cyclical indicators provide some early and tentative signs of a modest recovery next year for the EU.  
2.8.  Since our last Trade Policy Review, considerable progress has been made to reduce the most 
urgent risks to the euro area and its financial mark ets. Nonetheless, efforts to facilitate adjustment 
and strengthen the European Monetary Union framework must continue and are actually 
continuing.  
2.9.  Firstly, several Members have raised questions on the Banking Union. Indeed, it is a top 
priority for the EU. A few weeks ago, the Eu ropean Council set out the next steps in the 
reinforcement of the European Monetary Union architecture and called for work to continue on all 
these issues in the run up to the December European Council. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.10.  Secondly, the EU is redoubling its efforts to combat unemployment that reached an 
unprecedented and unsustainable scale in some of our MS. 
2.11.  Thirdly, building strong, competitive, diversified industrial manufacturing capacities is of 
central importance for the EU’s competitiveness and job-creation potential. The renewed industrial 
strategy of the EU focuses on investment and innovation but also on mobilising all the levers 
available at EU level, notably the single market, trade policy, SME policy, competition policy, environmental and research policy in favour of European companies’ competitiveness. 
2.12.  Fourthly, the completion of the single  market and the continued attention paid to 
enforcement of competition rules in the EU are the solid foundations the EU also builds on.  
2.13.  Fifthly, the EU is committed to dramatically step up investment into new technologies and 
give Europe a competitive lead at a time wh en the speed of innovation and technological 
development has put the world on the edge of a further industrial break-through.  
2.14.  We believe that the way we conduct our trade policy will have an important impact on our 
path to economic recovery. 
2.15.  Indeed, trade is an engine for EU recovery. It has always been important but it is more 
crucial now than ever. As pointed out in the Secretariat’s report, in the coming years exports are expected to remain the main positive contributor the GDP growth in the EU.   
The EU in the world 
2.16.  We all have learnt the lessons of the Great depression. The EU is a firmly committed to 
openness and has resisted the protectionist tendencies which naturally reappeared in the context of the economic difficulties we have been facing in  the last few years. We are extremely vigilant at 
home and we will on the other hand keep on combatting new barriers faced abroad by our 
exporters. 
2.17.  Regarding trade in goods, while the Secretariat’s report stresses the rise of EU imports of 
fuels since 2009 it also documents impressive import growth in many other product categories – 
thereby underpinning that the EU has remained one of  the largest export destination for the rest of 
the world.  
2.18.  Regarding the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, a political agreement was reached 
on 26 June between the Commission, the EP and the Council. After formal adoption of the reform, the new CAP should be in place early next year. This reform continues in the direction set by the previous ones. We have increased the market orie ntation of European agriculture while improving 
the integration of environmental requirements and reinforcing support for rural development. 
Decoupled direct payments, which will remain the core of CAP spending, give freedom to farmers to produce to market needs while providing them wi th income support to ensure provision of public 
goods to the society. Under the new "greening" provision, a part of the direct payments will be 
linked to a farmer's compliance with sustainable agricultural practices beneficial to soil quality, biodiversity and the environment. The role of mark et measures will be maintained as a safety net 
for farmers in crisis situations. Rural development policy will focus on increasing competitiveness 
and promoting innovation of European agricult ure and rural areas. The package represents a 
strong EU response to the challenges which have been identified as key for the coming years such as food security, climate change, growth and jobs in rural areas.  
2.19.  I also take this opportunity to reaffirm the EU’s commitment to conclude the DDA as a 
whole in order to establish a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system. In that context the EU has offered to substantially improve market access conditions, to phase out all forms of 
export subsidies and to substantially reduce trade-di storting domestic support as part of an overall 
ambitious and balanced package. 
2.20.  Services sectors constitute the vital backbo ne of EU growth and recovery. This is why the 
EU, which is already quite open regarding trade in services as noted by the Secretariat in its 
detailed analysis of EU services markets, has embarked on the negotiation of several bilateral and WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 6 - 
 
  regional economic integration agreements and the plurilateral “Trade In Services Agreement”. The 
further deepening of the EU’s internal market in th at area could also lead to additional gains.  
2.21.  A number of Members have raised questi ons regarding the coexistence between existing 
Member States’ Bilateral Investment Treaties and EU-wide future investment agreements. From 
the outset, I would like to reassure you that, until there is any EU investment agreement with third 
countries, which is not the case yet, existing BITs will continue to apply. The EU's investment policy is focused on providing EU investors with both legal certainty and market access. The EU will 
therefore continue to aim at enhancing the overall level of liberalization with regard to market 
access for investment.  
2.22.  Progress was also made during the reporting period in the area of IPRs. Firstly, we have 
reached a political agreement in the EU on the creation of a unitary patent protection. Secondly, 
the EU has just adopted a Regulation concerning  customs enforcement of intellectual property 
rights that will become applicable next year.  
2.23.  Government procurement is a very important element in the EU economy and we received 
numerous questions on this subject. I hope everyo ne here is aware that WTO Members are offered 
a access to up to 85% of EU public procurement over the GPA thresholds values either via FTA 
commitments with the EU or within the GPA, su bject to a satisfactory level of symmetrical 
opening. This is quite a remarkable feature.  
2.24.  Generally speaking the EU ranks among the most open economies as was reported by the 
Secretariat. And in practice, this is also reflected by the modest ranking of the EU in terms of use of anti-dumping measures taking into account EU’s volume of trade and imports compared to the 
other major trading partners. 
2.25.  During the reporting period the EU has continued to attach much importance to the nexus 
between trade and development. The EU is the worl d’s largest donor in the area of Aid for Trade 
and we also remain one of the largest and most open importers of goods originating in developing 
countries. Furthermore, in parallel to carrying preferential negotiations with a great number of developing countries, the EU has reviewed its GSP scheme to ensure that its benefits would focus 
on those poor countries that need them the most.   
2.26.  The EU believes strongly that in an increasingly complex world where economic and trade 
integration grows, the only possible way to ensure sustainability and inclusive outcomes is through 
strong multilateral trade and investment rules. 
The EU and the multilateral trading system  
2.27.  EU has always been and will continue to be a firm supporter of the multilateral trading 
system.  
2.28.  Since the last TPR the EU has not spared its effort to strengthen the multilateral trading 
system and ensure that it adjusts to the quickl y evolving international environment. The EU’s 
priority is to ensure a successful 9th WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali later this year. 
Unfortunately, this is not something that the EU can do alone so we count on the active and 
constructive involvement of all WTO Members into making the Ministerial Conference a success. The EU firmly believes that a successful MC9, which sees agreement on Trade Facilitation and 
some agriculture and development issues, is a prerequisite for further work on the other parts of 
the DDA in the immediate future.  
2.29.  I am sure now that some of you already want to present counter argument and ask: are 
those FTAs consistent with EU’s ambition to strengthen the WTO and overcome the DDA impasse? 
2.30.  Let me tell you that this is not an "either…or " type of question for us. We will continue to try 
and move forward the agenda in the WTO. But we also make sure that we move ahead with our FTA agenda in a way that is fully compatible with multilateral liberalisation and rulemaking.  WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.31.  The EU is convinced that ambitious bilateral and regional agreements will send a clear signal 
of our joint willingness to open markets on goods and services as well as tackling complex regulatory issues. It may also pave the way to futu re multilateral negotiations in our Organization.  
EU follow up to last TPR chair remarks 
2.32.  The EU takes seriously the TPR exercise and took into account the remarks made at the end 
of our last review. I have already reacted to some  of those, so let me still address a couple of 
other issues that were included in the Chairman’s conclusion in 2011.  
2.33.  We received many questions as to how th ird countries views can be taken into account in 
the early stages of our preparations of EU legislation. There are many ways for stakeholders in third countries to get their views heard during the development of EU legislation, in particular in 
the framework of the systematic Impact Assessmen t studies and during the EU wide consultations 
that are always made online prior to the release of any legislative proposal by the European 
Commission. These consultations are open to all interested parties. I am therefore pleased to note that these procedures are described in details in the Secretariat’s Report.  
2.34.  Regarding the degree of integration and harmon ization of rules, be it on TBT or SPS, let me 
recall that the EU has reached a level of integration that is remarkable and unprecedented in the world. The very few areas where we are not harm onized are those in general where subsidiarity 
applies within the EU in conformity with our Treaty. 
2.35.  In conclusion, let me say again even with the risk of repeating myself that I am looking 
forward with great interest to experience myself, after quite a number of TPRs that I have attended in my capacity as the head of EU delegation, how the alternative timeframe may induce 
more interactivity in our debates, which I very much welcome.   WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 8 - 
 
  3  STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT (H.E. MR TIM YEEND (AUSTRALIA)) 
3.1.  It is a great honour for me to be discu ssant at the eleventh Trade Policy Review of the 
European Union. We have already made a positive start with the excellent presentation from Mr Peter Balas, and this comes on the back of  the detailed and quality reports from the WTO 
Secretariat and the European Union. I would also like to join with others in welcoming Croatia to 
this Trade Policy Review as part of the EU delegation. 
3.2.  The on-going financial and sovereign debt crises have dominated political discourse in the EU 
since the last Trade Policy Review in 2011. While the EU economy started to recover in 2010 and 
2011, the worsening sovereign debt crises and a slowdown in global trade saw overall GDP in the EU decline again in 2012, by some 0.3%. Of co urse, economic performance between the various 
EU member States is widely varied. The effect of the crisis on some EU members has been 
profound, with enormous contractions in GDP leaving historically high levels of unemployment and 
government budget profiles that are requiring a fundamental rebalancing in terms of levels of 
public expenditure and government revenues. The lo ng-term challenges for these countries will be 
immense, although in most instances the impression now is that much of the hard work has at 
least been started and that we should start to see improvements starting over the next few years. Other EU countries, those with more sustainable de bt profiles and higher levels of productivity, 
have fared better. But the challenges for Europe as a whole remain. 
3.3.  European countries have over the past few years taken some very difficult decisions and 
started the process of implementing a range of po licies and measures designed to help overcome 
these economic problems. While recovery will be long and drawn out, and for some individual EU 
countries also painful, there is at least the sense now that the corner has been turned – although 
much more hard work is still required for Europe to return to solid and sustainable levels of growth and prosperity. It is also worth emphasising that , despite the economic challenges facing the EU, 
there has been no retreat into protectionism. 
3.4.  On that note, I find it very encouraging th at the EU has, in its own Report for this Trade 
Policy Review, made such a clear point up front about the importance of trade for the EU’s 
economic recovery. We’ve heard this from Peter today and in just the second paragraph of its 
report, the EU also states that “(t)rade has never been more important for the European Union’s economy; it has become an important means of ac hieving much needed growth and creating jobs 
without drawing on public finances”. I couldn’t agree more. Time and again the facts have shown 
that trade has a positive impact during good times and bad. That is true for the biggest economies 
and the smallest, for the most advanced economies and the least developed. And that is why all of 
us in this room continue our efforts to make it easier for our businesses to participate in global 
markets and global value chains. 
3.5.  While much of the EU’s policy-making atte ntion in recent years has been focused on the 
broader economic and fiscal challenges, there have nevertheless been a number of developments 
in the EU’s trade policy regime that could be worth deeper consideration over the next two days. 
3.6.  To start, let me begin by noting that littl e has changed during the review period in terms of 
the EU’s tariff regime. Tariffs for agricultural products entering the EU remain significantly higher than for non-agricultural products. The average tariff on agricultural products stands at 14.8%, 
while for non-agricultural products it is only 6.5%. The average tariff rate for agricultural products 
has declined over the past five years, from 17.8 to  14.8%, although this is almost entirely due to 
the impact of higher global prices for agricultural products on the EU’s complex system of non- ad 
valorem  tariffs, rather than any tariff reform within the EU. Tariffs on meat, sugar and dairy 
remain considerably above the overall average tari ff for agricultural products. EU tariff reform, 
particularly in relation to agriculture, remains a key focus for many WTO Members. 
3.7.  Many WTO Members have also been closely watching developments in the negotiations for 
the next phase of the Common Agricultural Policy – or CAP – running from 2014-2020. The EU has undertaken solid reforms of the CAP over the past  decade to make the CAP less trade-distorting, 
and WTO Members have been hoping that the direct ion of such reform would be continued in the 
2014-2020 period. The recent announcement on 26 June of a political agreement for the new CAP 
was welcome, although a number of key elements of the CAP package linked to the EU multiannual budget were delayed until the broader budget pa ckaged was passed. An agreement on that budget WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 9 - 
 
  framework was finalized two weeks ago, so WTO Members will again be watching developments 
closely to see how the CAP package is concluded. Most WTO Members will be disappointed if the new CAP does not continue with the process of redu cing the level of trade distorting agricultural 
subsidies, including pernicious export subsidies. I expect the CAP to be the subject of further 
discussion during this Trade Policy Review. 
3.8.  WTO Members have welcomed some of the EU’s  efforts to deal with problems of overfishing 
and illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Reduction of trade and production distorting 
subsidies for the European fishing industry will be  an important element of this into the future. 
Numerous Members in their questions have also made reference to the new EU Regulation 1026/2012, which allows the EU to take measures against third countries which allow non-sustainable fishing in a fishery shared with the EU. While the underlying objective of such a 
plan seems reasonable, Members will be interested to know that such extraterritorial measures are 
implemented in a manner consistent with WTO rules. 
3.9.  Work towards the single market in the EU  has progressed considerably over the past few 
decades and, as Pascal Lamy said during a speech in Brussels recently, having the most advanced 
level of economic integration is a strong advantage for the EU that other regions are still aspiring to. However, while good progress has been made, it is also true that the European project is still 
evolving. The OECD notes that the EU’s internal market remains fragmented in many areas and 
that strengthening the single market should be at the centre of EU policy action to boost growth. 
3.10.  The unfulfilled promise of a European single market also poses challenges for the EU’s 
trading partners. For example, there are numer ous areas where the EU has competence for 
establishing Europe-wide laws and regulations, while implementation is either the sole 
responsibility of member States or shared jointly with the EU. Where member States are responsible for laws, there can be a wide disparity between the way in which the laws are 
implemented and enforced. Take the areas of cu stoms procedures, where the EU has exclusive 
competence for customs policy and legislation, but implementation is done nationally. The time it takes to complete customs formalities can vary widely – from between 5-6 days for some EU 
members to 15-19 days for others – making it particularly challenging for businesses which trade 
with a number of EU countries. The Secretariat Report provides further information on some of the other challenges of customs administration between different EU member States. 
3.11.  There are numerous other areas where the competence and implementation of policies and 
laws between the EU and its member States can be inconsistent and confusing for other WTO 
Members. This includes areas such as technical regulations and SPS requirements, taxation and government procurement. Further views on these issues from Members and the EU over the next 
couple of days would be interesting. 
3.12.  Services is another area where solid work has been undertaken within the EU to increase 
competition and efficiency, but where further work is still needed. The EU Services Directive has 
now been transposed into national law in all EU member States but, as the OECD identified in its 
2013 Going for Growth review, further work is need ed to reduce administrative barriers to entry 
and ease the regulatory burdens that hinder cr oss-border trade. There should also be more 
effective implementation of policies to increase competition in transport, postal, 
telecommunications and port and energy related services. There has also been considerable work 
within the EU on financial services reform in the wake of the financial crisis, although, as the Secretariat Report notes, at least these reforms have not introduced new market access or 
national treatment limitations for foreign providers. Positively, while new prudential regulatory 
requirements have been introduced, many of th ese requirements also include the concept of 
equivalence for the supervisory and regulatory agencies of other countries. 
3.13.  EU rules on the publication of data relati ng to public procurement provide important levels 
of transparency, particularly for procurement above nominated thresholds. However, the Secretariat also notes in its Report – and others have asked questions about – the large amount of procurement taking place below the threshold levels for detailed reporting. In 2008 this amounted 
to around 250 billion euros or 2% of EU GDP, and in 2010 for some EU members the level of 
government procurement above the threshold re presented less than 7% of total government 
procurement. This results in minimal transparency  for large amounts of government procurement, 
particularly at the sub-federal level. There may also be high levels of procurement by state-owned 
or state-controlled enterprises, although there is also limited public information about these WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 10 - 
 
  enterprises. Given the size of the public procur ement market in the EU, further transparency on 
public procurement would be welcomed by all WTO Members. 
3.14.  In terms of intellectual property, an in teresting development in the EU over the review 
period has been the creation of a European patent  with unitary effect. The current system requires 
patent holders to request validation in individual EU members States, a timely and costly process. 
Agreement on the new unitary patent system for the EU was reached in December 2012 and is due to come into effect in 2014. I know many WTO Members will be hoping the EU member States 
act quickly to undertake the necessary steps to  bring these new arrangements into force. 
3.15.  Given its place as one of the major players in the global trading system, the position the EU 
takes on trade policy issues remains highly import ant. While the changing dynamic in global trade 
has seen the growing importance and influence of other countries and regions – particularly the 
large emerging economies – the position of the EU  as the world’s largest trading bloc means it 
remains a central figure in the development of global, regional and bilateral trading rules. This role will continue in the foreseeable future. The EU is central to our work here in Geneva, across all 
pillars of the WTO’s mandate, be it negotiations, monitoring or the dispute settlement system. I 
particularly urge the EU to continue to play a leadership role in efforts to finalise a substantial package for WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali in December. 
3.16.  Likewise, given its place in the global trading system, the EU’s regional and bilateral 
negotiations have the ability to shape global tr ading rules. New FTA negotiations such as those 
between the EU and Japan and the EU and the US  will be watched closely. These types of 
agreements have the potential to have an impact well beyond the direct bilateral trading 
relationships, including here in Geneva. We encourage the EU and its negotiating partners to keep 
this in mind as these negotiations progress, including in the development of new rules that will foster a more open, predictable and fair trading system. 
3.17.  Before concluding, I want to note again that it has been a difficult period economically for 
the EU over the past few years and many of the challenges the EU has been confronting remain. 
The EU and the governments of its member States have implemented a large range of measures 
to help put the European economy onto a more ba lanced and sustainable path of growth into the 
future, but this will require commitment to seeing  out the relevant reforms for a number of years 
to come. Trade will remain an indispensable elem ent in the EU’s economic recovery. I hope that 
the recovery which is now underway will have be come more firmly embedded when we meet again 
for the next EU Trade Policy Review in two years’ time. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 11 - 
 
  4  STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 
SWITZERLAND 4.1.  Owing to geographic and cultural proximity, and its economic and political weight, 
the European Union (EU) and its 28 member States are by far Switzerland's main partners. 
Last year, over half of Swiss exports were sent to the EU, and three quarters of its imports came 
from there. In 2012 Switzerland was the EU's fourth largest merchandise trade partner, and the third most important export market for EU products. 
4.2.  WTO rules clearly form the basis for trade between Switzerland and the EU. On this point, 
Switzerland wishes to draw attention to the active and constructive role played by the EU in WTO negotiations and to specially highlight the excellent work and great dedication of Ambassador Angelos Pangratis in activities within the WTO and, in particular, also in the 
preparations for the WTO Ninth Ministerial in Bali. 
4.3.  Apart from the WTO agreements, the EU and Switzerland have a bilateral edifice consisting 
of nearly 120 bilateral agreements that guarantee extended and reciprocal access to their 
respective markets. This forms the basis of close collaboration in various political spheres, 
such as research, security, asylum, the environment and culture. 
4.4.  Given the intensity of our relations, difficulties occurring in the euro zone are likely to have 
major repercussions for Switzerland. Although the debt crisis has eased in recent months, 
the southern euro zone countries continue to face difficulties. This delicate situation also has indirect effects on Switzerland, in the trade sp here specifically. Firstly, if uncertainty were 
to intensify, the Swiss franc could be seen as a sa fe haven for the euro, and rise again in response 
to strong upward pressures. Secondly, demand in our EU trade partners would likely stall. 
4.5.  We would like to take this opportunity given to raise three points that concern us: 4.6.  Firstly, the launch of trade and investment negotiations between the EU and 
the United States has aroused great interest in Switzerland. An agreement of this type between 
two Members that account for almost 50% of GD P and 30% of merchandise trade worldwide could 
have a considerable impact on the multilateral trading system, and on WTO Members' relations 
with the EU and the United States. We hope that the negotiations and eventual conclusion of such 
an agreement will not undermine the EU's commitment to the multilateral trading system. Given the large scale of this project, it beho ves the two parties involved to ensure that 
the resultant regime is compatible with the international structure of world trade - characterized 
by an unprecedented development of global valu e-added chains. It is therefore important that 
this trade and investment agreement be conceived as a catalyst for multilateral initiatives, based on a principle of inclusion rather than exclusion. 
4.7.  Secondly, the treatment of third countries en visaged by the review of the Market in Financial 
Instruments Directive is bound to cause some concern in Switzerland. The requirement to set up a branch in the EU through which all financial services would be supplied will, in practice, 
close the EU market to most cross-border service provision to private clients. 
4.8.  This partitioning of the market is not in the interests of integrated and global financial 
markets, and it restricts competition to the detriment of EU investors and markets. Moreover, investor protection can be guaranteed without the need to open a branch in the EU, 
provided two conditions are met: 
 if there is effective third-party surveillance an d the surveillance authorities are recognized 
in the cooperation accords, and 
 if customers can uphold their investor protection rights under the EU legal regime. 
4.9.  Switzerland is therefore of the opinion that  economic agents in third countries should be 
allowed to continue actively providing transborder services to small-scale investors in the EU. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 12 - 
 
  4.10.  Thirdly, Switzerland is concerned at the way certain EU member States apply anti-dumping 
duties when products that are subject to EU anti-dumping duties, are used as components 
in the value-added chain of a third country that  is not subject those duties. We would like to 
remind the EU that an extension of anti-dumping duties to third countries without a prior 
anti-dumping inquiry, contravenes the WTO Anti-D umping Agreement. The written question that 
we have just filed on the subject contains detailed information on a case of concern to us. 
UNITED  STATES   
4 . 1 1 .   T h i s  i s  a n  e x c i t i n g  a n d  w e l l - t i m e d  o c c a s i o n  f o r  u s  t o  h a v e  t h e  o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  h a v e  t h i s  
exchange with our EU colleagues, given the recent conclusion of the first round of negotiations of 
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partners hip agreement, or "TTIP." The United States 
government values its trade and economic relation ship with the EU immensely; trade between our 
economies accounts for nearly half of global GDP and 30% of global trade. Each day, goods and 
services worth nearly US$3 billion are trade across the Atlantic. Our investment relationship reached nearly US$4 trillion in 2011. More than US$9 million is traded between us every five 
minutes. 
4.12.  Even so, we believe that the U.S.-EU econom ic relationship can be an even more productive 
source of trade, jobs, and growth. That convicti on prompted U.S. and EU leaders to launch the 
TTIP negotiations. 
4.13.  The United States and other WTO Member s have also benefitted from the EU's strong 
support, over many decades. For a rules-based multilateral trading system and for the steady reduction of barriers in successive rounds of multilateral trade negotiations. We and the EU believe 
that the TTIP can complement and enhance the trade liberalization that has occurred within the 
multilateral trading system. 
4.14.  We are pleased to note that most of ou r bilateral trade with the EU is unimpeded by 
significant trade barriers, and that the disagreements that we sometimes have on certain bilateral 
or multilateral issue do not interfere with our extensive cooperation on other issues. 
4.15.  We have concerns, however,  with EU trade and Investment policies in several areas. I would 
briefly like to highlight several of these concerns, many of which we have previously raised both in 
this forum and other bilateral and multilateral interactions. 
4.16.  First, the EU's barriers to our agricultural  exports remain a significant concern, both with 
respect to high tariff protection and non-tari ff barriers, including sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures that are based on science or risk assessment. For example, the EU prohibits the use of 
ractopamine in livestock production even though the EU has failed to put forward a valid risk assessment or compelling scientific evidence to su pport its measure and despite the existence of a 
relevant international standard setting maximum residue levels for beef and pork products. The EU 
also continues to restrict the importation and marketing of certain agricultural biotechnology products resulting in significant disruptions of trade. Because of these and other barriers, U.S. 
agricultural exporters have been unable to take  full advantage of the market access obligations 
agreed to by the EU during the Uruguay Round. 
4.17.  Second, other non-tariff barriers remain some of the most significant barriers to U.S. 
exports to the European Union. As we have consistently noted in the WTO TBT Committee, the 
United States has broad concerns about the EU's policies and procedures to develop and 
implement technical regulations, standards and co nformity assessment, as well as concerns about 
specific measures that affect a wide range of U. S. exporters in many sectors, including chemicals 
and wine. 
4.18.  The EU's regulatory and legislative proce sses also do not typically provide essential and 
meaningful opportunity for WTO Members and their stakeholders to comment on regulatory 
proposals. Further, we have concerns regarding th e apparent lack of mechanisms to ensure that 
stakeholder comments will be taken into account in final regulations. Our experience has been that internal deliberations within the Commission and among EU member States on draft regulatory proposals progress much too far before trading partners and their stakeholders can provide views 
on the proposed text. As a result, by the time the EU considers these views, it is often too late to WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 13 - 
 
  influence the character of the regulatory proposal, even on matters that have enormous trade 
implications. 
4.19.  Next, with respect to specific sectoral concerns, we have asked the EU to clarify its 
approach to setting maximum residue limits for plant protection on products for which a 
registration is temporarily or permanently suspended on the basis of a specific hazard criterion. 
4.20.  In addition, as we have noted in the WTO Antidumping Committee, we remain disappointed 
with the manner in which the EU conducted its investigation into U.S bioethanol exports, which 
resulted in the imposition of antidumping duti es. The United States has raised a number of 
significant procedural and methodological issues during and after the investigation. These issues 
continue to raise concerns under the WTO Antidumping Agreement. 
4.21.  We would also like to reiterate our longstanding concern regarding the EU's subsidization of 
its fishing fleet and the impact the resulting excess capacity has on overfished fish stocks in both 
EU and international waters. We understand the EU is currently undertaking reform efforts of its Common Fisheries Policy. We urge the EU to enact real reform of its fisheries subsidies policies to 
complement its robust fisheries management practices. 
4.22.  Finally, inconsistent implementation of internal market rules continues to constrain trade for 
EU and foreign producers alike. We applaud the European Commission's efforts to eliminate 
lingering internal barriers to the free flow of g oods and look forward to hearing how the EU intends 
to address remaining barriers – including those that are not scientifically justified – to the free flow of goods at the EU and member State levels. 
4.23.  We would like to thank the EU for providin g answers to our written questions. We sought to 
address matters that we consider particularly important and for which we were unable to obtain 
answers independently. We hope that others will consider following the same approach in the future for all Members' TPRs. 
4.24.  In closing, the United States welcomes th is opportunity and is hopeful that our exchanges 
during the TPR will provide some perspective on wa ys that the EU's trade policy can help expand 
the benefits we have all gained from our trade with Member countries of the European Union. 
EL
 SALVADOR 
4.25.  From the reports presented, we note that  EU trade policy trade policy continues to seek 
to progressively abolish or lower obstacles to international trade, contribute to sustainable development, and harness the opportunities of glob alization; and that in the face of the global 
financial crisis, trade remains an important element driving the growth of the economy 
of its member States, helping to create jobs and raising productivity, among other relevant issues. 
4.26.  We also note that, in response to the crisis, the European Union took major decisions aimed 
at strengthening its capacity to cope with the economic slowdown and continue moving forward, 
taking major decisions such as the creation of a banking union as a single supervision mechanism, together with a number of legislative measures to better protect investors and strengthen 
the single market, while continuing to take specific steps aimed at trade liberalization through 
several multilateral and bilateral mechanisms. 
4.27.  We also note that that the period under review has seen a number of legislative activities 
aimed at strengthening the legal structure of the European Union, its institutional framework, 
health care for its citizens, among others – initiatives on which we recognize legitimate objectives, 
but wish to express our worry that these new initiatives, when applied, could affect the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of  Intellectual Property and the Agreement 
on Technical Barriers to Trade, among others. For example, we are still worried about the 
definitive implementation the REACH regulation, even though this has been proceeding slowly. 
Despite numerous information sessions, we are still unclear as to the actions that could be taken 
to prevent trade injury for developing members when this regulation is implemented and put into 
practice, bearing in mind the constant proces s of amendments to applicable regulations, 
some of which are not available in Spanish. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.28.  Our delegation is also concerned by the excessive burden that compliance entails for small 
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) – an impact that is recognized by the European Commission 
in its February 2013 report on the functioning of the REACH. On this issue, we align ourselves with delegations that have raised specific questions on the type of steps that have been taken, 
or it is intended to take, to reduce the administ rative burden for SMEs in third countries, which will 
affect the conditions of competition. 
4.29.  According to the reports that have been pres ented, we note with satisfaction that steps are 
being taken, at both the EU member State levels, to reduce public deficits and improve economic 
governance, and that the full implementation of those measures is expected to support economic 
recovery in 2013 and 2014. 
4.30.  El Salvador has long-standing trading relationship with the European Union, which has 
boosted trade and investment flows between the two regions, reflecting our different development 
levels. While providing a significant commercial niche for strategic products such as chilled tuna fish, chilled whole lobster and izote cane, am ong others, our market is experiencing growing 
trade flows in traditional products. We hope these will increase considerably in the coming years 
as a result of steps taken by our respective authorities to maximize the benefits obtained from the Association Agreement, whose trade pillar comes into force on 1 August this year both 
for El Salvador and for other Central American countries. 
4.31.  In line with the required pace of implementa tion, we also look forward to stronger political 
relations and cooperation programmes, which will provide trade and investment opportunities leading overall to better living conditions for our citizens. 
4.32.  "The Association Agreement represents a historic event for the country and 
the Central American region and also for Europe, since it is the first agreement of its type, negotiated between two regions. It represents bo th a national and a regional trade opportunity. 
The importance of this agreement can be gauged by  the fact that Europe is El Salvador's third 
most important market after the United States and Central America." 
4.33.  With regard to the multilateral negotiatio ns in progress in this Organization, especially 
under the Doha Development Agenda, the European Union is participating actively 
in all discussions and has submitted proposals in various WTO bodies, relating to negotiations on intellectual property, trade facilitation, and ot hers. We would also highlight its active work 
on the Organization's ordinary committees, such as Technical Barriers to Trade, Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures, the Working Group on Transfer of Technology, among others. 
4.34.  The European Union's leadership is important, and it could help forge the consensus that 
Members need to achieve satisfactory outcomes in  the forthcoming Ministerial Conference to be 
held in Bali, Indonesia, given the importance we attach to the multilateral trading system as the 
cornerstone of trade regulation among the community of nations. 
COLOMBIA 
4.35.  In his State of the Union Address of September 2012, the President of the European 
Commission, José Manuel Durão Barroso, made a remark that aptly reflects the content of this review: "The reality is that in an interconnected world, Europe's member States on their own are no longer able to effectively steer the course of events ... globalization demands more European 
unity. More unity demands more integration". 
4.36.  The last two years have posed a major challenge to the integration process in Europe, 
which has had to concentrate on dealing with the effects of the financial crises. An initial important 
element to highlight, as noted in the Secretaria t Report, is that few changes have been made 
to trade policies, and there has been no resort to protectionism in response to the crisis. The European Union remains an open economy th at applies transparent rules and procedures, 
although some sectors, particularly agriculture, continued to enjoy a high level of protection. 
4.37.  The European market has withstood the crisis well:, the EU remained the world's largest 
trading bloc in the period under review, and its imports and exports both grew. Having a single WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 15 - 
 
  trade policy and a common legislation in most trade-related areas has helped ensure that trade 
plays a central role in its economic performance. 
4.38.  Nonetheless, and despite the increase in th e value of its exports, its share in world trade 
has been shrinking – 16.4% in 2011 compared to 17.5% in 2010 and 18.4% in 2009. The causes 
of this decline include the diversity of economic structures within the bloc. 
4.39.  The policies recently adopted by the EU have made it possible to reduce the 
public-debt-to-GDP ratio in most EU member States, from -6.5% in 2010 to -4.4% in 2011, 
although the pace of reduction has been slower than in the previous period. This situation has 
contributed to higher unemployment across th e EU, which rose from 9.7% in 2011 to 10.5% 
in November 2012, albeit unevenly distributed among the different member states. 
4.40.  With regard to EU trade policy, we wish to highlight several important facts in the 
Secretariat Report: 
 The EU and its member States continue to be one of the main providers of aid for trade. 
 
 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures are harmonized, as also is the EU's legislation on 
technical requirements. Nonetheless, significan t differences remain between member States 
in a number of spheres. 
 
 On intellectual property (IP), a European patent was created with unitary effect, 
and a unified framework has been set up to promote quality agricultural products and foodstuffs, through geographical indications. 
 
 There is little official information available at the EU level on State-owned or controlled 
enterprises, which have significan t effects on trade and investment. 
 
 It is not clear how procurement takes place below the thresholds defined in EU legislation 
and in the Agreement on Government Procurement because of differences in reporting 
among member States. 
 4.41.  In short, the integration process continues to move ahead in its different domains; but as progress is made, the differences that exist between its members can be more clearly 
discerned. In our opinion, this is the major challenge in the future for the European Union: 
how to cope with the diversity of economic structures within the bloc, given the common goal of improving society's welfare. 
4.42.   On this point, it is worth recalling the words of Robert Schuman: "Europe will not be made 
all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity." 
AUSTRALIA 
4.43.  Australia and the EU enjoy a significant trade relationship. The EU’s 28 members together 
constitute one of Australia's top five trading partners, with total two-way trade of over AUD$81 billion in 2012. The EU is Australia’s largest source of foreign investment and the most 
common overseas destination for Australian investors. 
4.44.  Australia recognizes the difficult economic cl imate the EU has been operating in since its last 
Trade Policy Review. Australia acknowledges the reforms the EU has adopted and hopes to see 
on-going support for further growth. 
4.45.  Australia notes recent reforms to the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy; but more is needed. 
Financial support to farmers remains high and the CAP continues to distort significantly farm 
production in Europe. The recent political agreement on the CAP package appears to allow EU 
member States to increase their use of coupled payments. 
4.46.  Australia considers that the declining use of  export subsidies by the EU is welcome, but the 
continued application of some export refunds remains a concern. Export subsidies have long been WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 16 - 
 
  recognized as among the most damaging of trad e measures, and export subsidies on agriculture 
undercut the interests of developing country agricultural exporters. Australia sees no justification for the on-going use of export subsidies by any WT O Member. They seem particularly ill-advised in 
a context of on-going budgetary pressure across the EU. 
4.47.  Australia acknowledges the impasse in the Doha Round negotiations, but notes its on-going 
interest in improving market access for agricultural products globally and, in this context, addressing the EU’s frequently prohibitive tariffs and quotas in this sector. Australia notes the EU’s 
responses on this point, which provide no justification for high EU tariffs other than that the EU 
has the right to impose such tariffs under WTO rules. 
4.48.  Australia appreciates the EU’s intention to clarify the rules for third-country access to the EU 
government procurement market. Australia welcomes assurances that current levels of market 
openness will remain, including for countries like Australia, which have open government 
procurement markets, but no formal arrangement with the EU. 
4.49.  The EU’s efforts to harmonize its internal  market and to ensure a transparent regulatory 
system are commendable. However, there are areas of inconsistent application of EU regulations 
across EU member States, including implementati on of the EU services directives. Full and 
consistent implementation of EU regulations will have a positive impact for EU member States as 
well as for trading partners. 
4.50.  Some EU technical regulations impose restri ctions on the processing of products imported 
from outside the EU which are not applied to equivalent products produced and transported within the EU. One example is the transformation of still wine to sparkling wine. Australia urges the EU to 
address national treatment issues in existing and new EU regulations to ensure that imported and 
locally-produced goods are treated equally. 
4.51.  Australia notes the EU’s responses to Aust ralia’s questions about its ambitious FTA agenda, 
including its negotiations with the United States and Japan. FTAs among major economies have 
the potential to have a significant impact on global trade, and Australia urges the EU to pursue its negotiations in a manner that supports the multilateral trading system. 
4.52.  Australia understands the EU is aiming to include a chapter in all new FTAs providing for the 
protection of geographical indications. Australia urges the EU not to seek commitments that would 
prevent third countries from freely trading products with names that are widely understood to be common or generic. 
4.53.  Turning to the Geneva agenda, Australia  commends the EU’s deep commitment to the 
multilateral trading system. Australia welcomes th e efforts the EU has been making to achieve a 
meaningful package for MC9 and encourages the EU to  continue to play an active leadership role 
here in the lead-up to Bali. 
4.54.  Australia is pleased to be working closely with the EU and other WTO Members in driving 
negotiations on the Trade in Services Agreement. Australia shares the EU’s interest in achieving a 
high-ambition outcome for this agreement, which will support the multilateral trading system. 
HONG
 KONG,  CHINA 
4.55.  The cultural and economic ties between Ho ng Kong and Europe are very close. More than 
1 600 European companies have operations in Hong Kong, including one-fifth of the city’s 
150 licensed banks. From Hong Kong, services exports and investment are well established in the 
EU in such key sectors as telecommunications, publ ic transport, logistics, waste management and, 
more recently, wine-making. 
4.56.  I am sure that Hong Kong, China and the EU  will continue to build on our close relationship. 
4.57.  Turning to the specific aspects of the EU’s  trade policies, we commend its recognition of the 
benefits of trade facilitation and welcome its facilitation measures. It is now possible to complete 
customs formalities at the port of arrival when the destination is in another member State. The 
European Commission also initiated in February 2012 a plan further to streamline its existing WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 17 - 
 
  customs procedures by, for example, replacing pape r-based procedures with electronic ones. Such 
moves are clearly still necessary, when the time taken to clear customs can be measured in weeks. 
4.58.  On tariffs, we commend the EU for having bound all its tariff lines, of which around one 
quarter are duty free. However, we note that  about 11% of the EU’s tariff lines are non- ad 
valorem . We encourage the EU further to liberalize its tariff regime to facilitate international trade 
by transforming its non- ad valorem  tariffs to ad valorem  and eliminating the tariff peaks. 
4.59.  The EU’s agricultural sector remains consid erably protected. Its average applied tariff rate 
for agricultural products is 14.8% in 2013, nearly four times the rate for non-agricultural products.  
The tariff can be as high as 197%. Most of the EU’s non- ad valorem  tariff lines, which on average 
offer higher protection, are on agricultural products. The tariffs are also complex and seasonal for 
certain products. It is disappointing that the Common Agricultural Policy reforms for post-2013 will 
not directly address market access conditions into the EU. We encourage the EU to show leadership through continuous liberalization of its agricultural sector for the benefit of traders and 
consumers. 
4.60.  We are glad to note that 14 of the EU's anti-dumping measures that had been in place for 
more than a decade expired or were removed du ring the Review period. Hong Kong, China is 
firmly against the use of unwarranted anti-dumping measures, the elimination of which, in our 
view, is a positive action to check the growth of  protectionism. We urge the EU to review the 
necessity of keeping the remaining one hundred or  so anti-dumping measures and to exercise 
restraint in the imposition of new ones. 
4.61.  As regards SPS, the EU enacted in 20 11 the Commission Regulation No. 284/2011, which 
lays down specific conditions and detailed procedures for imports of polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware originating in or consigned from, among others, Hong Kong, China. We 
consider that the measure may constitute discrimination on international trade because it affects 
all consignments from Hong Kong regardless of their origin, but not those from other re-exporting ports. We urge the EU to conduct an early review  of the Regulation with a view to adopting less 
trade-restrictive measures to fulfil its health and safety objectives. 
4.62.  The EU’s foreign investment policy has re mained largely unchanged since the last Review 
but the EU is in the process of developing and implementing a comprehensive investment policy. We noticed that some EU member States mainta in FDI prior authorisation procedures. We hope 
that the EU, in developing its new comprehensive investment policy, will further introduce 
facilitating measures that will encourage FDI and address anomalies. 
4.63.  The documentation shows few significant changes in most trade-related policy areas during 
the Review period. Perhaps that is due to the short two-year interval but probably it is more to do 
with attention being elsewhere – the response to the financial crisis. Protectionism has not loomed large, but the continuing highly fragile state of banks throughout the EU is leading to a strangling 
of the incipient recovery and growth. Unemployme nt in the Euro area is over 12% – in some 
countries over 25%. Most unemployment is amongs t the young. This is a terrible situation and 
must be the focus of attention. 
4.64.  On a general point, I would like to express our appreciation to Ambassador Pangratis and 
his able team for their very positive engagement in our efforts to take forward the negotiations for 
a positive result at the Bali Ministerial. 
CHINA 
4.65.  Let me start by congratulating the EU for its recent enlargement with Croatia becoming its 
28th Member. The EU’s importance in the global econ omy and trade is widely recognized by all. In 
spite of serious challenges encountered, the EU, as  a single entity, remains the largest economy, 
trade blog, recipient and supplier of FDI in the world. Therefore, its policy and performance not 
only affects the EU’s member States themselves, but also has profound implications to its trading partners in the rest of the world. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 18 - 
 
  4.66.  It is obvious that the EU experienced the most challenging time during the past few years 
due to the weakening global environment and th e aggravation of the sovereign-debt crisis. 
However, we are pleased to note that the EU has taken a series of measures that could result in some positive economic outlooks in 2013 and 2014. It is particularly commendable that during the 
review period, the EU largely maintained open and transparent trade policies. We call on the EU to 
continue its efforts in order to bring its economy back on track and therefore contribute to economic recovery globally. 
4.67.  China commends the EU for its firm commi tment to the multilateral trading system, and 
shares the EU’s view that “MC9 must deliver tangible results that would constitute the first step on the road towards the conclusion of the Doha Round”. We will continue our close and constructive cooperation with the EU team here led by Amba ssador Pangratis and his colleagues to make the 
upcoming MC9 a successful one.  
4.68.  That being said, let me turn to a few specifics of the EU’s trade policies and practices. 4.69.  Firstly, the EU remains a frequent user of  anti-dumping measures. While taking note of the 
on-going initiative of modernization of the EU’s trade defence instruments, we have serious 
concerns that the Chinese products are always the major target. According to our calculation based on Table A3.4 of the Secretariat Report, the measures targeted at Chinese products account 
for more than 40% of the total measures imposed from 2008 to 2012. What worry us more is that 
the unfair targeting against Chinese products by the EU is showing an upward trend, which increased from 37.5% in 2008 to 47% in 2012. The recent provisional duty imposed on Chinese photovoltaic products, which is the largest trade remedy case against Chinese products affecting 
trade value amounted US$20 billion and 500,000 workers, once again brought our attention to the 
rationality and fairness of the EU measures. As highlighted on several occasions, China is firmly opposed to the abuse of trade remedy measures as  a form of handy trade protectionist tool. We 
will continue bilateral dialogue with our counterpart with a view to exploring solutions acceptable 
to both sides.   
4.70.  Secondly, as the Secretariat Report stated , although there are a large number of duty-free 
lines and the average MFN tariff is quite low at 6.5%, some sectors, particularly agriculture, 
r e m a i n  r e l a t i v e l y  w e l l  p r o t e c t e d .  A r o u n d  1 1 %  o f  n o n - ad valorem  lines, as well as the use of 
seasonal duty and Meursing Table make the tari ff system more complex, and afford higher 
protection than ad valorem  rates. The on-going reforms have brought down the total level of 
support to the agricultural sector, but they have not affected market access conditions and tariffs 
remain higher than those on non-agricultural products.   
4.71.  Thirdly, TBT and SPS are persistent causes of concern. During the last review, many 
Members complained about the EU’s TBT and SPS regimes for creating unnecessary obstacles to 
trade. Since then, some progress has been achieved , but it still has room for further improvement. 
Specifically, China would like to call upon the EU to expedite its work so as to provide fair 
treatment to Chinese poultry products.  
4.72.  Fourthly, we note from the Secretariat Repo rt that the EU has 33 FTAs, and is negotiating 
with other six partners. While respecting each Memb er’s right to negotiate FTAs, we sincerely hope 
that the EU continues to prioritize the multilateralism in its trade policies, as committed in its 
Government Report.  
4.73.  China and the EU are important partners to each other, both bilaterally and multilaterally. 
The 27th Session of the China-EU Trade and Econ omic Joint Committee just concluded in Beijing 
last month, in which both sides recognized the importance of our relationship and agreed to 
enhance cooperation in order to bring our bilateral trade and economic relations to a higher level. 
UKRAINE 
4.74.  Needless to that the European Union is an important trading partner for Ukraine. We are 
delighted to state progressive expansion of our relations with the EU, trade being a very natural part in it. Volume of trade today has reached pre-crisis indicators; nevertheless still there is a considerable negative trade balance mainly due to trade in non-agricultural goods, which is 
evidence of a greater level of ope nness of Ukraine rather than the EU. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 19 - 
 
  4.75.  We are committed to build our relations on trust and constructive dialogue, which we hope 
will yield mutual lasting benefits and sustainable relations. And we have good and inspiring examples – our agricultural producers are entering  the EU market after having fully complied with 
a number of regulatory requirements of the EU. 
4.76.  The EU remains a global player and biggest trading bloc and should take the lead in many 
aspects. Ukraine highly appreciates EU's adherence to the WTO principles of openness, transparency and commitment to multilateralism. On the other hand, EU has a wide range of TRAs 
and negotiates new ones, which we believe are complementary to the multilateral fundamental 
principles. 
4.77.  Taking this opportunity, we would like to acknowledge the efforts taken in negotiating DC 
FTA with Ukraine now pending signing. We are confident this agreement will strengthen legal 
framework for sustainable trade and investment . Ukraine much relies on the development 
potential this agreement bears. 
4.78.  We also note with satisfaction the exte nsion of the GSP regime, which will benefit our 
businesses and trade with EU. 
4.79.  Ukraine attaches specific importance to th e EU policies and practices, some of them being 
our trade concerns as they are long-standing barriers and measures that distort trade and 
competition, such as: 
 High agricultural tariffs, subsidies for some agricultural products and high level of domestic 
 support; 
 Trade distorting mechanism of entry prices; 
 SPS and TBT regulatory framework is too complicated and often seem to lack scientific 
 justification. 
4.80.  So there is room for improving and fine-tuning the policies and practices especially in light 
of the EU enlargement. We welcome Croatia's EU membership and hope the overall predictability 
and transparency of trade will improve. 
4.81.  They have recently been new developments on international arena, which will definitely 
have consequences for the multilateral trading system – the EU and the US have mandated 
negotiations on Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. 
4.82.  These negotiations will be closely watched internationally and in the WTO. Ukraine is 
already taking much interest in how these negotiations will evolve, since basically they will not be 
about tariff reductions – they will be about setti ng a "new global standards" and equivalence of 
policies new "transatlantic market place" dimension. 
ARGENTINA 
4.83.  The European Union, a regional grouping  that has expanded over the years, and now 
encompasses 28 members following the recent admission of Croatia, has traditionally been one of Argentina's most important markets. 
4.84.  Our bilateral relations have historically been intense and constructive, optimizing issues 
of mutual interest. Trade between Argentina and Europe has historically been significant, dating back to long before the European Economic Community was created half a century ago. 
4.85.  The EU is currently our second largest trade partner after MERCOSUR, accounting for 14.3% 
of our foreign trade (2012). In contrast, Argentina represents 0.2% of the Community's total 
trade. EU firms make their region the largest foreign investor in Argentina, and they are participating in a variety of joint bilateral cooperation projects. 
4.86.  Nonetheless, in the period under review (2011-2013) bilateral trade with the EU suffered 
fluctuations as a result of various trade policy instruments applied by the EU and some WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 20 - 
 
  of its member States, restricting access for our goods to that market. This is inconsistent with the 
promotion of a free, fair and open internatio nal trading system, as preached by the EU. 
4.87.  Whereas in 2011, Argentine exports to, and imports from the EU grew at an average annual 
rate close to 23%, in 2012 the statistics show an abrupt fall of more than 20% in our exports 
to that market. 
4.88.  This declining trend in our exports to the EU intensified in the first half of this year, 
and, if it continues, our sales to the EU in 2013 will be 35% less than in 2011. A significant portion 
of this reduction is directly explained by clearly protectionist European trade measures, 
such as the taxes imposed on Argentine biodiesel, as well as the technical barriers and other tariff and non-tariff barriers that have proliferated in recent years in the EU. 
4.89.  In contrast, despite the criticisms made of our trade policy by the EU, Argentine imports 
of European origin have continued their upward tr end, growing by 5.6% in 2012 and by even more 
in 2013 – about 8% in the first half of the year . This positive performance has been achieved 
in 2012 and 2013, years in which the Argentine economy suffered the impact of the international 
crisis and grew more slowly than previously. 
4.90.  This clearly shows that while the Arge ntine market has remained open to European 
products, the opposite is not the case, and if these policies in the European Union are maintained 
next year, the figures can be expected to be worse, bearing in mind that Argentina cannot export 
under the Generalized System of Preferences (G SP), given the amendment the EU has made to 
this preferential scheme, which harms countries such as ours. 
4.91.  We are surprised that, in its report, the EU preaches the importance of "promoting free, 
fair and open trade" and of "fighting all forms of protectionism, including as regards non-tariff 
trade barriers", when its actions suggest otherwise. 
4.92.  While the EU seeks to open markets to sell its surplus produce – much of which is the result 
of a policy of subsidies that has been criticized  in this forum several times – it continues to 
egregiously obstruct imports, particularly those from developing countries. 
4.93.  Market access to the EU's highly regulated agricultural market is still a formidable challenge. 
As noted in the Secretariat Report, there are still some sectors in the EU, particularly agriculture, 
which continue to be "well protected, sometimes through complex or seasonal tariffs", which remain significantly above the tariffs applied to non-agricultural products. 
4.94.  There are still non-tariff mechanisms, complex administration of tariff quotas and the 
presence of private standards, which disrupt trade flows. 
4.95.  Accordingly, it is not surprising that in the most recent meetings of the Committees 
on Technical Barriers to Trade and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (in June 2013), specific 
trade concerns raised by Members about EU regulations or measures accounted for nearly 35% 
of the total of trade concerns raised at those m eetings. This percentage has been rising recently 
instead of falling. 
4.96.  We welcome and value the fact that the EU has reiterated, as noted in the Report, its firm 
commitment to the WTO and the Doha Round, and that it "firmly believes that a successful outcome is needed during the 9
th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC9) in December 2013 and 
that MC9 must deliver tangible results", with a view to rapid conclusion of the Doha Round. 
4.97.  Nonetheless, we regret that the possible agreements or "tangible results" that it mentions 
as achievable in Bali are limited to a Trade Facilitation Agreement, which would actually only benefit exporters of high-technology manufactured products – in other words the developed 
countries. In relation to other potential agreements, the EU mentions "the development 
component as well as certain limited agriculture issues". 
4.98.  The "limited scope" that the EU wishes to gi ve to any agreement in the agriculture sector is 
worrying; and we regret that it shows little or no interest in adopting commitments 
on export competition, thus allowing 2013 to pass by without mentioning the elimination of export WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 21 - 
 
  subsidies, agreed upon at the 2005 Hong Kong Ministerial, despite the generous proposal made 
at the G-20 last May. 
4.99.  It should be recalled that the stalling of the Doha Round negotiations also involves a failure 
to fulfil the Uruguay Round commitment to continue the process of reforming agricultural policies, 
with the aim of "substantially reducing protection and assistance". Clearly, one of the agricultural 
policies that needs "fundamental reform" is the European Union's, not least because ofits global scope. 
4.100.  Fundamental reform can only be ac hieved through fulfilment of the mandate 
of the Doha Round agricultural negotiations, that is to say, the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the General Council Decision of 1/8/2004 and the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. There is no other way forward. 
4.101.  An agreement could be reached that is balanced and takes special account of the 
development component that gave rise to this Ro und; but the core of any such agreement must 
necessarily be agriculture, which represents ov er 60% of the exports of the poorest countries 
on the planet. 
4.102.  We hope that the EU, along with other developed Members, will make an effort to fulfil the 
mandate without postponing the necessary reforms in this sector, to bring to an end to the trade 
injustices of the past century. 
4.103.  In this context, we will be submitting a dditional questions on cotton and fishing subsidies, 
since they are fundamental sectors for developing countries and are not adequately treated in the Secretariat Report. 
4.104.  To conclude, we not only reiterate our appreciation of this new opportunity to exchange 
information and ideas concerning the trade policy of the European Union, but would also like to stress once more the importance of this exer cise in transparency from every point of view 
and wish the community authorities success in this 11
th review of their trade policy. 
NEW  ZEALAND 
4.105.  New Zealand has a strong and broadly-based relationship with the EU. As our fourth 
largest trading partner, the European Union remains a significant and highly valued economic 
partner for New Zealand. Accordingly, New Zealand takes an active interest in the European Union’s trade and investment policy.   
4.106.  We note that with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, the Commission now has 
competence for investment policy in addition to trade. We look forward to understanding more 
around how this will be carried over into prefer ential trade agreements and in the longer term 
under the multilateral trading system. 
4.107.  A significant development in the EU’s tr ade policy since the last trade policy review, not 
only for the EU but indeed for all WTO Members, has been the launch of its negotiations towards preferential trade agreements with the United States and separately Japan. We are now in a 
situation where three of the world’s top five econ omies are negotiating preferential deals between 
themselves. 
4.108.  It is in this context that we particularly  appreciate the EU’s public commitment that these 
agreements will serve as “building blocks” rather than “stumbling blocks” to the multilateral 
trading system. In this regard, we look forward to hearing more about how this will be achieved in 
practice, including around what practical measures the EU will be seeking to introduce into both negotiations to ensure that both agreements support the WTO process. 
4.109.  As a general point, New Zealand would like to reiterate the importance of consultation and 
transparency in the development and introduction of trade-related measures. It is critically important that the notification of regulations that may affect trading partners is conducted in a 
timely fashion and before implementation to allow partners the chance to understand them fully 
and to help industry adopt processes to ensure compliance. Such consultation should occur at an WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 22 - 
 
  appropriate and early stage so that the views of third countries such as New Zealand can not only 
be considered but also taken into account in policy development. 
4.110.  New Zealand considers that it is important to take into consideration the impact of 
regulations on third countries when looking at  implementation and the phasing in of new 
requirements. As a southern hemisphere agri -food exporter, New Zealand operates in a 
counter-seasonal environment to Europe and im plementation plans tailored to European 
production seasons can have an adverse impact on producers such as New Zealand given our 
respective production cycles.   
4.111.  In previous reviews, New Zealand has expressed concerns about aspects of the Common 
Agricultural Policy. New Zealand recognizes and commends the on-going efforts of the EU to reform the CAP and joins others in encouraging the EU in the direction of greater market 
orientation and reduction of distortions to international trade. The reintroduction of coupled 
payments in the recently concluded CAP reform package was disappointing in this regard and lay contrary to the generally positive direction CAP reforms have been tracking over the past 10 years. 
New Zealand has raised a number of questions around the reform of the CAP including how it sees 
the CAP evolving so as to improve competitiveness in the face of growing worldwide demand for food, as well as the “greening” of direct payments to farmers. 
4.112.  New Zealand is pleased to note that the EU's use of agricultural export subsidies has been 
much reduced since a spike in 2009. New Zealand expects that this encouraging trend will continue and, recalling that export subsidies are the most damaging form of agricultural support, we encourage the EU to consider accelerating  the process towards elimination of all such 
subsidies. There also remains considerable scope for improvements in market access for 
agricultural products and it remains our assessment that the EU retains a significant number of prohibitive tariffs on highly traded products. In  this regard, we commend the OECD and WTO on 
their recent analytical work on trade in value-added and note in particular their findings in respect 
of the negative economic effects of agricu ltural tariff barriers on EU producers. 
4.113.  We also remain concerned about inconsistencies in relation to protection for geographical 
indications in the EU, particularly when compar ing the process and treatment of terms protected 
through the EU Regulations with terms protected through bilateral agreements. While interested parties have access to an objections process for terms to be protected under EU Regulations, such an objection process is not always in place for GIs that are protected in the EU via bilateral 
agreements. Yet the effect on third parties' ability to use certain terms in the EU market is the 
same. We acknowledge the procedural improvements made in this regard in recent EU agreements 
and we urge the EU to continue in this direction to ensure that it provides for robust objections 
processes for all terms that it intends to protect in its territory, regardless of the means through 
which these terms receive protection. 
4.114.  Like the EU, we understand and find im portant the intersection between trade and the 
environment and the need to ensure that these are mutually reinforcing processes. In this context, 
we are watching closely and with considerable interest the EU’s on-going work to develop a common methodology for the environmental footprint of products and organisations and the development of accompanying labelling standards. We have appreciated the measured and careful 
way in which the Commission continues to involve third parties directly in the consultations – and 
would encourage it to continue that open dialogue. We would also encourage other Members to be involved in this process. All WTO Members fully understand the challenges the EU is grappling with 
in this regard, including striking the right ba lance between a transparent and non-discriminatory 
set of measures that does not become a de facto  barrier to trade; while securing proven 
environmental benefits and the consumers’ right to be informed. 
4.115.  New Zealand has some concerns about el ements of the reform of the Common Fisheries 
Policy, currently under negotiation, principally around the nature and level of subsidies provided to the European fishing industry. Of particular note  is the consideration being given to reinstating 
subsidies for vessel construction and purchasing, engine replacement, and temporary cessation of 
fishing. We note that overfishing and overcapacity persist at high levels in EU fisheries, and that 
the EU fleet fishes the high seas around the world and in the EEZs of many other Members. We therefore take this opportunity to recall the im portance we attach to the on-going process 
underway in the WTO and UN on fisheries subsidies, including the call by world leaders last year at WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Rio+20 to refrain from introducing, extending or enhancing subsidies that contribute to 
overcapacity and overfishing.  
4.116.  New Zealand recognizes that the EU’s trade policy remains a broadly open and market-
orientated one. We would expect no less from the world’s largest economy, which, like 
New Zealand, depends on a well-functioning multilateral trading system. Like the rest of the world, 
we look to the EU to continue to play a central role in leading the way both in support of the swift conclusion of the Doha Round and, more generally in the continued liberalisation of international 
trade. Economies like ours understand that an expo rt-led recovery represents an important tool in 
the "tool box" we are all using to emerge from the Global Financial Crisis, particularly given the proven links between increase d trade and job creation.   
4.117.  More particularly, we work closely with  the EU in the WTO context and elsewhere and 
appreciate the constructive engagement we enjoy with EU colleagues both here in Geneva and in 
Brussels. We look forward to this cooperation continuing into the future. 
SINGAPORE 
4.118.  Singapore enjoys strong economic ties with  the EU and also warm ties with its individual 
member States. The EU is our second largest trading partner. In the 10 years from 2002 and 2012, bilateral trade doubled from US$44 billion to US$82 billion. EU Foreign Direct Investment 
stock in Singapore stood at US$150 billion in 2011, while Singapore was the EU's ninth largest 
investor. Over 9,300 EU companies have operations in Singapore which serves as their gateway to Asia. Our bilateral ties are set to strengthen further with the substantive conclusion of the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (EUSFTA) in December 2012. As the first FTA that the EU 
c o n c l u d e d  w i t h  a n  A S E A N  m e m b e r ,  w e  b e l i e v e  t h a t  t h e  E U S F T A  w i l l  h a v e  a  p o s i t i v e  k n o c k - o n  
effect for the other bilateral FTAs that the EU is  currently negotiating with our ASEAN partners and 
help foster closer links betw een Southeast Asia and Europe. 
4.119.  Despite the challenging economic outlook, we are glad to note that the EU has maintained 
overall openness and transparency of its trade and investment regime, resisting pressures to impose trade restrictions. We are also encour aged by the EU’s economic outlook, with the 
economy projected to stabilise and possibly pick up in 2014. This could in part be attributed to the 
wide range of policy decisions adopted by the EU, including a further strengthening of institutional settings, additional structural reforms of the fina ncial and other critical sectors, and exceptional 
monetary support in the Euro area. We look forward to improved economic governance as a result 
of the so-called "Six-Pack" put in place since December 2011, as well as a good outcome to the 
“Europe 2020” growth strategy. The continued recove ry of the EU economy, as the world's largest 
trading bloc, is critical to all of us. 
4.120.  Amidst a challenging and increasingly comp lex global economy, the world looks to the EU, 
now more than ever, to continue to be outward-looking, and lead in upholding free trade policies. It is essential for the EU to ensure that its trade practices reflect its philosophy which highly values 
free and open trade. We welcome the EU's effort s to implement a system of electronic customs 
procedures with centralised clearance by 2020. The Secretariat Report cites efforts such as the first project of the Single  Window is expected to be in place by 2014. Such  measures will no doubt 
be welcomed by traders who will be true benefi ciaries of the Trade Facilitation agreement which 
members are working hard to deliver at MC9.  
4.121.  At the same time, we note that some of the trade reforms that the EU is pursuing may 
increase rather than reduce trade barriers. Fo r example, the reform of the EU’s Generalized 
System of Preferences (GSP) could be less trade facilitative for products exported by countries 
without a Free Trade Agreement with the EU. Other areas of concern to our traders include: (1) the EU’s complex decision making process on trade and investment matters; (2) the EU’s 
burdensome customs procedures and practices; (3) the EU’s stringent measures on SPS, technical 
regulations and conformity assessment; and (4) the EU’s approach to determining tariffs for 
processed agricultural products. These concerns are reflected in our written questions to the EU. We hope to see future improvements so that such barriers are further removed and business is 
facilitated.   WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 24 - 
 
  4.122.  I would like, in closing, to acknowledge the role which Ambassador Angelos Pangratis and 
his team play in our collective work in Geneva, including on the DDA. We share the EU’s goal of a meaningful outcome at MC9 in Bali. We therefor e appreciate the constructive engagement, and 
look forward to the EU’s continued contributions in the months ahead 
INDIA 
4.123.  The global financial crisis, followed by the Eurozone sovereign debt crisis in quick 
succession, have subdued economic growth in the EU, impacting not just the EU member States 
but also its trading partners. Despite implementing a range of policies aimed at tackling the crisis, 
the EU’s economic situation remains fragile as reflected by a contraction in its GDP in 2012 and a lowering of its growth projection for 2013 by the IMF. As the world’s largest economy and biggest 
trading block, it is natural that developments in the EU have a far-reaching influence on global 
economic stability and world trade. 
4.124.  Being India’s largest trading partner with a bilateral trade of over US$100 billion, we have 
been following developments in the EU with great interest. Our bilateral trade, which grew 
positively in 2010 and 2011, has suffered a decline of nearly 7% in 2012-13. Given the close and 
rapidly growing links between our economies, we ha ve an inherent stake in the EU’s performance 
and hope that it will be successful in making an early and sustained recovery.  
4.125.  It is also our expectation that the EU’s in volvement in the TTIP will not militate against its 
commitment to the multilateral trading syst em. We share the EU’s commitment towards a 
successful conclusion of the DDA and hope fo r a fair and balanced outcome at Bali.  
4.126.  Despite its economic difficulties, we apprecia te that the EU is actively assisting developing 
countries and LDCs through its significant contributions to aid for trade and ODA, as well as 
extension of DFQF market access and GSP preferences. 
4.127.  The Indian delegation has posed several questions to the EU on its trade policies and 
practices, and is grateful for the replies received. We would, however, like to highlight a few areas 
which call for improvement and consideration: 
(i) Although the EU’s average MFN tariff is low with several duty free tariff lines, sectors like 
 agriculture remain highly protected by complex and other forms of non- ad valorem  tariffs, 
 tariff peaks and tariff escalation. Agricultural subsidies, including export subsidies and  decoupled income support, continue to remain areas of concern. 
(ii) The EU’s highly complex taxation system, with wide variations between its member States, 
 increases the compliance costs for economic operators. Similarly, while SPS measures and 
 technical requirements are largely harmonized at the EU level, significant differences in the  non-harmonized requirements persist among member states, impeding the free movement 
 of goods.  
(iii) India has in the past expressed concern over th e fixing of arbitrary Maximum Residue Levels 
 (MRLs) at the level of determination for certain chemicals without adequate scientific 
 evidence or risk assessment. This acts as  a trade barrier to exports and transgresses 
 provisions of the SPS Agreement. We have noted that a full review of MRLs for Carbendazim  is underway in which relevant Codex MRLs will also be considered. We look forward to the  results of this review. 
(iv) We note the adoption of Regulation No. 608/201 3 in June 2013 amending the EU Regulation 
 No. 1383/2003 concerning customs enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights which had  impacted our pharmaceutical consignments in transit to Africa and Latin America. While we 
 are still studying the implications of this amended regulation, it would be useful to know how 
 it will help in dealing with the risk of illegitimate seizures of generic medicines at the border  during transit.    
(v) The February 2013 review of the REACH Regulation, imposing certain registration, testing 
 and certification requirements on exporters of chemicals, acknowledged the financial and  administrative costs for small and medium enterp rises. In this context, we look forward to WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 25 - 
 
   reviewing the working plan being developed by the EC together with ECHA (European 
 Chemical’s Agency) to assist SME’s meet their REACH obligations.  
(vi) The EU’s new GSP scheme that will become applicable from 2014 suspends tariff preferences 
 for some beneficiary countries in certain product categories, which would impact not just the 
 beneficiaries that have graduated but also other beneficiaries in that regional group due to 
 regional cumulation. The new GSP scheme could also have implications for countries not  having an FTA with the EU. 
(vii) With regard to the Emission Trading Scheme (E TS), while enforcement of the aviation tax on 
 emissions has been temporarily suspended unt il the 2013 ICAO General Assembly, the ETS 
 for intra-EU flights is putting pressure on airlines to furnish data failing which mandatory  penalties may apply.    
4.128.  Before concluding, my delegation would like to express its appreciation for the positive role 
played by Ambassador Pangratis in working towards a successful Bali Ministerial.   
COSTA
 RICA 
4.129.  Congratulations to the EU for the admission  of Croatia, with which the European project 
continues to grow. Since its launch, one of the pillars of this great European Union project has been the pursuit of economic unity, with a single trade policy and common legislation 
on most trade-related issues, which has also been extended to fore ign direct investment. 
4.130.  International trade has played a crucial role as the main source of economic growth 
in the EU; and it is a critical element at times such as these, when it continues to feel the effects of the crisis, although signs of a recovery are starting to appear. 
4.131.  Costa Rica recognizes the importance that the EU attaches to the WTO and to the 
multilateral trading system. We are grateful fo r the work and leadership provided by the EU 
on topics of interest to this Organization such as the review of the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding, trade facilitation, expansion of th e Information Technology Agreement, electronic 
commerce, and its interest in making progress also in the area of services, through the International Services Agreement – and the fact th at any progress made can be incorporated into 
the WTO and support the multilateral trading system. The commitment shown by the European 
Union and its member States towards the Aid for Trade Programme should also be noted. 
4.132.  The European Union is our second largest trading partner – the destination of 18% of our 
exports and the source of 7% of our imports.  Our total trade with the European Union has 
continued to grow on a sustained basis at an averag e rate of 9% per year over the last ten years, 
growing from US$1,652 million in 2002 to US$3,302 million in 2010. 
4.133.  We welcome the entry into force, for Costa Rica and other Central American countries, 
of the trade component of the Partnershi p Agreement between the European Union 
and Central America, scheduled for 1 August. This fulfils a long-standing desire to develop closer ties between the two regions. 
4.134.  We would like to recognize the openness and transparency of the EU's trade and 
investment regime, and its efforts to eschew the use of protectionism as a response to the crisis. Nonetheless, we remain concerned at the trade impact of its technical regulations, for which reason, we encourage, among other things, the EU's efforts on conformity assessment and 
acceptance leading to an improvement in these pr ocedures. We are closely monitoring the changes 
made to the Common Agricultural Policy, which, as  others have noted, represent some progress, 
such as the reduction of export subsidies, with the aim of promoting the establishment of a fair 
and market-oriented agricultural trading system . Nonetheless, the agriculture sector remains 
highly protected, and much still remains to be  done to reduce and eliminate the distortions 
that affect it. 
4.135.  An additional topic of concern are the changes to the product tariff classification which the 
EU has sometimes applied, and which unilaterally change market access conditions for our products. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 26 - 
 
  4.136.  We are also keenly following developments in the recently launched negotiations 
for a Transatlantic Trade Treaty between the EU and the United States. 
4.137.  Costa Rica submitted several questions to the EU covering its investment regime, VAT, 
the use of tariff quotas, and the reform of its financial sector, among other issues. 
KOREA 
4.138.  Let me start with bilateral relations. As of 2012, Korea is the tenth largest trading partner 
for the EU while the EU remained Korea's third largest trading partner. The bilateral trade volume 
reached US$100 billion in 2011. On the investment front, the EU’s total stock of investments in 
Korea reached US$67.4 billion in 2012. What is encouraging is that all of this data demonstrates that the EU and Korea have made genuine efforts to further liberalize trade and investment even in time of the financial and economic difficulties. I would like to also note that Korea and the EU 
celebrated the 2nd anniversary of the Korea-EU FTA on 1st July of this year, and indeed we look 
forward to the strengthening of the partnership.  
4.139.  As the Secretariat has noted, the focus of EU policy over the past two years has been 
centred on recovering from the financial crises, and there have been relatively few changes to 
trade policies, laws, or institutions. However, it is encouraging to note that there has been no retreat to protectionism is, in itself, a positive sign, particularly given the fact that the EU is the 
world’s largest economy.  
4.140.  On this note, Korea has closely followed the EU’s efforts to streamline and improve its 
trade-related legal system to facilitate the trade and investment. Korea also welcomes the EU’s reform objectives in the financial service sector to improve the stability of the financial institutions 
and markets. It is also notable that with th e “blue print” of May 2011 put forward by the 
Commission, the EU carries out a comprehensive process of reviewing and improving the existing IPR regime to boost creativity and innovation.  
4.141.  Let me turn to the economic and trade policies of the EU. I have two comments among 
others. 
4.142.  First, as the Secretariat noted, given the fact that public procurement represents a large 
proportion of GDP in the EU, we would like to see the EU provide more clarity and details of 
information on how procurement is carried out.  
4.143.  Second, although the EU is a highly inte grated economic unit, in many areas of the EU 
competence, it is the member State which is responsible for implementing the law. Thus, as is 
pointed out by the discussant and many others, I hope that the EU should pay closer attention to 
the trade-related practices at the level of member States in order to ensure the clarity and efficient implementation of the EU’s trade policies. 
4.144.  With regard to the trade framework, the EU, as a founding Member of the WTO, has 
actively participated in the multilateral trading system. At the same time, the EU has concluded 33 FTAs with other countries, and is negotiating with many others including the US and Japan, and 
committed to the success of DDA. I am sure that all these efforts will be carried out for 
complementing and strengthening the multilateral trading system. We compliment the EU’s ardent efforts for maintaining its status as a leading international trading partner. 
SEPARATE
 CUSTOMS  TERRITORY  OF TAIWAN,  PENGHU,  KINMEN  AND  MATSU 
4.145.  Bilaterally, due to the impact of financ ial turmoil and the economic slowdown in the EU, 
the amount of two-way trade between the EU an d the separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu in 2012 was US$48 billion which had a significant drop of 7.36% from 
the previous year. Although the EU’s share of the world trade is declining, the EU, it still remains 
the largest trading bloc and a leading economy in the world. We hope that EU’s economy can recover as soon as possible and we would like to see it resume its role as the engine of economic 
growth. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 27 - 
 
  4.146.  Therefore, we would like to urge the EU to continue addressing the financial and economic 
crisis by implementing some key crisis resolution approaches and mechanisms to tackle the economic downturns. We are pleased to see those macroeconomic policies have been taken to reduce public deficits and improve economic go vernance. According to the Secretariat’s Report, 
the full implementation of those measures is expected to support economic recovery this year and 
next year. We expect that such recovery will benefit WTO Members.  
4.147.  We are pleased to note in the report that the focus of EU policy over the review period has 
been on the financial crises, and there have been relatively few changes to trade policies, laws or 
institutions in other areas. One positive sign is that there seems to have been no retreat into protectionism.  
4.148.  However, there are some aspects we are concerned.  
4.149.  Specifically, in agriculture, although ther e was no major change during the review period, 
the EU’s reforms have not affected market access conditions and tariffs remain higher than on non-agricultural products and in some cases these tariffs are complex and seasonal.  
4.150.  In addition, TBT is still a concern to Members. During the last review, many Members 
complained about the EU's TBT regime for creati ng unnecessary obstacles to trade. During this 
review period, Members continued to raise concerns in the TBT Committee over a number of 
measures adopted by the EU. It is important for the EU to consider carefully the potential trade 
impact of its regulatory environment, including its high regulatory standards regarding food and product safety, so as to ensure that its technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles. Th e same could be said for its SPS measures. In 
the area of SPS measures, we seek for further clar ification on the SPS requirements for plants of 
different risk categories such as tissue culture plants in sterile condition versus field grown plants. 
4.151.  In the area of Opinion of European Se curities and Market Authority (ESMA), we are 
concerned that the new published Opinion 2101/721 will create impediment for members to 
participate in the EU financial services sector. With respect to foreign Direct Investment, what policies the EU may consider adopting to deal with  the impact of the financial turmoil are needed 
to be further clarified. In the area of negotiatin g a bilateral agreement, we wish to know how the 
EU may move the negotiations forward.  
4.152.  We appreciate the EU's clearly stated commitment to preserving and strengthening the 
multilateral system and a successful outcome from the MC9 would constitute the first step on the 
road toward the conclusion of the Doha round. 
JAPAN 4.153.  While the risk of re-emergence of European debt crisis has been reduced, and, hence, the 
world economy is showing a few signs of improvemen t, the European economy itself has been in a 
weak situation overall because of the recessions and low growth in various EU member States, given the remaining influence of the debt crisis. In order to solve the European debt crisis, it is 
essential for the EU to make efforts not only to stabilize the financial market in the short term, but 
also to continue to engage in solving the structural challenges for the mid- and long-terms, for example, through the establishment of the fiscal union as well as the banking union, and the encouragement of economic growth. Among others, reform effort for the early establishment of 
the banking union is crucial. 
4.154.  Regarding trade and trade-related policies, we have three general points and four specific 
points.  
4.155.  The first general point is on the WTO. Japan greatly appreciates that, for decades, the EU 
has contributed to maintaining and strengthening th e multilateral trading system led by the WTO. 
The EU has been playing a leading role in negotiations in the WTO, committing strongly to the 
Doha Round in particular. We expect the EU to make enhanced contributions on other 
negotiations, in particular for ITA expansion, wh ere the position of the EU appears to be less 
ambitious as a leading player. With the continuing cooperation with the EU, Japan will exercise its WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 28 - 
 
  leadership role to maintain and strengthen the multilateral trading system towards the 9th 
Ministerial Conference, which will take place in Bali this coming December. 
4.156.  Second, on FTAs. Since the last review , the FTA between the EU and Korea has entered 
into force. The EU has also initiated its active engagement on FTA negotiations with other 
countries including the U.S. Japan highly commends the EU’s positive attitude to trade 
liberalization, in particular, the commencement of FTA negotiations with JAPAN. Japan also hopes that FTAs to be concluded by the EU with other members will complement the multilateral trading 
system. 
4.157.  Third, on the resistance to protectionism. Japan appreciates that the EU has not adopted 
protectionist policies since the global financial crisis in 2008 and European fiscal crisis in 2010. In order to sustain economic development, it is im portant that not only the EU but also all other 
countries refrain from introducing protectionist measures. 
4.158.  Now, let me turn to the four specific points.  4.159.  First, on the intellectual property. Given the fact that different patent systems have been 
operated by the individual EU member States, which have been considered as burdensome by 
users, Japan welcomes the recent decision of the EU to create a new patent system “unitary patent with unitary effect” among the 25 EU member States. We also welcome the signing of the 
agreement on a Unified Patent Court. We are looking forward to the new unitary patent system 
and strongly expect that it will be operated in a proper manner and will continue to be improved. 
4.160.  Second, on the government procurement. The structure of the EU’s government 
procurement system consists of the relevant EU  directives and the regulations implemented by 
each EU member State based on the EU directives . Although they constitute a single regional 
regulatory structure; on the ground, due to the complexity, it appears that the two separate layers of regulations exist on a parallel fashion. In addition, as mentioned in the Report by the 
Secretariat, a considerable proportion of the pu blic procurement takes place below the thresholds 
set out in the EU laws and the WTO Government Procurement Agreement. Overall, the structure 
appears to be less transparent and more complicated than appropriate for foreign participants. We 
would like to study carefully the EU’s answers responding to our questions on this matter. 
4.161.  Third, on aid for trade. The EU and its member States have been actively promoting 
support for developing countries, to enhance business environment, in various places in the world, including in Asia and Africa. As a major contributor of AfT, Japan appreciates the close cooperation 
with EU in this regard.  
4.162.  Fourth, on improving the business environment. Pursuing a better environment is always 
useful for attracting more investment. Japan hopes that the EU and member States will continue 
to make their efforts to improve their business environment, through a dialogue with foreign 
business communities. We would like to invite the attention to issues such as licensing procedures as well as operations for issuing VISAs, where foreign business communities have raising strong 
concerns for improvement. 
CHILE 4.163.  Chile and the European Union (EU) have a close economic and trading relationship based 
on an Association Agreement (AA) signed in 2002 in Brussels. This entered into force 
in February 2003 and opened the door for Chile to one of the world's largest economies, 
generating wide-ranging opportunities for our country's economic growth and development. 
4.164.  Nonetheless, the bilateral relation with the EU actually began many years ago, in 1967, 
when the European Commission set up its first delegation in Latin America, in Santiago, Chile. 
4.165.  The AA covers several spheres: political, trade (including goods trade, 
services, investments, intellectual property, SPS measures, TBT, trade defence), and, lastly, 
a cooperation pillar. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 29 - 
 
  4.166.  As a result of this, the EU strengthened its important role as a trade partner for Chile. 
From the entry into force of the Agreement up to 2012, bilateral trade has grown by an average 
of 12% per year. In 2012, total trade amounted to US$22,606 million, representing 14% of Chile's total trade worldwide. 
4.167.  Exports to the EU in 2012 represented 15% of Chile's global exports, amounting 
to US$11.97 billion, having shrunk by 17% compared to previous year's level in the wake of the crisis. 
4.168.  Imports in 2012 grew by 3% to over US$10 billion. 
4.169.  Foreign direct investment (FDI) from the EU accounts for 33.7% of the total 
amount invested in Chile since 1974. The electricity, gas and water sector absorbed about a third of that investment. 
4.170.  Of the capital investment obtained from the EU, 17.1% went to the mining sector, and 
13% to the communications and financial services sectors. 
4.171.  Chile's cumulative stock of investments in the European Union amounted to US$9.4 billion 
in 2012, representing 12.8% of the total amount invested by Chile worldwide; 
67% of its investment in the European Union is in the industrial sector and 32.7% in services. 
4.172.  Despite these figures, the pace of trad e between Chile and the EU has been less than 
desired, owing to the impact of the on-going economic crisis in the EU. 
4.173.  Another significant development is that the economic crisis has increased the flow 
of EU citizens coming to Chile in search of work. According to figures published by the Department of Aliens and Migration, between 2010 and 2011 there was a 5% increase in the number 
of temporary visas, subject to an employment contract, issued to EU citizens. 
4.174.  Lastly, Chile welcomes the fact th at on 1 July last, Croatia became the 28
th member 
of the EU. It also wishes Lithuania success in it s Presidency of the European Council, for which it 
has proposed the strengthening of the economic and monetary union and creation of a banking 
union to allow for financial stabilization, as objectives. 
NORWAY 
4.175.  The European Union is by far Norway’s most important trading partner, representing 64% 
of Norway’s imports and 80% of our exports in 2012.  
4.176.  The agreement on the European Economic  Area (EEA) is the cornerstone of Norway’s 
relationship with the EU.  
4.177.  Needless to say, developments in the EU an d the Euro area are very important for Norway.  
4.178.  Although the economic crisis in Europe ha s been branded financial, or fiscal, there is no 
doubt that long lasting trade imbalances have been a significant part of the problems. 
4.179.  Furthermore, unemployment figures and idle capacities are clear signs that Europe’s 
economic crisis is lingering on. We are concerned that considerable segments of the younger generations do not get a foothold in productive employment.  
4.180.  The EU has introduced a series of laudable measures to counteract the imbalances, and to 
prevent further crisis to occur.  
4.181.  In times of austerity, there will often be pressure for the introduction of protectionist 
measures. We are pleased to observe that the European Union has not yielded to such pressure.   
4.182.  Both the EU’s and the Secretariat’s Report s confirm the EU’s deep commitment to a strong 
multilateral trading system.  WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 30 - 
 
  4.183.  These are interesting times in the days of trade policy, not only here in the WTO but also 
on the various regional arenas. Being a close neighbour and truly integrated in the EU’s single market, the recently initiated talks on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are of special interest to Norway. We will follow the developments closely and with great interest.  
4.184.  We particularly noted a recommendation in  the final report of the High Level Working 
Group setting up the negotiations, namely that the United State and the EU reach bilateral agreement on globally relevant rules and regulations that could contribute to progressive 
strengthening of the multilateral trading system. As a medium-sized economy, relying heavily on 
the multilateral trading system, Norway is obvi ously worried about a situation where key players 
negotiate trade rules outside this system.  
4.185.  On trade remedies, we commend the EU for being one of the few WTO Members applying 
the lesser-duty rule in a systematic manner. This is why we raised a question related to the 
possible future non-application of the-lesser duty rule in certain anti-dumping cases. We would, however, point out that we did not fully understand the answer. With respect to our question 
related to anti-dumping, reference is made to distorting subsidies as a possible reason for 
non-application of the lesser-duty rule. A further reference is made to an example of a possible need to counter export restrictions. We would appreciate if the EU could elaborate on its 
reasoning. 
4.186.  Fisheries is another topic of – not surprisingly – particular interest to Norway. Except for oil 
and gas, fish is the single largest ex port item from Norway to the EU.  
4.187.  Norway notes an increased demand for seafood in Europe and the fact that the EU’s own 
seafood supplies are no longer sufficient to satisfy the needs of the Union’s industry or consumers. 
Norway welcomes the EU’s efforts in improving its own resource base through reforms of the Common Fisheries Policy.  
4.188.  However, we encourage the EU – in line with its broader trade policy objectives – to 
facilitate increased trade in seafood. With an average tariff of around 11% for fish and fish 
products, tariff escalation, broad use of bilateral TRQs, autonomous quotas and end-user 
requirements, we believe there is room for impr ovements in the EU trade regime for seafood.  
4.189.  After the introduction of EU-catch certificates in 2010, Norway observes that importing 
countries are increasingly demanding, or are in process of demanding catch documentation. In recent months we have experienced that China, Ukraine and Japan have all required catch 
documentation for imports from Norway. The content and scope of these certificates tend to vary 
and complicates trade.  
4.190.  We are concerned about the possible development of a catch documentation “jungle”, 
creating considerable “red-tape” for exporters who have to take into account an increasing variety 
of documentation schemes.  
4.191.  Consequently, Norway believes it is high time to discuss common rules for catch 
certificates, taking appropriate and balanced acco unt of the needs of both exporting and importing 
countries.  
4.192.  Trade relations between Norway and the Eu ropean Union are in general conducted in a well 
regulated, predictable and cordial manner. But all rules have exceptions.  
4.193.  The ban on trade and sale of seal produc ts imposed by the EU is an unfortunate example 
of disturbances in our otherwise excellent tradin g relations. Norway, believes that the measures 
are inconsistent with WTO rules on several grounds, and is pursuing the case in the DSB.    
4.194.  I raise this here to emphasize the value of the multilateral trading system that we have 
developed over the past 60-odd years. The dispute settlement system is an invaluable element of this system. We have a forum where disputes can be solved in a timely, factual and non-political 
manner. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 31 - 
 
  4.195.  The EU is an important and active player  on the multilateral stage, and an important 
trading partner for most of us. We are confident that  this review will be useful both for the EU and 
other participants.  
BRAZIL 
4.196.  Brazil welcomes the opportunity to participate in this 11th Trade Policy Review of the EU, 
with whom we have had a strategic partnership si nce 2007. The EU continues to be Brazil’s largest 
trading partner, with bilateral trade amounting to US$96.5 billion in 2012, approximately 21% of 
our foreign trade. The pattern has remained the same since the last review: with a few exceptions, 
Brazil exports mostly raw materials and imports manufactured goods. 
4.197.  Brazil is the fifth largest foreign investor in the EU, with US$88 billion in stock. The EU, in 
turn, provides almost half of all FDI in our country, with US$240 billion. 
4.198.  Brazil recognizes and welcomes the strong commitment shown by the EU to the 
strengthening of the WTO and the Multilateral Trading System. Its responsibilities, then, shall be commensurate to its position as the world's largest economy and top trader.  
4.199.  Against this backdrop, we hope this exer cise helps identify areas where the EU’s trade 
policies can achieve further progress, for the sake of its member countries and for the benefit of the international economic environment. 
4.200.  One first note relates to the launching of the TTIP negotiations between the EU and the 
US. Like many, we express our hope that the partnership can become a building block and not a stumbling block for the Multilateral Trading System.  
4.201.  On the multilateral front, we welcome the recent steps to reform the Common Agricultural 
Policy, which we hope will be consistent with the goal of diminishing distortion and make it more 
market-oriented. However, European producers co ntinue competing unfairly with farmers from the 
developing world, and this situation is unlikely to improve markedly any time soon because the 
CAP reform 2014-20, like earlier versions, will not directly address market access conditions. 
Tariffs, tariff quotas and agricultural  safeguards will remain untouched.  
4.202.  In the agricultural sector: 
(i) export subsidies granted for sugar, dairy products poultry meat, beef and pork remain a 
 central concern for Brazil. We invite the EU to continue phasing out its scheduled export  subsidies commitments and to support the G- 20 proposal on export competition under 
 consideration for Bali. 
(ii) coupled payments are being discontinued an d the less trade-distortive Single Farm 
 Payments progressively account for a larger share of domestic support. However, the  accumulation of different types of support to some commodities remains a concern. 
 Likewise, market price support schemes still burden consumers with large and unnecessary 
 transfers of resources to producers.  
(iii) the level of border protection for agricultural products is about four times higher than that 
 for non-agricultural products. Tariff peaks can reach over 100% for frozen meat and sugar 
 and 300% for concentrated milk. Besides, the EU’s tariff structure for agricultural goods is  characterized by a significant range of qu ota regimes and by access biased towards raw 
 products, to the detriment of higher value-a dded processed food products. With respect to 
 the beef quota administration provided for in the Commission Regulation No. 810/2008, we 
 urge the EU to apply strict scientific criteria as regards our beef exports.  
4.203.  Now let me turn to other areas of concern. During the review period, EU regulations in SPS 
and TBT continue to impose trade restrictions on Brazilian exports. In SPS, the EU has not 
implemented the CODEX standard related to ractopamine, disregarding the SPS Agreement.  
4.204.  In TBT, during the review period, concerns were raised with respect to EU regulations on 
registration, evaluation, authorization and restriction of chemicals, as well as on Renewable WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 32 - 
 
  Energy, Medicinal Products for Human Use, honey containing GMO maize and Wine and Grape 
Juice Certification.  
4.205.  My delegation notes the EU’s intent to ensure compatibility between its trade policy and 
sustainable development objectives. We note that environmental measures shall not become a 
disguised barrier to trade. Environmental stan dards and labelling schemes for environmental 
purposes must always be implemented with transp arency, be based on the best available scientific 
data, and not more trade restrictive than necessary to reach the stated policy objectives. 
4.206.  In that context, Brazil has been closely following the discussions to EU regulations on the 
“promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources”, on the “Sustainable Consumption and Production” and “Sustainable Industrial Policy” proposals and on the “Single Market for Green Products Initiative”. 
4.207.  Turning to trade in services, the Secretariat Report stresses that a few member States of 
the EU have not yet ratified the “EU-25” services schedule, thus leaving unresolved the negotiations under GATS Article XXI, following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. This adds 
legal uncertainties to European commitments under the GATS. 
4.208.  We urge the EU to consider the systemic consequences of the plurilateral services 
negotiations currently underway. At the present stage, it potentially disturbs the balance of the 
GATS text, bypassing development provisions therein and weakening potential multilateral 
trade-offs within the Doha Round. We shall not let the plurilaterals be a “momentum breaker” after Bali. 
4.209.  On a different note, Brazil welcomes the on-going efforts towards financial regulation and 
banking supervision integration within the EU in the present context of financial and sovereign 
debt crises. The idea of setting up a banking union is especially welcomed. In addition, actions to incorporate Basel III guidelines into European law will seemingly lay the groundwork for the 
smoother functioning of EU’s financial markets. 
4.210.  Let me conclude by thanking the EU for its replies to Brazilian questions and expressing 
Brazil’s appreciation to the contribution of the EU delegation to the on-going negotiations on the 
Bali Package.  
CANADA 4.211.  I would like to make a number of comments on the economic situation 
of the European Union, raise a number of trade issues that concern us, and discuss some major 
aspects of our bilateral relations with the European Union. 
4.212.  One of the advantages of speaking later in the morning is the opportunity to endorse the 
thoughtful observations of many others beginning with your own introduction, Mr Chairman. It was 
quite right to start with the macroeconomic context, not so much because we should be expansive 
here and move into the territory of the IMF an d OECD and their reviews, but because given the 
s i z e  a n d  s h e e r  w e i g h t  o f  E u r o p e  i n  t h e  g l o b a l  e c o n o m y ,  i t  i s  s o  c l e a r  t h a t  i f  w e  a r e  t o  s p u r  
increased trade and economic activity there has to be a path to stimulate demand that should 
accompany the necessary fiscal consolidation in Europe. That kind of rebalancing is to the benefit not only of Europe but to all of us around the world. 
4.213.  Admittedly, the European Union, and especially the Euro area, has been experiencing a 
deeper and longer recession than expected. We’re reassured by the fact that financial market 
stress in the Euro area has diminished. Decisive policy actions, such as the European Central Bank’s announcement of its Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT) programme, have helped to 
stabilize financial markets and raise confidence in the viability of the Economic and Monetary Union 
(EMU). However, the decline in financial markets st ress has not translated into economic growth or 
encouraged bank lending to the private sector.   
4.214.  Canada, therefore, continues to suppor t more timely and decisive actions to boost 
confidence and reduce uncertainty, which will in turn support growth and job creation in the near-term, while implementing credible medium-term fiscal consolidation plans to address fiscal WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 33 - 
 
  sustainability concerns. In particular, Canada encourages the EU to swiftly put in place a single 
banking supervisor, followed by a single bank  resolution mechanism and a deposit guarantee 
scheme. These necessary prudential reforms are the key to fostering global financial stability and enhancing global investor confidence, which we can all agree are important drivers of increased 
trade in financial services and beyond.  
4.215.  With this in mind, Canada joins other WTO Members in seeking assurances that such 
reforms take into account the interests of foreign financial service suppliers established in the EU. 
Reforms should not discriminate against foreign financial institutions. Reforms should also seek to 
minimise the impact on these entities, including the form by which they have established.  
4.216.  Equally important are the ambitious structural reforms of the Eurozone economies with the 
goal of increasing long-term growth and ensu ring prosperity. As my Norwegian colleague 
emphasized, finding lasting employment for the significant number of unemployed, especially for 
the even larger number of unemployed youth, is an urgent priority.   
4.217.  As Europe tackles these many domestic challenges, upholding its commitment to free 
trade remains essential. We applaud the European  Union's continued support for a strong global 
trade regime, as evidenced through its sustained engagement here at the WTO, and particularly in the lead up to Bali, as well as through other multilateral and bilateral trade initiatives. The reports 
being considered today further demonstrate that the European Union remains engaged actively in 
promoting opportunities for enhanced trade and investment to support global growth.  
4.218.  However, we also believe the European Union could do more. While disagreements affect 
only a small fraction of Canada-EU trade and investment, but they represent practices that we 
think hinder or threaten Canadian business access to the European market.   
4.219.  First, uneven implementation of harmonized regulations across the European Union and 
the lengthy regulatory development process are continued sources of preoccupation.   
4.220.  Second, as just mentioned by Brazil, under the banner of the legitimate objectives of 
protecting human, animal, and plant health as well as the environment, which Canada and the EU share, we are concerned that too often, measur es proposed or adopted are not science-based.  
Nor do they meet the test of “not more trade-restrictive than necessary”.  
4.221.  For example, the proposed treatment of Canadian oil sands products under the EU Fuel 
Quality Directive’s implementing measures are not based on sound science and would single out one source of fossil fuels for discriminatory treatment while giving preferential treatment to crude 
oil imports with similar greenhouse gas emission profiles. We hope that the considerable input 
provided by both EU and non-EU stakeholders du ring the European Commission’s consultations on 
the matter will be fully factored in its future decisions.   
4.222.  Other measures that lack a scientific basis include the European Union’s policies and 
decisions regarding genetically modified organisms, and its ban on ractopamine. 
4.223.  We urge the European Union to develop and implement its policies in a manner that does 
not erect unnecessary obstacles to international trade. Both Canada and the EU have much to gain 
by ensuring the free and uninterrupted flow of goods and services. 
4.224.  It is in this context that Canada and the European Union are close to concluding 
negotiations on a 21st Century trade agreement that will add to the economies of both countries 
while maintaining our support for the multilateral trading system. 
4.225.  In closing, I congratulate the European Union on its resolve to restore confidence and 
growth since the onset of the financial crisis.   
MEXICO 
4.226.  Ever since the outbreak of the financial cr isis in 2008, the EU has been in the eye of the 
storm, so it is understandable that the focus of its policy and the recurrent topic in these 
last two years has been how to overcome the shortcomings that have been revealed in these WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 34 - 
 
  turbulent times. Since the last WTO review, EU  member States have faced major challenges 
in alleviating the effects of the crisis, and in overcoming weak economic performance and public discontent. 
4.227.  The world's largest economy began a recovery in 2010 that seemed promising. At this 
meeting, it has been noted several times that the recovery failed to consolidate; and forecasts 
suggest anaemic growth of just 0.1% EU-wide in 2013, with a contraction of 0.3% in the economy 
of the Eurozone. The disparities between the in dividual EU member economies have widened, 
and several of them are displaying significant imbalances. 
4.228.  Its response capacities have been significant, but they need to go further, because the 
competitiveness and productivity gaps that exis t between the individual economies need to be 
closed. The difficulties through which the EU is pa ssing could prove the best stimulus to undertake 
actions and reforms to make it a more compet itive and more homogeneous regional economy, 
and resume the path towards stronger economic growth, which would reduce the high levels of unemployment and sacrifice suffered by a large proportion of its population. 
4.229.  Times of crisis give rise to major challenges and exceptional opportunities, provided one 
has the determination to push through major refo rms. Part of the response involves promoting 
innovation, the entrepreneurial spirit, and mobilization of talent to regenerate the competitiveness 
of European markets. The other part involves mobilizing the resources needed to fuel aggregate 
demand growth. 
4.230.  We recognize the many steps that have  been taken to stabilize and strengthen the 
institutional framework, as well as recent policy decisions aimed at improving economic 
governance in the EU – particularly the new mechanism that will allow for better macroeconomic 
and fiscal monitoring. 
4.231.  We note once again the important role played by trade in the EU economy; 
equally, EU trade has a major impact on the world economy. Economic prospects for 2013 
and 2014 suggest that community trade will not grow  substantially. Nonetheless, we recognize the 
efforts being made to avoid yielding to protectionist pressures and to maintain the general level 
of openness and transparency of its trade and investment regime. 
4.232.  The European Union is among the WTO Members with the largest number of free trade 
agreements. One of these entered into force duri ng the review period (Korea), while two sets 
of negotiations, with Singapore and Ukraine, were completed. One of the most eagerly awaited 
developments in recent months in terms of FTAs, was the announcement of the start 
of negotiations to establish the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), between the European Union and the United States. Although bilateral trade between the EU 
and the United States (2.3% of world trade) is not much more than that between Mexico 
and the United States (1.8%), the reality is that the TTIP will become the largest partnership of all time, because total EU and United States trade represents about one third of world trade. 
The TTIP has generated expectations that it will serve as the catalyst needed by the multilateral 
trading system to re-engage in the multilateral negotiations, just as the "innovative" NAFTA was 
in its day for the Uruguay Round. Clearly, the TTIP will be different to any trade agreement, because it will attempt to address behind-the-border barriers and establish higher quality 
standards and practices. The question is how to translate these into a strengthening of the 
multilateral trading system, for which the United States and the EU have great responsibility. Although others share that responsibility, there is a need for leadership which thus far has been 
lacking. It would be good if that leadership were revived at this time when the success of Bali 
is at stake. We acknowledge the efforts that Angelos and his delegation are making in Geneva. 
4.233.  On specific issues, we note with interest the revamping of the Customs Code. Nonetheless, 
the lack of uniform application of customs procedur es remains a concern, because in practice there 
are discrepancies in implementation which have even led to dispute settlement procedures. In addition, it is essential, in terms of legal certainty that the decisions taken by the customs authority of a member are bi nding on all member States. 
4.234.  We take note of the lack of substantive changes in EU trade policy since its last review, 
particularly in relation to tariffs, where no significant adjustments have been made to the applied WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 35 - 
 
  rates. Despite a reduction in the average MFN tari ff in 2013, agricultural protection remains high 
at 14.8%. This ranks the EU 84th among the other 131 WTO Members. Moreover, complex, 
seasonal, and matrix tariffs (e.g. those obtained from a calculation that takes account of the percentage of certain ingredients present in the product to be imported) cause confusion and make 
import conditions less predictable. For example, we are still not clear about the tariff payable on 
agave syrup from Mexico. 
4.235.  Mexico welcomes the efforts being made to reform the CAP 2014-2020, aimed at greater 
market orientation. We hope this leads to a reduction in support that distorts both production 
and trade, and the elimination of export subsidies. Any progress achieved on this should be bound in the WTO. 
4.236.  We would like to have more informatio n on the calculation methodology to be used 
to estimate the amounts of support, which will make it possible to standardize payments at the 
regional level and within member States in terms of domestic convergence of direct support. 
4.237.  Although more needs to be done, major efforts are being made to improve transparency 
and competition in all categories. It is not surprising that the greatest reform efforts during the 
review period have focused on financial services , to address the structural problems revealed 
by the crisis. We also specifically note actions aimed at creating a banking union, the 
establishment of European supervisory authorities, stricter capital requirements for banks and 
insurance companies, and the creation of instruments allowing for participation by non-EU countries. We will also follow with interest the process of introducing a tax on financial services in certain member states, although we are not convinced of its benefits. 
4.238.  Lastly, I cannot end without expressing gr atitude for the replies received to the questions 
prepared by Mexico; and I urge the EU to continue its commitment to the multilateral trading system. 
INDONESIA 
4.239.  Indonesia regards its trade and investment relations with EU as very important. 
Indonesia-EU total trade within the last five years (2008-2012) has showed a trend of 8.53% 
increased with total trade in 2012 reached US$32.1 billion or decrease of 2.6% compared to 2011 
which amounted to US$33 billion. Indonesia's export to EU in 2012 reached US$18 billion or decreased by 12.1% compared to 2011 which amounted to US$20.5 billion. While Indonesia's import from EU for the period of 2012 recorded in the amount of US$14.1 billion or an increase of 
13.1% compared to the same period in 2011 which amounted to US$12.5 billion. Indonesia and 
EU cooperation has been more flourished since the conclusion of Comprehensive Partnership Cooperation Agreement (PCA) in 2009. Both parties have implemented several projects and 
collaborations to a strategic level. Indonesia and the EU have also undertaken scoping exercise to 
determine the range of cooperation under an ambitious Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). Indonesia believes that our economic partnership will continue to grow in the 
future. 
4.240.  Despite these strengthened economic relati ons, there are some areas of EU’s policies on 
which Indonesia would like to express its concerns. We have submitted a number of specific written questions to clarify individual points on these issues and we thank the EU delegation for 
providing the answers. We would like to  highlight some of them as follows: 
 EU’s policy to promote the use of energy from renewable sources, as stipulated in Directive 
 No. 2009/28/EC, has the potential to discriminate against Indonesian biofuel sourced from 
 palm oil (in this case, to enjoy the benefits the Directive’s offers). Indonesia is interested to 
 hear from the EU on the origin of the default value of 35% of Green House Gas saving  emission for biofuel sourced from feed-stocks.  Furthermore, Indonesia seeks EU’s rationale 
 and scientific evidence in determining that saving emission from palm oil is lower than other 
 sources such as rapeseed and sunflower. 
 Current development also shows that palm oil products face a continuing pressure by certain 
 European industries products. As campaign against palm oil products are increasing, 
 Indonesia seeks the assurances of the EU that EU’s policy on the trade of palm oil products WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 36 - 
 
   is consistent with the WTO principles and not merely a part of unfavourable campaign 
 against palm oil, which has proven to  be more productive than rapeseed. 
 Indonesia is also concerned with EU’s policy on antidumping investigation practice 
 particularly on imports of fatty alcohols from Indonesia. The policy failed to treat Indonesian 
 exporters’ related sales office abroad as a single economic entity with their producers or 
 exporters. It is conducted even though there is a European Court of Justice’s jurisprudence 
 regarding the treatment of single economic entity that supports our exporters’ position. We 
 hope that the EU will evaluate its policy on this matter to bring more predictability for our 
 exporters. 
 In the efforts of fighting illegal logging and deforestation globally, Indonesia and the EU 
 have worked together in an ambitious agreement on sustainable timber trade titled the 
 Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade – Voluntary Partnership Agreement (FLEGT 
 – VPA). We fervently believe that this agreement is an important tool to fight illegal logging  comprehensively. We have a concern that there are attempts to exclude certain area in this 
 agreement. Indonesia seeks the assurances  of the EU that agreement on trade and 
 sustainability such as FLEGT-VPA will be co mprehensive and reject territorial exclusion. 
BRUNEI
 DARUSSALAM  ON BEHALF  OF ASEAN 
4.241.  ASEAN continues to value the European Union’s contribution to our economy, as the EU is 
ASEAN’s second largest trading partner, accountin g for around 11% of ASEAN trade. On the other 
hand, ASEAN as a whole represents the European Union’s third largest trading partner outside Europe. Total trade between ASEAN and the EU grew by 12.6%, amounting US$234.8 billion in 
2011. Furthermore, in terms of foreign investment stock, from 2000-2009, the EU companies have 
invested approximately an annual average of €9.1 billion, currently making the EU the largest investor in ASEAN countries. 
4.242.  At the Twelfth Consultations between ASEAN Economic Ministers and the EU Trade 
Commissioner in March 2013 in Hanoi, Viet Nam, the Ministers adopted the ASEAN-EU Trade and Investment Work Programme for 2013-2014, to improve two-way trade relations and investment 
as well as support broader integration within ASEAN and between ASEAN and the EU. The 
Ministers also reaffirmed their commitment to strengthen cooperation between the two regions including the possibility of resuming negotiatio ns of an ASEAN-EU Free Trade Agreement, upon 
realisation of the ASEAN Economic Community by the end of 2015. At the side lines, the 
ASEAN-EU Business Summit, established in 2011, was held and continued to attract business 
people from both regions and provide the opportunity for public-private sector dialogue.  
4.243.  ASEAN also appreciates the EU’s financial assistance to trade-related regional projects, 
such as Enhancing ASEAN FTA Negotiating Capaci ty Programme and ASEAN Regional Integration 
Support Programme (ARISE). 
4.244.  ASEAN is impressed with the EU’s record of multilateral economic and trade performance 
as illustrated in the Secretariat Report. Despite the fact that its share of world trade is declining 
due to other countries’ more rapid growth, the EU remains to be an open economy with trade in goods and services outside the EU accounting for over 33% of GDP in 2011. The EU continues to 
maintain a high standard of transparency of tr ade rules and procedures and has not retreated to 
protectionist policies even though it has been under the pressure of the financial crises. 
4.245.  ASEAN understands that both the EU and its member States are taking steps so as to 
reduce public deficits and improve overall economic  governance in the region, and we would like to 
express our full support and look forward to the im provement of the regional financial situation in 
the future. 
4.246.  Against the progressive cooperation between ASEAN and the EU, there are some areas of 
concern by ASEAN member States under respective WTO Committees and we hope that these 
issues can be resolved through continued engagement and/or via bilateral consultations. We appreciate the cooperation that exists between us and hope this continues, resulting in mutually beneficial outcomes for all Parties.  WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 37 - 
 
  4.247.  ASEAN would particularly like to thank Ambassador Angelos Pangratis and his Geneva 
team for their diligent efforts and constructive  engagement with ASEAN members, and we look 
forward to continuing the meaningful cooperation towards Bali. 
DOMINICAN  REPUBLIC 
4.248.  The European Union is a major trading partner for the Dominican Republic, through 
the Economic Association Agreement with CARIFOR countries, of which the Dominican Republic forms part. In 2008-2012, the Dominican Republic received foreign investment from the EU 
amounting to just over US$2 billion, mainly in the real estate, commercial, communications 
and tourism sectors. In 2012, the Dominican Republic exported nearly US$780 million to 
the European Union and imported US$1,816 million from it. 
4.249.  In this, its 11
th Trade Policy Review, we would like to congratulate the European Union, 
because the Secretariat Report describes it as an open and transparent economy that constitutes 
the world's largest trading bloc. The report also explains that, despite the wide diversity of its member States in terms of economy, legal system and political institutions, it is a highly 
integrated economic unit, with a single trade policy and common legislation in most trade-related 
spheres, which is highly positive. 
4.250.  We also applaud the EU for not seeking refuge in protectionism, despite the serious 
financial and economic crisis it is going through. Nonetheless, the economic situation in the 
European Union remains very worrying. The WTO Se cretariat Report states that, in 2012, following 
the worsening of the sovereign debt crisis in some member States and the recent slowdown in world trade, the EU's GDP contracted by 0.3%. Private consumption, already weak in 2011, 
continues to be constrained by slow income growth among wage-earners and relatively high rates 
of inflation. Higher rates of precautionary savi ng by households, as a response to the growing 
uncertainty caused by the resurgence of the sovereign debt crisis, also served to restrict private 
consumption. In 2012, there was a reduction in public consumption, as part of the ongoing fiscal 
consolidation efforts. The growth in net exports,  the main engine of GDP growth in 2011, was 
insufficient to offset the fall in private consumption. 
4.251.  In addition, unemployment remains high, albeit with persistent differences between the 
various countries. Low and unstable GDP growth, combined with the uncertainty caused by the worsening of the debt crisis, have fuelled rising rates of unemployment across the EU. The number of people unemployed has trended upwards over the last three years and recently hit an all-time 
high of roughly 26.1 million (10.5% of the EU wo rkforce in November 2012 compared to 9.7% 
in 2011). All of this has been accompanied by high rates of inflation: from 2011 to 2012, consumer price inflation continued to be determined by increases in indirect taxation rates in several 
EU countries. Furthermore, rising food and oil prices and the pass-through from the recent 
depreciation of the euro (in the euro area) have cont ributed to relatively high inflation. In addition, 
in spite of a limited rise of labour costs on the back of high unemployment, and a moderate 
consumption growth, producer price inflation has been strong (2.7% in 2012), due to the effect 
of higher energy prices. 
4.252.  The report states that measures are being adopted, at both the EU and member State 
levels, to reduce public-sector deficits and streng then economic governance; and the hope is that 
full application of those measures will support the economic recovery expected for 2013 and 2014. 
Nonetheless, the International Monetary Fund's "World Economic Outlook", published in July, states that the eurozone economies will remain in recession in 2013, with a contraction of 0.6%, 
and that the 1% growth forecast for 2014 will be le ss than originally projected. The outlook is even 
worse for Spain and Italy, whose forecasts have been downgraded. The IMF says that Spain will not grow, but GDP will shrink by a projected -1.4% in April this year to -1.6% by the end of 2013; 
while in Italy, the estimated drop in output has been reduced, from -2.4% to -1.8%. These figures 
cause major concern, so the European Union needs to redouble efforts to extract itself from this situation. As IMF managing director Christine Lagarde has noted, the challenge calls for a comprehensive policy response: clean up the banking system, but also rapidly complete the 
banking union, support demand from the fi scal standpoint and implement the necessary 
structural reforms. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 38 - 
 
  4.253.  In the trade sphere, there have been few changes since the previous review. There have 
been no significant changes in tariffs; and the agriculture sector remains protected through complex or seasonal tariffs, which we urge be converted into ad valorem  tariffs. In terms 
of customs procedures, progress has continued towards a system of on-line procedures with 
centralized customs clearance at the EU level, the final deadline for which is 2020. The first single 
window project is expected to be in place in 2014. 
4.254.  A major concern relates to non-tariff barriers, particularly technical barriers to trade, which 
are still widespread. In this regard, we welcome the entry into force in the EU of a conformity 
assessment and acceptance agreement that harmonizes the legislation on technical requirements. Nonetheless, we urge the EU to maintain its effo rts in this regard, to avoid creating unnecessary 
obstacles, particularly to trade from developing countries. We would like to mention our concern, 
which we have registered with the TBT Committee, caused by the EU Tobacco Products Directive, 
which we believe does not fulfil the provisions of the WTO's TBT Agreement. 
4.255.  We take note that, during the review peri od, in the area of intellectual property rights, 
the EU is pressing ahead with a major reform process aimed at moving towards a consistent 
and balanced global framework. The most importan t elements include the creation of a European 
patent with unitary effect, which will enable future right-holders to apply for a patent providing 
uniform protection that is automatically valid in the 25 participating member States, 
the establishment of a unified patent dispute se ttlement system, the establishment of a unified 
trademark to promote agricultural products and quality food products through denominations of origin and geographic indications. We congratulate the EU for these efforts and urge it 
to continue with them. 
4.256.  The Secretariat Report mentions that overfishing continues to be a major problem for 
the EU, since total permissible catches have regularly exceeded sustainable limits, so we suggest 
speeding up the pending reforms in this area. 
4.257.  In the sphere of services, is important to mention the reforms aimed at creating the 
banking union. The policy objectives for this reform have been fourfold: the first is the creation 
of a banking union through a single supervisory mechanism, a European deposit guarantee 
system, and a European resolution framework for banks in cases of bankruptcy; the second objective is the reform of financial institutions and markets to improve stability through the establishment of European supervisory authorit ies, higher capital requirements for banks 
and insurance companies along with specific regulations on credit rating agencies, auditors, 
securities markets and derivatives, and speculative trading practices that may lead to excessive market volatility; the third objective is the reinfo rcement of accountability in the financial system 
towards consumers; and the fourth is the institution of a financial services tax for some member 
States. Given the crisis prevailing in the EU, thes e reforms are highly positive, and we look forward 
to their continuation and full implementation. 
4.258.  The Dominican Republic has submitted a number of questions to the EU on the types 
of preference granted in the different Economic Association Agreements, and we await the replies 
with interest. 
PAKISTAN 
4.259.  EU is the world’s largest trading block, and one of the most open and transparent 
economies, despite great diversity among the member States, thus ensuring the integrity of a single market. It is the world’s largest recipient and supplier of FDI, and has more than 1,100 BITs 
between the EU member States and third countries . Although mitigating the financial crisis has 
been at the centre of its policies, its trade has continued to increase, without retreating into protectionism. In 2011 and 2012, the ECB has provided large scale stimulus. The European 
Economic Forecast has projected that the EU ec onomy would stabilize in 2013 and pick in 2014. 
4.260.  The EU has announced its growth strategy “Europe 2020” focusing on the objectives of 
smart and green growth, job creation, boosting innovation and the digital economy, higher 
education, training and lifelong learning, and poverty reduction in Europe.  WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 39 - 
 
  4.261.  The EU has average MFN tariff of 6.5%. However, agriculture remains to be relatively 
highly protected, leading to a demand for CAP reform. It has some complex and seasonal tariffs and different member States have different ra tes for VAT and excise duties. Corporate and 
personal taxation systems and rates of tax also vary widely among the states, which leads to 
additional compliance costs. Public procurement is  a large portion of GDP in the EU, but as noted 
by the Secretariat, there is opacity regarding procurement below the threshold because of differences in reporting among member States. It is also noted that technical obstacles to the free 
movement of goods within the EU are still wide spread. Overfishing remains a serious problem as 
EU’s total allowable catches regularly breach sustainable level. The Secretariat considers that there are several reasons why future trade policy reviews of the EU should pay closer attention to trade 
related practices in the member States.  
4.262.  The EU has 33 FTAs with other countries and has completed technical negotiations on two 
FTAs and is also engaged in negotiations with anot her six entities. It is also engaged in negotiating 
the TPP and TTIP.  
4.263.  For the EU, the WTO represents the mult ilateral bedrock of the EU trade policy for 
enforcing rights under the WTO rules. It has all al ong displayed a keen interest in preserving the 
integrity of the MTS by tabling several proposals in nearly all areas, and vigorous participation in 
negotiations, reflecting a strong interest in open markets and strong regulatory frameworks. 
Outside WTO, it also reinforces the development agenda through its GSP, GSP plus and EBA scheme. We consider that being the largest trading block, the EU is charged with a responsibility 
to the MTS. 
4.264.  The EU has demonstrated its commitment to promoting a multilateral agenda for trade and 
development (e.g. pursuing the Doha Round and the LDC package), promoting market access for developing countries (e.g. GSP), EPAs, working towards sustainable development through a green 
economy (e.g. liberalization of green goods and services, financing and public–private 
partnerships), and developing more focused, targeted and coordinated Aid for Trade. The future policy direction of the EU includes GSP reform, new rules of origin to improve complementarily 
between trade and development, enhancing investment provisions in trade agreements to enhance 
FDI, market access to certain services sector for the LDCs, and concluding EPAs with interested ACP countries. EU has also launched an initiative to modernize trade defence instruments. 
4.265.  EU is Pakistan’s largest trading partner, and a source of over one-fifth of Pakistan’s total 
exports. Trade between the two countries has been  growing although the trade balance continues 
to be tilted in EU’s favour. EU and Pakistan have a strong bilateral relationship. A new framework agreement: EU-Pakistan 5 year Engagement Plan has been signed in March 2012, covering several 
areas including political cooperation, security, trad e, energy and other sectoral cooperation areas. 
A new government has assumed office recently in Pakistan which has ambitious plans of bringing about economic turnaround. We hope to witness reinvigorated engagement by the EU to help steer 
Pakistan towards a renewed path to economic recovery. 
TURKEY 4.266.  The global economic crisis has accelerated the shift in economic power away from 
developed countries towards emerging economies, as was mentioned in the EU Report. However, 
as the Secretariat Report also clearly underlines, the EU remains the largest trading bloc in the 
world. The EU's trade volume in terms of both exports and imports continued to increase in the 
review period albeit with a declining share due to faster growth in other countries. This continued 
increase in the EU's trade volume is a vital element for the expansion of the global economy. 
4.267.  For Turkey, like for many other countries, the EU remains the biggest trading partner. In 
2012, the total trade volume between Turkey and the EU was around US$147 billion, which still 
constitutes about 37-38% of our total trade despite having fallen from a high of more than 50% in 
recent years. But Turkey is also an important tr ading partner for the EU. Turkey is the EU's 5th 
biggest market with a 4.5% share of its exports,  and 7th biggest supplier of its imports with a 
2.7% share. The EU's third biggest trade surplu s is with Turkey which shows that trade with 
Turkey is a factor helping the EU emerge from th e economic crisis that it faces. With a 71% of 
share in total inward investment flow, the EU is also the main source of FDI for Turkey. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 40 - 
 
  4.268.  Because of this critically important interdependence with the EU, the developments in the 
economy of the EU have multidimensional effe cts on Turkey's economy and trade structure. 
Therefore, we attach great importance to the deve lopments and to the review process of the EU's 
trade policy. And naturally, we look forward to a speedy recovery of the EU economy because that 
is in our interest as much as that of the EU itself. 
4.269.  As we all know, during the period under review, the continuing sovereign debt crisis, as 
well as fiscal and monetary problems have been at the top of EU governance agenda. The EU is 
currently struggling to meet a double challenge. Firstly, there are weaknesses in the real economy 
despite improvements in the financial markets. Secondly, the performances of the different national economies including within the Euro-zone continue to show important disparities. 
4.270.  However, we are very happy to observe that both the EU institutions and national 
governments have taken serious measures to tackle the financial and economic crisis. We look 
forward to seeing the positive impact of these measures on the real economy in the period ahead. 
4.271.  The Single Market remains the EU's most important vehicle for growth and job creation. 
Improvements that have been made in several areas that are relevant to the functioning of the 
Single Market should help the EU emerge from the crisis. 
4.272.  Regarding trade policy measures, the Secret ariat Report emphasizes that, there have not 
been any major changes to tariffs or market acce ss generally in the EU. Although the average MFN 
tariff is 6.5% and there are large numbers of duty  free tariff lines, some sectors, particularly 
agriculture remain highly protected. However, few countries trade with the EU on an MFN basis due to the considerable number of preferential agre ements that it has with other countries as well 
through its GAP schemes. 
4.273.  The Secretariat Report also underlines that during the review period there was no major 
change in the EU's agricultural policy. Nevertheless, as a result of reforms and higher international 
agricultural prices, the total level of support to the agricultural sector has declined over the past 
few years. However, according to the Secretaria t Report, the EU's reforms have not altered the 
high, seasonal and complex tariff structure in this sector. 
4.274.  Coming to the multilateral front, the EU Government Report underlines several points in 
this regard including the importance of th e WTO as the bedrock of EU trade policy. 
4.275.  As everyone knows, Turkey is linked to the EU through a Customs Union, a unique 
arrangement that has no equivalent between the EU and another one of its WTO trading partners 
and that covers industrial goods and processed agricultural products. The Customs Union requires 
Turkey to apply the EU's common external tariff in  those products and align itself with the EU's 
preferential trade policy, not always and easy task . It follows from that relationship that despite 
occasional divergences of view Turkey will continue to work closely with the EU for the 
strengthening of the multilateral trading system. We strongly value the EU's firm commitment to 
the successful conclusion of the Doha Negotiations . We agree with the EU that concluding the DDA 
process requires efforts from all the participants in the negotiations. 
4.276.  Turkey appreciates the fact that despite th e very deep economic and financial crisis from 
which it has been suffering during the period und er review, the EU has not adopted protectionist 
policies and that its use of trade defence measures has been relatively limited. 
MALAYSIA 
4.277.  The EU is a significant market for Malaysia as it provides a viable access into the strategic 
market of the Euro zone. The EU is also an important source of foreign direct investment and 
transfer of knowledge and technology for Malaysia. From January to April 2013, Malaysia's total 
trade with the EU amounted to €10.7 billion, an in crease of 5% for the corresponding period in 
2012. Exports were valued at €4.9 billion with imports valued at €5.8 billion.  
4.278.  Malaysia and the EU are currently in the midst of negotiating a Free Trade Agreement 
while at the same time the country is still enjoying trade preferences under the EU Generalised Scheme of Preferences. Malaysia has been a reci pient country of the EU GSP since 1971. Yet this WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 41 - 
 
  arrangement is due to expire at the end of this year with the introduction of the EU's new GSP, 
which excludes upper middle economies like Malaysia. Given that the EU-Malaysia Free Trade Agreement may not be concluded by then, this clearly introduces a certain degree of legal uncertainty in the mind of both the Government and European and Malaysian businesses. 
Therefore, we appreciate any clarification on the initiatives that have been taken so far or which 
one will be in the near future to remedy this situation. 
4.279.  One of Malaysia’s main exports to the EU  is palm oil, which constitute 11.6% of total 
exports in 2012.  
4.280.  Malaysia is highly concerned on the treatment of palm based biofuel under the EU 
Renewable Energy Directive (RED). Palm based bi odiesel is given a lower default value compared 
to biodiesel from other competing raw materials such as rapeseed oil. This disadvantages market 
access for palm based biodiesel to the EU.  
4.281.  Malaysia has undertaken research on the greenhouse gas or GHG emission savings on 
palm based biodiesel and the results indicate a hi gher GHG emission savings compared to the EU 
assessment under the RED. In addition, we have also submitted technical data to both the Joint 
Research Centre of the European Commission and the Commission itself and urge for serious consideration to be given to the data. Revision of  default values of palm based biodiesel based on 
the data given will provide further market opportunities for Malaysian biodiesel producers.  
4.282.  We need to once again stress that the demonization of Malaysian palm oil and biofuels 
originating from the same must stop. The EU, in its ambitious pursuit of energy and climate targets, should not overlook the fact that palm oil is an essential part of the livelihood of Malaysian 
farmers, most of whom are micro small-holders. In addition, it should be noted that crop-rotation 
is already in place in Malaysia, as part of our sustainable agricultural practices, and this contributes significantly to our food-biofuel balance. 
GUATEMALA 
4.283.  In view of what has already been said, it is important to note the huge importance to us 
of maintaining trade relations with an economic and trading bloc as large as the European Union. 
This has been made even clearer with the rece nt signing of the Association Agreement between 
the European Union and Central America. 
4.284.  In 2012, Guatemalan imports from the European Union amounted to US$1,094 million, 
whereas it exported US$653 million to European countries. We are sure that these figures will 
increase substantially as the Association Agr eement between the two regions is implemented. 
4.285.  We are also pleased to note that, despite the unfortunate crisis that European Union 
countries have been enduring over the last two years, as noted in the Secretariat Report, 
no protectionist measures have been adopted that would hinder goods and services trade. 
This is praiseworthy and deserves mention on this occasion. 
4.286.  Guatemala has formulated a series of questions related to the Trade Policy Review 
of the European Union, which have been subm itted on a timely basis, and we express our 
gratitude in advance for the replies to them. 
4.287.  The points addressed in our questions in clude our concern at the potential scope of the 
power European Union countries have to impose unilateral measures that could affect trade. 
4.288.  The Secretariat Report also mentions the European Union's adoption of measures 
to sustain the domestic market, which could impact trade flows with third countries since one of their objectives is to reduce supply. 
4.289.  Another concern addressed are the spec ific cases in which the EU's government 
procurement market could be closed to foreig n bidders from third countries, according to 
the Utilities Directive and the Defence Procurement Directive. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 42 - 
 
  4.290.  In general, we recognize the European Union's efforts in important areas, and we hope 
they will progressively achieve the proposed objectives. 
TRINIDAD  AND  TOBAGO 
4.291.  Trinidad and Tobago values its longstanding ties with the European Union that extend 
across historical, cultural and economic spheres. These strong ties have without a doubt fuelled 
our vibrant trade relationship, in which the EU is Trinidad and Tobago’s second largest trading partner. The cornerstone of our trading relationsh ip is the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) 
signed in October 2008. The Agreement, which covers the areas of Services, Investment, Goods 
and Development cooperation has the potential to contribute significantly to Trinidad and Tobago’s and all member States of the Caribbean Forum’s (CARIFORUM) integration into the Multilateral Trading System.   
4.292.  In his opening remarks this morning, Deputy D-G Balas stated that the EU attaches great 
importance to the nexus between trade and developm ent. Trinidad and Tobago can attest to this. 
The EU is also a reliable development partner, o ffering important support to Trinidad and Tobago’s 
efforts for achieving sustainable development. Initiatives related to this support include, inter alia , 
(1) allocation of €16 million for the Enabling Competitive Business in Trinidad and Tobago 
programme, which is aimed at supporting the Government’s effort to diversify the economy into 
one that is less dependent on the energy sect or and (2) allocation of over €75 million to 
strengthen our Agricultural strategy, which is aimed primarily at increasing local food production.  
4.293.  The EU’s commitment to partnering with developing countries and LDCs to promote their 
economic growth and development is also highli ghted by the fact that the EU is the largest 
provider of Aid for Trade in the world and is th e greatest importer of goods from developing 
countries (as the Deputy D-G shared with us this morning).   
4.294.  With regard to its macroeconomic policies, Trinidad and Tobago commends the EU for the 
range of strategies it has adopted to promote growth and economic recovery. These include, 
among others, the renewed Industrial policy that seeks to step up investment into new technologies and give Europe a competitive lead in the new industrial revolution; emphasis on 
small and medium enterprises (SMEs) as engines of growth and revitalization; and the Single 
Market Act-II, which proposes 12 levers and key actions to promote growth, employment, social cohesion and confidence. 
4.295.  I wish to focus on the EU’s commitment to the Multilateral Trading System. Many are 
calling this commitment into question in light of the ambitious free trade agreements it is 
negotiating across the globe, not least among them the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the United States, which would be the biggest bilateral deal ever 
negotiated. It is with this in mind that my delegation welcomed the statement in the EU’s Report 
that the “WTO is the multilateral bedrock of the EU Trade Policy”. In addition, we noted its statement that the 9th Ministerial Conference “must deliver tangible results to preserve and 
strengthen the Multilateral Trading System”. In this regard, Trinidad and Tobago hopes that the EU 
would show leadership and compromise on key issues of interest to developing Members, 
particularly, the weakest and most vulnerable, namely Food Security, the Development issues and Special and Differential treatment in Trade Facilitation. 
ECUADOR 
4.296.  Over the last few years, Ecuador and the European Union have created trade standards 
that aim to achieve development objectives while also fulfilling with their multilateral international 
commitments. Government intervention in the banking system following the crisis demonstrated 
the importance of public policy mechanisms when attempting to reconcile such actions with national, or, in this case, regional development goals. 
4.297.  The importance of the European Union as a destination for Ecuador's exports is undeniable. 
The EU's share in Ecuador's imports grew from  9% in 2010 to 10% in 2011 and 11.5% in 2012. 
The share of Ecuador's exports absorbed by the EU was 13% in 2010, 12% in 2011, and 10% 
in 2012, indicating less concentration of our exports in that market. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 43 - 
 
  4.298.  The main export destinations for Ecuadorian products in the EU were Italy, Spain, 
Germany and the United Kingdom. 
4.299.  The average bound tariff in the EU currently stands at 6.5%; in which non-agricultural 
products receive protection averaging 4.4%, rising to a maximum of 36%, whereas 
agricultural products receive protection of ab out 15%, with a maximum of around 200% – high 
levels for a developed country member. Moreover, the EU also applies specific duties or compound tariffs on over 300 items, with products such as sugar subject to complex technical tariffs 
providing ad valorem  protection in excess of 100%. Ecuador takes this opportunity to suggest 
to the EU that, to the extent that its government policy so permits, it should convert its tariffs to ad valorem  duties in accordance with the princi ple of streamlining tariffs and the goals 
of the Doha Round. 
4.300.  Although in the case of agriculture, support programmes decoupled from prices or the 
volume of production have gained ground in comparison with other more distorting measures, total levels of support are still high and dissuade farmers in developing countries from producing 
because they do not have the possibility of competing on an equal footing. 
4.301.  Tariff escalation persists in both MFN trade and unilateral preferential trade. 
While semi-manufactured products pay an average duty of 4.9%, manufactured goods face a tariff 
of 7.3%. This maintains the terms of trade gap with developing countries who are doomed to be 
suppliers of raw materials. 
4.302.  The adoption of strict technical standards and rigid measures on food safety raises serious 
problems of access for products from developing countries. The proliferation of private standards 
in such areas has created a new series of barriers which are only tenuously based on international 
standards by recognized organizations, and which exporters have to pay despite their high costs, 
in order to enter the European market. 
4.303.  Ecuador hopes that this trade policy review of the European Union will lead to better 
access to its market, particularly for agricultural products from developing countries; a review of stimulus and domestic support programmes; and a reconsideration of its technical standards and 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures. 
THAILAND 4.304.  The European Union is Thailand’s fourth largest trading partner. From 2010-2012, our 
trade value averaged at US$39.8 billion per year. In 2012, we traded at approximately 
US$41.8 billion, a slight decrease from 2011. The Euro pean Union is also Thailand's second largest 
investor. 
4.305.  Thailand has developed a solid bilateral rela tionship with the European Union over the past 
years. Senior officers of the two sides have met to discuss important issues of mutual concerns on 
a regular basis, with the last being held in Bangkok in September of last year.   
4.306.  One notable event early this year has been the conclusion between Thailand and the 
European Union of a Framework Agreement on Part nership and Cooperation. Last month, Thailand 
and the European Union began negotiations to strengthen the bilateral trade relationship on market access of goods and services, investment, and other areas. Thailand is looking forward to 
continuing its positive dialogue with the European Union. 
4.307.  Business people of the EU and Thailand have also established good trade and commercial 
relationship through the Thailand-EU Business Council and different councils and committees with several EU member States.  
4.308.  Within a multilateral trade perspective, the European Union has shown leadership and 
actively participated in the WTO. Now with 28 member States, the European Union has proven to be a highly integrated economic model, demanding a high level of coordination among its member 
States in the area of trade and economic policy . Thailand wishes to congratulate the European 
Union for its efforts to introduce transparency into its trade rules and procedures, and its support WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 44 - 
 
  of the multilateral trading system, especially at this challenging time for global economic and 
financial system. 
4.309.  Thailand would like to express some conc erns regarding the complexity of the European 
Union’s taxation system and technical regulations, including SPS measures. We would like to urge 
the European Union to simplify these systems so th at market operators can fully enjoy the benefits 
of trade. We would also like to express our co ncern about the European Union’s export subsidies 
on sugar remains. Thailand will continue to follow closely the situation of the European Union’s 
sugar export policy. 
BARBADOS 4.310.  The European Union has been recognized as the world largest trading block and the world’s 
largest economy. We note that since its last revi ew, the block has registered increases in both its 
import and export trade as a group. 
4.311.  However, like many of the world’s economie s, the EU has been negatively affected by the 
2008 global economic crisis. The EU Secretariat’s Re port credits the causes of the financial crisis 
to, among other things, a lack of fiscal reform amidst easy access to credit and low borrowing 
costs. This was aggravated by a decline in competitiveness in some EU member States owing to the relatively sudden increases in their unit labour costs and real effective exchange rate. Despite 
the fact that the EU experienced a fall in growth , higher rates of unemployment and that the more 
severely affected EU economies experienced down grades of their banks and governments, it has 
been reported that the EU has not retreated to protectionism. Barbados therefore commends the EU on its resistance to protectionism and notes their efforts to remedy the effects of the crisis by 
reducing public deficits and improving on economic governance. 
4.312.  We note the EU’s commitment to the multilateral trading system as is evidenced in its 
engagement within the various WTO negotiating fora. We would also wish to commend the EU on 
the work it has done within its integration movement as, despite stresses, it has become a model 
for the entire world. Although the financial crisis  has brought to the fore some of the economic 
differences amongst EU countries, it has also highlighted some of the benefits of such a complex 
integration block. From the report, we have seen that the main export market for the EU continues 
to be its member States and in 2010. More generally, two thirds of the EU’s trade in goods and services takes place within the EU and the EU is  identified as the world’s largest supplier and 
recipient of FDI. As the EU member States seek to deepen their integration, it is expected that the 
EU will negotiate more expansive treaties but we expect that they will continue their commitment 
to the multilateral trade system. 
4.313.  We note that the future outlook for the EU in 2013 reveals that current trends will persist. 
But we have noted the preparation of a growth strategy. We therefore wish the EU well in the 
implementation of its growth strategy “Europe an 2020”, which is aimed at achieving growth 
through the establishment of national targets in the areas of employment innovation, education, 
social inclusion and climate/energy across the EU  member States. Strong growth in the EU is 
beneficial to the world.  
4.314.  Barbados shares a particularly significant relationship with the EU as a group, through the 
ACP and also bilaterally with individual countries of the EU. In this regard, Barbados and the EU 
share strong cordial relations with each other at the international, bilateral and national level. The 
extent of the relationship is wide and includ es elements of policy, trade and development. 
4.315.  In 2008 Barbados and our sister countries that comprise the Caribbean Forum 
(CARIFORUM) and the EU signed the CARIFORU M-EC Economic Partnership Agreement – a 
comprehensive trade and development agreement. This agreement redefined the relationship which existed between the CARIFORUM countries and the EU as the trade relationship between the 
parties is now governed by a reciprocal agreement.  Barbados is in the process of implementing the 
provisions of the EPA both at the national and regional levels with the aim of increasing the competitiveness of our products with export potential to bolster foreign exchange earnings. 
4.316.  In light of Barbados’ situation as an op en, small and vulnerable economy, Barbados’ trade 
with the EU continues to be concentrated in a few products and with a few EU member States. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 45 - 
 
  Traditionally, the United Kingdom has attracted the largest share of Barbados’ merchandise 
exports within the EU and this continued to be the case during the 2010-2012 review period. In 
2012, 75% of Barbados exports to the EU entered the UK market. Similarly, the concentration of 
EU import in Barbados originated in the UK. As our main trading partners continue their slow 
recovery from the crisis, so too has Barbados’ tourism trade which continues to be negatively 
impacted by the global economic crisis and the ensuing recession.  
4.317.  We commend the EU on its contributions to Aid for Trade (AfT) and ordinary development 
assistance (ODA) for developing countries and applaud the EU for being the largest donor to both 
of these technical assistance and cooperation programmes. The EU’s contribution amounted to more than 50% of the global contributions of OD A and 32% of AfT contributions. This is highly 
commendable. 
4.318.  Barbados looks forward to working with the EU on ways at making cooperation and 
technical and financial assistance more efficient and effective as we seek to further integrate into the multilateral trading system. 
4.319.  I would like to take this opportunity to give credit to the role which the EU Ambassador, 
Angelos Pangratis, has played in the WTO and in the Geneva process. He often brings much needed balance to our deliberations. 
BENIN 
4.320.  Following the adoption and implementati on of the economic and financial governance 
measures introduced by the European institutions to deal with the economic and financial crisis, the European Union economy grew by 1.5% in 2014. 
4.321.  The delegation of Benin welcomes the ec onomic recovery measures deployed and hopes 
these good economic prospects are maintained. 
4.322.  The delegation of Benin would also like th e EU to continue contributing to the work of 
the Doha Round multilateral trade negotiations, to consolidate the development dimension which 
must go hand in hand with the trade dimension. 
4.323.  In relation specifically to the negotiations on cotton, Benin and the other countries that 
are co-authors of the Sector Initiative on Cotton, urge the European Union and other major players 
to provide the impetus and commitment needed to achieve the established objectives. 
4.324.  Our delegation thanks the EU for the technical and financial assistance it has given 
to the Republic of Benin in its efforts to combat  poverty and to attain the Millennium Development 
Goals (MDGs). 
VIET
 NAM 
4.325.  We are all aware that the European Union has faced the sovereign-debt crisis and 
economic slowdown for the years under review. In  this situation, the EU has adopted important 
decisions to strengthen its capacity to overcome such challenges. We believe that this TPR session will be helpful in providing us an overall picture of measures put into place during the crisis and 
how these measures contribute to the improvement and recovery of the EU's economy. 
4.326.  In recent years, the trade and economic  relationship between Viet Nam and the EU has 
developed significantly. Bilateral trade between Viet Nam and the EU has sharply increased from 
US$4.1 billion in 2000 to US$29.1 billion in 2012. Last year, the EU gained the first position of 
destination for Vietnamese exports and became the second biggest trading partner of Viet Nam. 
Our major exports to the EU's market include garm ents and textile, footwear, coffee, seafood and 
computers. In terms of investment, by May 2013, the EU had 1338 on-going projects in Viet Nam 
with registered capital at US$17.293 billion. In 2012 only, the EU members have invested 140 new 
projects in Viet Nam with registered capital at over US$1.03 billion. The EU's investment has been 
focused on industries with high technology and recently targeted on service sector. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 46 - 
 
  4.327.  Viet Nam and the EU are very keen to fu rther enhance our economic and trade relationship 
which is already flourishing. The signing of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between Viet Nam and the EU in 2012 evidences ou r strong commitment to such an enhancement. 
In addition, Viet Nam and EU has also launched a free trade negotiation with the ambition of 
concluding a comprehensive agreement that incl udes not only market opening commitments but 
also other trade related issues like investment, environment, competition, sustainable development, etc. 
4.328.  Taking this opportunity we would like to ex press our high appreciation of the preferential 
market access provided by the EU through the Ge neralized System of Preferences to developing 
countries including Viet Nam. We encourage the EU to further open its markets to our exports which will considerably contribute to the bilateral trade volume increase. 
4.329.  We welcome the EU's commitment to the successful conclusion of the negotiations within 
Doha Development Agenda. More than that, we would very much like to see a more active role of the EU at the upcoming WTO Minister Conference in  Bali and in the multilateral trading system as 
well. 
4.330.  The first Trade Policy Review of Viet Nam under WTO will take place on 
17-19 September 2013. We wish to receive comprehensive interests from the EU as one of our 
most important trading partners about Viet Nam's recent trade policy developments since 
Viet Nam's accession to the WTO in 2007 and warmly welcome any questions from the EU on related issues. 
ICELAND 
4.331.  Iceland is certainly one of the 80 countries that count the EU as its most important trading 
partner. In 2012, around 75% of the value of our merchandise exports went to the EEA; the number was 45% for our imports. These figures are even higher today since they do not account 
for Croatia, which became an EU member ea rlier this month. Congratulations Croatia. 
4.332.  But our relationship goes much deeper than mere trade. Next year we celebrate the 20th 
anniversary of our full participation in the EU in ternal market, where we cooperate on a host of 
issue through the EEA Agreement. 
4.333.  Iceland is also a candidate country to the EU. And while our accession process is currently 
under review, I would like to reiterate my government's strong commitment to strengthening our relationship, not least in the field of trade. 
4.334.  Iceland appreciates the role played by the EU at the multilateral trading level. The EU is 
our natural ally on many issues in the WTO, and we look forward to continue our excellent relations on a broad range of issues (I could mention the ITA negotiation round, TISA, the GPA, 
etc.). 
4.335.  Since the last Trade Policy, the EU has had its hands full with the financial and sovereign 
debt crises. We are certainly no stranger to dealing with the effects of the financial crisis, and we 
f o l l o w  t h e  E U  p r o c e s s  v e r y  c l o s e l y .  W e  u r g e  t h e  E U  t o  c o n t i n u e  t a k i n g  s t e p s  t o  r e d u c e  p u b l i c  
deficits and improve economic governance. The right balance of reforms will pay off in the 
long-term, and we are heartened to see bette r growth projections in the coming years. 
4.336.  I would also add that despite low growth rates in recent year – along with other worrying 
trends such as high unemployment in certain member States – we commend the EU on refraining 
from using protectionist measures as a policy tool. 
4.337.  But we did not come here just to offer compliments and congratulations. Like all close 
partners, we have occasional disagreements and points of friction that require our attention, and 
when it comes to trade, the TPR is the appropriate forum to raise them. 
4.338.  But we will limit our remarks and questions to one issue today: namely fish. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 47 - 
 
  4.339.  First, Iceland remains concerned with the Regulation passed last year on certain measures 
in relation to countries allowing non-sustainable fishing for the purpose of the conservation of fish stocks. The scope of the Regulation, if applied, would put the EU in breach of its international obligations. Iceland remains committed to finding a fair and equitable solution to the current 
mackerel dispute. But we will also respond thro ugh all available legal means should the EU apply 
some of the broad range of provisions available to them in this Regulation, including in the WTO. 
4.340.  Second, Iceland is troubled by the recent treatment of international cargo in certain EU 
p o r t s .  T h e  t r a n s h i p m e n t  o f  w h a l e  m e a t  t o  t h e  J a p a n e s e  m a r k e t  i s  i n  f u l l  a c c o r d a n c e  w i t h  
international law and we question the legal basis for stopping the shipment. 
4.341.  Third, we are closely following the reform  of the Common Fisheries Policy and are pleased 
that the overall onus is on more sustainable and longer term management. We especially support 
the discard ban. However, we are concerned that efforts to overcome overcapacity and overfishing 
will fall short if practices such as subsidies for fleet renewal continue. Could the EU elaborate on the current state of play regarding trade distorting practices such as subsidies to their fisheries 
fleet? 
4.342.  The launch of free trade negotiations between the EU and the United States has the 
potential to impact all WTO Members in significant ways; even more for Members dependent on 
these two markets like Iceland. We will follow de velopments closely and reiterate our wish to be 
consulted throughout the process. 
NIGERIA 4.343.  Nigeria notes that the European Union Trade Policy is always an event of special attention 
and importance to the entire Membership of the WTO, since EU is the biggest trading partner of 
many of the WTO Members. In that regard, Nigeri a welcomes EU’s further Trade liberalization and 
measures that are aimed at implementing the EU Trade Policy that would ensure transparency, 
openness and increased trade. We also note that the focus of the EU in the past two years has 
been on the financial crisis and there have been relatively few changes to its trade policies, laws or institutions in other areas since its last trade policy review. We agree with the Secretariat Report 
that there has been no retreat into protectionism, which is a positive sign of EU’s economy. As 
indicated the causes of the crisis were lack of appropriate fiscal reforms in a context of easy access to credit and low borrowing costs relative to economic growth for government and the private 
sector which resulted in unsustainable levels of private and /or public sector debt and some banks 
exposure to such debt. A related factor that exacerbated the crisis was a decline in 
competitiveness in some member States as their un it labour cost and real effective exchange rates 
rose relatively quickly’. In this connection, we welcome the steps being taken by both the EU and 
member States levels to reduced public defi cit and improve economic governance. The full 
implementation of the measures is expected to support economic recovery in 2013 and 2014.   
4.344.  My delegation notes from the Secretariat Report that in terms of customs procedures, the 
EU has been steadily moving towards an EU-wide system of electronic procedures with centralized 
clearance, with ultimate deadline of 2020. Single authorization for simplified procedures became more widely used during the review period. As further stated for goods coming from outside the 
EU, it is now possible to complete customs formalities at the post of arrival when the destination is 
another member State while an “Entry Summary Declaration” may now be lodged at the 
destination instead of at the point of first entry. And the first project of the single window is expected to be in place in 2014. These measures will help to streamline and low transaction costs 
and we therefore encourage the EU to continue to adopt and to implement similar measures, 
including the enforcement of objective practices and procedures for clearance of goods in transit throughout the EU. 
4.345.  In the area of IPR, we note that the EU is continuing with a comprehensive process of 
reviewing and developing the existing body of legislation in order to move towards a coherent and balanced overall Framework. We have learned th at the EC has prepared a draft regulation to 
implement an international protocol to prevent bio-piracy (the Nagoya protocol). Nigeria would like 
to know the status of genetic resources, in part icular, non-European genetic resources already in 
European collections. It would also be interesting, if the EU could shade light whether the draft regulation contains any requirement for patent applicants to disclose the origin of biological WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 48 - 
 
  materials and traditional knowledge used in their inventions, prior informed consent and benefits 
sharing arrangement with the countries of origin and relevant local communities.    
4.346.  The EU and its member States are among the leading providers for Aid for Trade. In this 
context, Nigeria welcomes the EU joint strategy on Aid for Trade in 2007. The strategy aims to 
support developing countries to better integrate into the rules based world trading system and to 
use trade more effectively in promoting the overreaching objective of eradicating poverty. We commend the effort of the EU and its member States for providing annual report on Aid for Trade 
spending and implementation. This effort is an indication of the transparent manner that the EU 
has been providing Aid for Trade.  
4.347.  Nigeria attaches great importance to its bilateral trade relations with the European Union 
which have been progressively expanding over the years through several initiatives on issues of 
mutual interest and the friendship of our peoples. The relations has been characterized by 
cooperation and trust between our leaders, and we look forward to our countries making a strong steady progress in addressing the important issues that would make the World a better and more 
secure place to live. Nigeria along with other countries in the ECOWAS region are presently 
engaged in negotiations on an EPA with the EU in  order not only to deepen the existing level of 
corporation but to established a mutually beneficial trading arrangement that is consistent with our 
economic interest and levels of development. We therefore, continue to look forward to an 
enduring partnership with the EU that is ge ared towards assisting Nigeria and other ECOWAS 
countries to deepen their regional integration initiatives and successfully address the development challenges. 
4.348.  In conclusion, Nigeria would like to acknow ledge the critical role played by the EU in the 
multilateral trading system. In that regard, we wish to commend the important role being played 
by Ambassador Angelos Pangratis and his colleagues here in Geneva. It is our expectation that the 
EU would provide the necessary leadership that would lead a successful outcome at Bali. 
URUGUAY 4.349.  The EU has traditionally been a major market for Uruguay, as shown by the fact that 
EU countries absorb roughly 20% of Uruguay's global exports. 
4.350.  Uruguayan exports to the EU consist ma inly of high-quality agricultural products, 
such as chilled and frozen meat, wool, wood, grains, processed hides and skins, fresh fruit, fish, oilseeds and edible oils, etc. 
4.351.  On the other side of the equation, Urug uay imports manufactured products from the EU, 
such as machinery, electrical appliances, fertilizers, pharmaceutical products, chemical products, plastics, among others. The EU is extremely important for Uruguay as a supplier of capital goods 
and inputs for manufacturing industry. 
4.352.  European firms have been expanding their presence in Uruguay's manufacturing 
and service sectors; and today they play a major role in strategic sectors of the country 
such as telecommunications, port services and energy. We believe this demonstrates Uruguay's 
openness and transparency to private investment, both national and foreign, particularly European; and it also highlights the countries status as a logistics centre in South America and gateway to MERCOSUR. 
4.353.  In terms of the current status of EU  trade policy and the present circumstances, 
the following comments can be made: 
4.354.  The recession has had a major effect on European demand for imports from Uruguay. 
Although the EU has not adopted protectionist tariff or administrative measures (permits), 
in keeping with the G-20 agreements, it appl ies a growing number of technical barriers, 
most of which relate to trade in agricultural products. This makes it harder to sell 
in European markets, even for products that have well-established trade flows. 
4.355.  Expenditure adjustment policies have simila r effects, depressing domestic demand not only 
for imports but also for local goods. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 49 - 
 
  4.356.  In agriculture, and particularly in many of the products that Uruguay exports to the EU, 
non-tariff barriers to trade are becoming increasingly politicized – particularly the use of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and environmental measures. On this point, access to the European market could be seriously affected by a tendency to  bias scientific conclusions in response to more 
political concerns. 
4.357.  This trend can be seen in the setting of maximum residue limits, the prohibition of certain 
substances, GMOs, environmental and carbon footprint, among others. The proliferation of private 
standards can also have a negative effect on  trade and affect the trade "environment". 
4.358.  From the trade standpoint, following the initial post-crisis drop in Uruguayan exports 
in 2009, growth was resumed until 2011, after which Uruguayan sales fell again in 2012 to 2009 levels. Since then, the Uruguay's trade surplus with the EU has been shrinking year 
by year, and it turned negative in 2012. We hope that this trend will change in 2013. 
4.359.  The rising trend in the five main products exported by Uruguay to the EU was interrupted 
in 2012, flattening out in the case of wood and meat, and actually declining in the others. 
4.360.  In the short run, the measures adopted at community level in relation to the GSP are 
unlikely to significantly affect the broad numbers of  our trade with the EU. Nonetheless, they will 
definitely have a major impact on certain sectors, whose exports have historically been mainly 
sent to that market. Examples are citrus fruits (n early 80% of which are exported to the EU), fish, 
horse meat, and leather hides for the automobile market. 
4.361.  This is compounded by the impact of decisions unrelated to the crisis, such as the ruling 
issued by the European Court of Justice relating to GMOs in crops that attract bees. In the case 
of honey, Uruguayan sales, which had a tradition in the German market, have virtually 
disappeared; and exports of this product are in effect still suspended two years later. 
4.362.  Although of quantitatively lesser impact, Uruguay's "graduation" in the framework 
of EU cooperation policy reduces alternatives for financing actions that have had a significant 
qualitative impact, such as the "Uruguay Integra" programmes aimed at deepening social cohesion, and the "Uruguay Innova" programme aimed at developing and consolidating a national 
innovation system, both of which make a crucial contribution to sustainable development. 
4.363.  Uruguay will continue to do its utmost to fulfil European regulations on market access 
although these regulations should take account of scientific principles and be reasonable. We have already mentioned the entry of meat, in particular, where legal certainty in SPS remains the best 
guarantee that can be given to suppliers such as Uruguay. 
4.364.  Moreover, for Uruguay the negotiation of  the EU-MERCOSUR Agreement remains a priority, 
and it will do its utmost to bring about a successful, balanced and ambitious conclusion of it. 
This Agreement could be a power line for MERCOSUR but also for the EU. 
4.365.  It is worth noting the positive development for Uruguay of authorization for the entry 
of high-quality meat in the "481 quota". Uruguay has high hopes for this, and a significant trade 
flow is already starting to develop. 
4.366.  The EU represents a successful integration process that continues to be attractive, 
as demonstrated by the recent admission of Croatia.  In this regard, we hope to be able to talk 
shortly with the EU on the impact this will have on Uruguay's trade flows with Croatia. 
4.367.  Uruguay appeals to the EU's leadership capacity to continue working for the successful 
conclusion of the Doha Round. My country reaffirms its commitment to work with the entire Membership to achieve successful results that would make it possible to establish a fair, balanced 
and predictable multilateral trading system that benefits all Members. 
4.368.  On a personal note, I would like to pay tribute to the work being done by the distinguished 
Ambassador Angelos Pangratis in the various conversations that take place in this Organization, 
with a view to achieving major reform s in the multilateral trading system. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 50 - 
 
  HONDURAS 
4.369.  The European Union, comprising its 28 member States following the recent admission 
of Croatia as a new member, is the world's largest trading bloc. Despite the current economic and financial crisis, trade continues to represent the core of its global economic performance; 
in 2011, trade in goods and services with the rest of the world accounted for over 33% of GDP. 
4.370.  The Secretariat Report states that, over the last two years, EU policy has focused 
on recovering from the financial crises; noneth eless, few reforms have been made to trade 
policies, laws or institutions. We warmly welcome the fact that protectionist measures have 
been shunned. 
4.371.  We are pleased to note that steps are being taken, at both the community and member 
State levels, to reduce public deficits and streng then economic governance. We are confident that 
t h e  f u l l  a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  t h o s e  m e a s u r e s  w i l l  s u p p o r t  e c o n o m i c  r e c o v e r y  i n  t h e  c o m i n g  y e a r s .  
In 2010, the Commission implemented its "Europe  2020" growth strategy for the next decade. 
This defines five objectives for 2020, on employment, innovation, education, social inclusion, 
climate and energy; and each member State has adopted its own national objectives in each 
of these domains. 
4.372.  At the bilateral level, the importance  of the European Community in our country's 
external trade is beyond doubt, since it is Honduras' third-largest trade partner. 
Moreover, Honduras benefits from the preferen ces granted by the EU under the Generalized 
System of Preferences-Plus (GSP+), which affords Honduran products privileged access to the European market through the preference system, and has made it possible to boost our 
trade volumes. 
4.373.  In June 2007, negotiations began for an  Association Agreement between the EU and the 
Central American countries, which was signed in Honduras in June 2012. This is the 
first inter-regional agreement entered into by the European Union covering political 
and cooperation issues, and establishing a free trade zone. 
4.374.  On 8 November 2012, the European Union and 11 Latin American countries, including 
Honduras, signed an agreement that includes the new EU commitments on bananas, pursuant to 
the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas. 
4.375.  Honduras thanks the EU for its constant support in areas of economic cooperation 
and technical assistance, which amounts to US$240 million, mainly targeted on social projects. 
This assistance involves a major effort, particularly in times of crisis like the present. 
KINGDOM
 OF SAUDI  ARABIA 
4.376.  The Trade Policy Reports prepared by the EU and the Secretariat both highlight the 
economic and financial difficulties the European Union continue to be confronted to. Over the last 
two years, EU and member States’ authorities have continued to focus their attention on the financial crisis that deeply affects their economies and have been implementing the much required 
reforms aimed at reducing public deficits and improving economic governance. 
4.377.  Their efforts are starting to pay off as the EU economy is expected to stabilize this year 
and to start picking up again next year. The EU is to be praised for not having adopted protectionist trade policies throughout the crisis to which it is confronted. 
4.378.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia encourages the EU and its member States to continue their 
macroeconomic reforms to restore financial stability. As the world’s largest trading block, the EU has a very significant impact on all the trade and economic performance of all of it partners, 
particularly those that are the most vulnerable. The economic and financial reforms undertaken by 
the EU and its member States will first contribute to the recovery of the EU economy for the direct 
benefit of EU citizens and businesses but will have spill-over effects on the economies of all 
Members.    WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 51 - 
 
  4.379.  The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has a long established economic, political and cultural 
relationship with the EU and all of its member States. The bilateral relationship between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the EU is illustrative of the importance of trade for both partners, with year-over-year growth in EU exports to the Kingdom Saudi Arabia outstripping the average 
annual rate for EU exports overall, and the EU entrenching itself as our leading imports partner.  
This trend is likely to continue as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia pursues the path of downstream economic diversification on which it has embarked. Saudi demand for machinery and transport 
equipment - already the largest category of Saud i imports from the EU - will most certainly 
continue to grow.   
4.380.  While generally welcoming the reforms undertaken by the EU and its member States over 
the last two years, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has concerns with some EU policies and measures 
affecting its economic diversification and development.   
4.381.  Because it qualifies as a high-income economy, starting from 1 January 2014, imports 
from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia into the EU will no longer have the benefit of the EU Generalized 
Scheme of Preferences (GSP). The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a developing country whose 
economy continues to be largely dependent on  some non-renewable natural resources.  
Industrialization and diversification is therefore essential for its development. The exclusion of 
Saudi imports from the benefit of the EU GSP syst em and the resulting increase in customs duties 
will make it more difficult for Saudi enterprises to export to the EU and to compete on fair and equal terms with other developing countries. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia encourages the EU to consider the overall development impact of its policies on all developing country Members and not 
to adapt measures that result in increased market access costs for their exports.  
4.382.  The importance of trade to the EU is reflected in its commitment to the WTO - in the EU’s 
words, the “multilateral bedrock” of its trade policy. This is equalled by its stated commitment to 
the successful conclusion of negotiations within the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). The 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is confident that the EU will continue to show leadership in the crucial time ahead and do its part as we strive to finally bring the DDA to a successful conclusion.  
ZIMBABWE
  
4.383.   The EU signed an Interim Economic Partnership Agreement with four Eastern and 
Southern Africa (ESA) States namely, Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Seychelles, and Mauritius in 2009. The Interim EPA was implemented in May 2012. 
4.384.  The EU is Zimbabwe's second largest trading partner and the country started opening its 
markets to EU imports in January 2013. 
4.385.  The country had a positive trade balanc e with the EU between 2007 and 2011, a period 
when our trade balance with the rest of the world was declining.  
4.386.  Zimbabwe is concerned about the EU’s increasing partnerships with third parties as this 
will result in preference erosion. Our delegation would be interested to know what measures the 
EU will put in place to limit the impact of thes e partnerships on our preferences and to ensure 
compliance with the multilateral trading system. 
4.387.  Regarding trade in sugar, Zimbabwe is exporting to the EU on a duty-free quota-free 
market access basis and has been able to export  higher volumes of sugar from 2010 to 2012. We 
hope that EU’s Import regime post 2015 will pr omote a fair, stable and reasonably remunerative 
market price, guaranteed priority of access, lo ng-term predictability and a stable and balanced 
market.  
4.388.  The EU’s CAP reforms should move towards market orientation and modify the policy on 
cotton subsidies to bring it in line with commitments in the WTO. More extensive reductions to the subsidies granted to its producers should be applied in order to achieve a 100% decoupling. We 
call upon the EU to identify an alternative instrument other than the tied payments to its farmers. 
4.389.  Our delegation is greatly concerned about the EU’s proposed Tobacco Products Directive 
which is trade restrictive and violates WTO rules. The directive will also negatively impact on our WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 52 - 
 
  economy and we call upon the EU to consider our concerns and adopt less trade restrictive 
measures. 
4.390.  Our delegation notes with great appreciation EU's commitment to the multilateral trading 
system and its increasing role in the Aid for Trade Agenda. We look forward to EU’s growing 
assistance towards trade related programmes to enable us improve their efficiencies, productive 
capacity, value chain analysis, export support measures, standardization and research and development in order to mitigate the impact of  the EU amendments to ACP-EU trade regimes. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 53 - 
 
  5  REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND ADDITIONAL 
COMMENTS 
5.1.  I would like to say from the outset that I am very grateful for the constructive statements 
that were made on Tuesday by our discussant, Ambassador Yeend and no less than 
40 Delegations. They were extremely useful and ha ve helped me to identify a number of salient 
features which I will seek to address today. Ma ny interventions were based on the Secretariat’s 
Report, we have all clearly benefited from the high quality work that Richard Eglin, John Finn and 
their colleagues have produced in preparation of our meeting.  
5.2.  Let me start with broader macroeconomic issues. On Tuesday, many Members underlined 
that the EU, due to its sheer size and economic weight, was inevitably having an impact on the world as a whole and that the current EU difficul ties therefore mattered to other WTO Members as 
well. This is a message we recognize and I would like to assure you that we are very conscious of 
the particular responsibility which our status of the world’s largest economic and trading entity brings with it.  
5.3.  As was mentioned by many of you, th e EU has drawn the lessons from the economic, 
financial and sovereign debt crisis. On that basis we have undertaken a major overhaul of both the EU’s and the Economic and Monetary Union’s ec onomic governance, and I think everybody here 
has recognized that we had done a lot in view of the circumstances.  
5 . 4 .   A s  i s  n o r m a l  i n  t h i s  k i n d  o f  e x e r c i s e ,  h o w e v e r ,  s o m e  o f  y o u  h a v e  b e e n  c r i t i c a l  a n d  h a v e  
stated that they thought the EU should do more – in particular in terms of using trade policy as a 
leverage to overcome economic difficulties. I think that both our policy statements and our actions 
testify that we are doing everything possible to us e trade policy tools to achieve economic growth.  
5.5.  On Tuesday I have also heard many requests  for the EU to take supplementary steps in the 
context of unilateral trade liberalization, related notably to the level of our tariffs and to our 
support to agriculture. Here I would like to be very  clear about one thing which I will come back to 
in a moment: the EU cannot deliver the Doha Round all on its own!  
NO RETREAT INTO PROTECTIONISM 
5.6.  The vast majority of Members commended the EU for having successfully resisted 
protectionist tendencies, despite the strong impact that the financial crisis continues to have on economic growth and unemployment in the EU. In this context, numerous Delegations hinted that 
a number of specific areas deserved more attention. 
AGRICULTURE 
5.7.  I am pleased that the reform process of th e CAP, undertaken over the last two decades, has 
been acknowledged by our Discussant and by many Delegations. It is worth recalling that the level 
of trade-distorting support has decreased tremen dously over time and the use of market price 
support measures is minimal. Successive reforms of the CAP have increased the market orientation of European agriculture, and for the pe riod 2014-2020 the CAP will continue along this 
successful path.  
5.8.  Some Members have expressed concerns ab out the voluntary coupled support which will be 
available in the future CAP. Let me give you some more explanation. Under the agreed plan it will 
be possible for EU Member States to use part of th eir national ceilings for direct payments to grant 
coupled support in certain sectors and regions where specific types of farming or specific 
agricultural sectors are particularly important for economic, environmental and/or social reasons. Applying coupled support will be optional for member States and limited to a certain level. 
Payments under voluntary coupled support will be based on fixed areas and yields or on a fixed 
number of animals. Most importantly, decoupled di rect payments will continue to represent the 
largest share of spending and the future CAP will continue to be fully in line with our WTO 
commitments.  
5.9.  Some Members have expressed concerns ab out the level and the structure of EU tariffs. 
Interestingly such criticism has also come from some Members who themselves maintain a high WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 54 - 
 
  level of agricultural protection or who have themselves resorted to sometimes significant tariff 
increases in the recent past. In this context let me state that successive CAP reforms were not intended to change EU tariffs. I would like to remind you that the EU is the world’s largest importer of agricultural products, with imports exceeding €102 billion in 2012. .  
5.10.  The EU only has a very limited number of tariff peaks. Non- ad valorem  tariffs (specific, 
compound, mixed and complex) are fully transparent and predictable. Their simplification was discussed in the context of the DDA but without any concrete outcome yet. In addition, in a 
situation of increasing agricultural prices, compared to ad valorem tariffs specific duties tended to 
see their relative levels go down. A successful conclusion of the DDA, to which the EU is fully committed, would among other things lead to major improvements in market access and domestic support. However, nobody can realistically expect the EU to make such a major concession in a 
unilateral manner.  
5.11.  As regards the export competition pillar, the phasing-out of export refunds could similarly 
only be part of the Single Undertaking. It must respect the concept of parallelism within the Export 
Competition pillar and linked to domestic suppo rt and market access issues under the Agreement 
on Agriculture and issues under othe r WTO agreements, such as TRIPS. 
5.12.  As regards the criticism of our exports of su gar, I would like to recall that the EU has never 
exceeded its WTO commitments and the relevant rules are applied in a manner consistent with the 
outcome of the past WTO disputes. 
5.13.  Mexico raised a specific question on tequila. I can confirm that the import duty applied to 
agave syrup is calculated according to its composition (including its sugar content). The calculation 
method applies uniformly across all EU member States and is publically-available (it is set out in 
Article 42(2) and (4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006). 
5.14.  On cotton, I would like to respond to the De legation of Benin. As we all know, this issue is 
crucial for a number of LDCs. I can confirm that the EU already provides duty-free quota-free 
access to LDC imports and that it does not grant an y export subsidy. The EU has also reformed its 
domestic support to the sector – so this is clea rly an area where the EU has led by example. The 
EU could support any proposals in the DDA which captured and reflected the efforts we have 
already made.   
ANTI-DUMPING 5.15.  The Secretariat’s Report confirms that the EU is a modest user of antidumping measures, in 
particular when considered against the backgrou n d  o f  t h e  E U ’ s  s h a r e  i n  w o r l d  i m p o r t s .  S o m e  
Members raised concerns about the use by the EU of  trade defence instruments. I would like to be 
very clear about one thing: protection against unfair trade practices is not tantamount to 
protectionism. So while the EU is certainly not pursuing a protectionist agenda it will use existing 
WTO instruments to fight unfair international competition.  
5.16.  Among the Members raising concerns about our use of trade defence instruments, China 
claimed that it was being specifically targeted by the EU. I would like to clarify that China is by 
very far the largest source of EU imports. The existence of certain trade distortions that result from the important influence that the State has in the Chinese economy, may lead to a relatively higher number of trade defence investigations on imports from China. This being said, only a 
fraction (about 1%) of EU imports from China is subject to such measures.  
5.17.  Concerning specific question raised by Russia about the method of adjustment for energy 
costs, we have given detailed written replies.  
5.18.  We have also been asked some questions about our plans to reform our trade defence 
legislation. As I mentioned already on Tuesday, these draft reforms have the status of Commission legislative proposals. They are not adopted yet – but I can nevertheless indicate that their purpose 
is to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency for all stakeholders of the related 
instruments.  WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 55 - 
 
  5.19.  Regarding Norway's question on the circ umstances under which the EU may decide not to 
use the lesser duty I want to clarify that our written reply of 9 July was correct. But again, since we are talking about a piece of draft legislation I would not want to prejudge the outcome of our legislative process.  
BILATERAL VS MULTILATERAL 
5.20.  Let me now turn to the points which several Delegates made about EU bilateral 
negotiations.  
5.21.  I want to underline again that our bilateral trade agenda is not and has never been 
conceived as an alternative to the multilateral trading system. We see our FTAs as stepping stones – not stumbling blocks – that could eventually contribute to the strengthening of the multilateral trading system. As some speakers also put it on Tuesday, progress in preferential arrangements 
has historically acted as a catalyst for future multilateral talks.  
5.22.  I would wish to reassure you that the EU is  acutely conscious of its responsibilities towards 
the multilateral trading system. In addition to en suring the full compatibility of our preferential 
agreements with WTO rules, the EU shall therefore also seek to ensure that the FTAs it is now 
negotiating with large trading partners are supportiv e of future progress at the multilateral level. 
5.23.  Regarding regulatory issues, a number of speakers have raised concerns about the fact that 
these would be negotiated among a limited number of large trading partners. Let me stress that 
the EU would have preferred to negotiate on such issues multilaterally in the first place – as demonstrated by the number of proposals we tabled  on NTBs in the Doha Round and in the review 
of the ITA. The fact that these proposals unfor tunately ended in a stalemate demonstrates how 
difficult it is to make progress on behind-the-border issues in the multilateral context. 
5.24.  Our Government Report presented a detailed view as to how bilateral progress on 
regulatory issues among a number of trading partners could have a systemic reach and act as a 
laboratory for filling the gaps in the multilateral rulebook. Indeed, whether by means of 
harmonisation of bilateral and regional rules or via the introduction of mutual recognition arrangements, regulatory cooperation among FTA partne rs will have positive spill over effects even 
on exports of third country partners that are not parties to these arrangements.  
REGULATORY ISSUES 5.25.  Speaking more specifically about regulatory  issues, let me now turn to the areas of TBT and 
SPS.  
5.26.  Several Members accused the EU of often using such measures for protectionist purposes. I 
must unequivocally refute such accusations.  
5.27.  First of all, EU regulations apply irrespec tive of the origin of the products. Since those 
measures affect equally both EU and foreign producers, they cannot create any artificial 
competitive advantage for the former and can therefore not be described as protectionist.  
5.28.  The EU pays maximum attention that TBT and SPS measures should not create unnecessary 
obstacles to trade or disproportionate burden fo r producers. In its legislative process, the EU 
evaluates the compatibility of the draft texts with its international trade obligations, including the TBT and SPS Agreements. We are convinced that  our Regulations are based on all available 
information, are well balanced and not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil their 
legitimate objectives. 
5.29.  Let me turn to the EU decision making system. On the one hand, some Members have 
criticized the EU for being too slow and taking too long time in adopting legislation and, on the 
other hand, other Members regretted that the EU was too quick in adopting legislation without 
sufficient consultation of third countries. Apart from the obvious contradiction that emerges from these statements, let me say that the EU’s legislative process is highly transparent. It gives 
numerous possibilities for stakeholder to express their positions which is not the case yet in many WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 56 - 
 
  WTO Members. Any legislative proposal is preceded by a mandatory 3-month public consultation 
process, which is open to stakehol ders also from third countries.  
5.30.  Turning to the specific area of REACH and its impact on SMEs, let me refer to a number of 
simplifications that have been brought to the syst em: simplification of the registration obligations 
for low tonnage substances, exemption of polyme rs from registration, reducing registration 
requirements for transported intermediates under certain conditions, establishing ECHA fee reductions. These measures are especially import ant for SMEs and they apply equally to both 
domestic and foreign firms. Registration of substances used in the 'upstream' processes and other 
obligations are directly applicable only to EU-based operators.  
5.31.  Some comments were made about the lack of translation of REACH-related documents in 
Spanish, but let me point out that Spanish being one of the EU official languages, all documents 
are available also in this language.  
5.32.  Turning to SPS measures, I would like to say that these are extensively harmonized within 
the EU and only very marginal areas are not harmonised. 
5.33.  Contrary to what has been mentioned by some, EU SPS measures are taken on the basis of 
a thorough risk analysis. In particular, maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticide residues, including import tolerances, are set on the basis of  a scientific opinion of the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA). In the EU like in other third co untries, MRLs are based on the actual use of a 
pesticide. If a particular pesticide is not used in the EU, it would be unreasonable to request the EU to replace default MRLs for a wide range of pesticides with some other arbitrary value. So the rule is that when there are no authorized uses for a pa rticular pesticide in the EU, MRLs are fixed at the 
lowest analytical level – the level of determination (LOD) - to give traders a form of legal certainty.  
5.34.  In so doing, the EU avoids the trade disrup tive 'zero tolerance' approach often used by other 
countries. An import tolerance may also be applied for – and granted by the EU - under the 
condition that there is no health risk for consumers and that the requested MRL is not higher than 
the one established in the third country. As regard s carbendazim in rice, we have replied to India 
in writing.  
5.35.  A number of comments were also made about ractopamine. The EU has a scientific 
justification for not following the recently adopted Codex standard on ractopamine. As the US is aware, this standard was adopted on the basis of a very narrow majority and after much controversy. The EU has repeatedly stated that there are no grounds upon which to determine 
MRLs for ractopamine. The EU position is based on the EFSA opinion on ractopamine, which is 
available on the organization’s website. 
ENVIRONMENT 
5.36.  A few Members raised questions related to the interaction between trade and environment. 
Concerning the Fuel Quality Directive I can respond to the Canadian concerns by confirming that the EU will take into account available informatio n on the emissions associated with different types 
of fuels in the context of the implementation of Article 7a). The EU recalls that it has organized 
extensive consultations on the issue and due account will be taken of the inputs received. In addition, an impact assessment is currently bein g conducted to inform the process of preparation 
and adoption of implementing measures under Article 7a). 
5.37.  Regarding biofuels, several Members have  asked questions about the calculation method 
used in determining their sustainability criteria. We have already provided detailed explanations and references to the respective EU pieces of legislation in our written replies.  
5.38.  Regarding exports of timber the EU adopted a Regulation which gives a legal basis for 
entering into voluntary partnership agreements with exporting countries, which aim to guarantee that the wood exported to the EU comes from legal sources and to support partner countries in 
improving their regulation of sustainable loggi ng. Six countries are developing the necessary 
systems, six are negotiating and 15 other countries  expressed their interest. The first imports of 
FLEGT licensed timber are expected in 2014. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 57 - 
 
  SERVICES 
5.39.  Regarding trade in services, some Members underlined that the EU was largely open and 
welcomed the EU efforts towards further financial services reforms.  
5.40.  Concerns were, however, raised about the services Directive’s implementation in the EU. I 
would like to underline that its improvement is an evolutionary process. The European Commission 
continues to work with Member States to further improve the internal market for services.   
5.41.  On the practical front, we are aiming to improve the “Points of Single Contact” so that 
entrepreneurs may access and process information relevant to their delivery of services in another 
Member State. We are certainly aware of the positive spill-over this can have in terms of international trade. 
5.42.  Responding to the questions about the interaction between plurilateral and multilateral 
negotiations on services let me say that the EU would have preferred to achieve further 
liberalisation in the context of DDA services negotiations.  
5.43.  In order to get out of the present impasse, a growing number of WTO Members is 
participating in the plurilateral negotiations on a Trade in Services Agreement (TISA). These 
negotiations are conducted in a transparent and inclusive manner, and all interested WTO Members are invited to participate provided they share the same objectives to further liberalize 
trade in services. Let me also underline that the EU, in particular, works to foster the future 
multilateralization of the TISA.  
5.44.  Brazil raised concerns about the legal uncertainty of the EU’s services commitments which 
was due to the unresolved issue of Article XXI negotiations. Let me say that the EU-12 schedule 
and 16 individual schedules provide information on the specific services commitments of all of our 
member States, while the consolidated version (which is a consolidated schedule of the individual schedules and not the consolidation of commitments) was meant to serve for an easier reference 
base. Therefore, WTO Members have no reason to be worried about the fact that the Article XXI 
process is still on-going. 
IPR 
5.45.  The EU has been commended for the adoption finally of the unitary patent framework and 
we are convinced that this will bring about major benefits also to foreign patent holders – as they will have cheaper and less burdensome access to EU-wide protection.  
5.46.  Questions have also been raised on EU  implementation of the Nagoya protocol. In 
October 2012, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on Access to Genetic 
Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Bene fits Arising from their Utilization in the Union, 
which is currently under consideration both by the EU Council and the European Parliament.  
5.47.  Regarding the Customs treatment of medi cines in transit through the EU, the relevant 
Regulation of 2003 has recently been modified so  as to improve its legal clarity and solve the 
problems related to legitimate trade in generic medicines. More importantly, the EU Guidelines 
concerning the enforcement by customs' authorities of IPR with regard to goods in transit, in 
particular medicines, do address the specific concerns raised at the time by India and Brazil.  
5.48.  Some Members have also expressed concerns regarding our system of protection for 
geographical indications. In the EU, the level of protection for GIs provided for in bilateral or 
regional agreements is equivalent to, and not grea ter than, the level of protection for geographical 
indications protected subsequent to an individual  application on the basis of the relevant EU 
legislation. Concerning opposition procedures, th e bilateral and regional agreements dealing with 
the protection of GIs have reflected the state of internal EU legislation applicable at the time of 
their conclusion. Recent agreements therefore pr ovide for opposition procedures as does the 
current internal EU legislation. 
5.49.  I would also like to stress that in its FTA negotiations the EU will continue to fully respect its 
WTO commitments, including those under the TRIPs agreement, notably its Article 24. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 58 - 
 
  PUBLIC PROCUREMENT 
5.50.  Some Members asked about the conditions under which they can access the EU 
procurement markets, above and below the threshol ds set by our legislation. As I mentioned on 
Tuesday, the EU procurement markets above the thresholds are the most open among all GPA 
parties and WTO Members, combining potentially significant market access commitments (up to 
85%) and a large degree of de facto  openness.  
5.51.  The same openness applies to procurement below the thresholds. Despite the absence of a 
fully harmonized framework, such procurements have to respect the principles of 
non-discrimination and transparency, based on the ca se law of the EU’s Court of Justice. Foreign 
goods, services and suppliers enjoy the same de facto access to these contracts in all our member States. I would also like to again clarify that there is no "Buy Europe" policy, neither above nor 
below the thresholds.  
5.52.  We note the interest of some emerging countries in the access to the EU procurement 
market. We would therefore invite them once again to join the GPA or to take suitable market 
access commitments under the bilateral free trade agreements which we are currently negotiating 
with them.  
5.53.  As for procurement by State Owned Enterprises, I would like to clarify that, unlike a number 
of GPA members, the EU submits SOEs operating in the utilities sectors to procurement rules in 
line with the GPA disciplines and that market access commitments on these entities are offered 
under the GPA or bilateral FTAs. 
5.54.  Let me react to Colombia’s remark about th e supposed lack of EU transparency on its SOEs. 
The neutral competitive clause included the EU Treati es is such that the nature of the ownership of 
EU enterprises is irrelevant when it comes to the application and enforcement of EU legislation on competition (as explained in the Secretariat Report paragraph 3.160).  
FISHERIES 
5.55.  Regarding EU fishery policy, let me start with tariff-related issues. The 11% average tariff 
quoted by Norway is somewhat misleading since in practice, average tariffs are in the range of 
3-4%. Concerning Norway’s call for international rules on catch certificates, let me just state that 
the EU is supportive under certain conditions and this idea is currently being discussed in the relevant fora.  
5.56.  Several speakers raised EU fisheries practices. In this respect, I would like to refer to the 
on-going reform of the EU Common Fisheries Policy which is now under consideration of the co-
legislators. Its basic objectives are to prioritize sustainability and to end overfishing, so that it would answer the concerns raised on Tuesday. 
5.57.  Concerning the Regulation dealing with unsustainable fishing by third countries, let me 
clarify that the envisaged steps aim at ensuring the effectiveness of conservation measures. No such measure has been adopted yet and, if and when this would happen, these would be fully 
compliant with WTO rules.  
TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT 5.58.  Turning to the fundamentally important subj ect of trade and development, I would like to 
reiterate the EU’s conviction that both concepts are tightly inter-related. Indeed, if enhanced 
economic growth is necessary for development, then trade is one of the fundamental tools to 
achieve it.  
5.59.  It is widely recognized that the EU is one of the most important partners for developing 
countries and Least-Developed Countries. Apart from being the biggest donor of development 
assistance, the EU also is the largest export market for Least Developed Countries. To help the latter better grasp trade opportunities that exist in EU markets, Aid for Trade remains a pivotal 
instrument of our Trade and Development policy – an d the EU is also the world’s largest donor in 
this respect.  WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 59 - 
 
  5.60.  The EU has recently adopted its budget fo r the years to come and I am happy to confirm 
that our strong commitment to helping developing countries achieve broad, inclusive and sustainable economic growth will be maintained in the period 2014-2020.  
5.61.  However, as I said development policy is not only about development assistance. In the 
medium- to long-term, strong economic and trade cooperation is also key. That is why the EU 
continues negotiating Economic and Partnership Ag reements with ACP countries and regions. As 
we heard from Trinidad and Tobago on Tuesday, these negotiations go beyond conventional free-
trade agreements and are genuinely development-oriented. They take account of the 
socio-economic situation of our ACP partners, notably include provisions on co-operation and assistance for the implementation of the agreemen ts. The EU’s intention is certainly to complete 
these negotiations as soon as possible. 
5.62.  Our belief in the crucial role of trade for development is also confirmed by the recent 
revision of our Generalized Scheme of Preferen ces. The GSP review was carried out to support 
developing countries through enhanced trade opportunities, economic growth and diversification, 
in full compliance with the Enabling Clause.  
5.63.  This revision resulted from a long and co mprehensive process during which the EU informed 
all trade partners and stakeholders. It was mainly aimed to adjust the system to the major shifts 
that had occurred in the world economy and trade relations during the last decade. The revised 
GSP therefore seeks to focus tariff benefits on those countries that need them most. It will allow poorer developing countries to better compete on EU markets and thus more fully integrate into the world economy. LDCs will continue to benefi t from the EU's duty-free, quota-free preferences 
on all products, apart from arms and ammunition, under the EBA scheme.  
5.64.  Countries which will be removed from the list of beneficiaries are those that are classified as 
high income or upper middle income economies by the World Bank. It is obvious that they have 
different trade needs compared to poorer developing countries. Their economic success, which we 
applaud, means that they are competitive on wo rld markets and, therefore, that they do not 
depend on GSP-related benefits anymore. Therefore, we do not foresee specific remedies in this 
respect. 
CONCLUSION 5.65.  I realize that my statement today was perhaps a bit too long but this was unavoidable in 
view of the huge number of questions which our TPR has raised. 
5.66.  This in itself is good news and testifies to the intensity of our interaction in this context. I 
would certainly want to state that we tried our best to provide meaningful written answers to all the questions which we had received by the end of June – and this was no small undertaking.  
5.67.  I am looking forward to a fruitful discussion  today and would of course be willing to address 
further comments and questions that Members may still have. 
DISCUSSANT 
5.68.  This morning I will touch briefly on some of the key themes I have seen emerging from this 
Trade Policy Review. I want to thank Peter Balas for the comprehensive comments he has just provided; my remarks will cover many of areas mentioned by Peter. 
5.69.  First, many Members welcomed the fact that, despite its economic and financial challenges 
over the past few years, the EU has avoided sliding into protectionism – which we well know 
c a u s e s  m o r e  p r o b l e m s  d u r i n g  d i f f i c u l t  t i m e s  t h a n  i t  s o l v e s .  T h e  E U ’ s  a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t  o f  t h e  importance of trade in its recovery has also been noted positively by many delegations. 
5.70.  Numerous developing countries have expressed appreciation for the significant aid for trade 
contributions made by the EU, as well as its high overall level of ODA. Some, however, were concerned by the possible consequences of the EU’s review of its GSP arrangements. I note this 
issue was again addressed by the EU during its comments earlier this morning. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 60 - 
 
  5.71.  Members encouraged the EU to retain its commitment to the multilateral trading system, 
including in the lead-up to MC9 in Bali. They noted the EU’s active trade policy agenda outside the WTO, particularly the new TTIP negotiations with  the US and the EU-Japan discussions. A common 
refrain was to make sure such negotiations are “a building block, not a stumbling block”, that they 
should support, complement and enhance the multilateral trading system, and not detract from it. 
I think Members will have been reassured by the comments we have heard from the EU during this 
Trade Policy Review about its commitment to the multilateral trading system. 
5.72.  Agriculture has again played a prominent part in the discussions – there was a positive 
acknowledgement of the reforms undertaken, but al so a consistent message that more needed to 
be done, including through the on-going discussions on the Common Agricultural Policy. There was some concern about the direction of the current CAP discussions, such as the introduction of 
coupled payments and the continued inclusion of export subsidies. Many of these issues would be 
addressed, of course, through the successful conclusion of the Doha agriculture negotiations, which is why we all, including the EU, need to commit strongly to advancing some agriculture 
issues in the context of Bali this year. 
5.73.  Various other specific issues were raised. The new EU-wide unitary patent was welcomed, 
for instance, with many hoping that it would be  implemented as soon as possible. There were 
numerous calls for greater transparency in gove rnment procurement, particularly at the sub-
federal level. The EU’s use of anti-dumping measures was an area of concern for some Members, while many others remain troubled by the on-going subsidisation of the EU fishing fleet and its contribution to stressed global fishing stocks.   
5.74.  Quite a number of Members urged the EU to make sure its SPS measures were determined 
on the basis of sound science, with ractopamine and biotech products singled out for particular attention. Others urged the EU to ensure its technical regulations were justified, appropriate and 
consistent, as well as asking to be given better opportunity to provide comment at an early stage 
in the EU’s process for developing new technical regulations. Inconsistent application of SPS and TBT measures between different EU member States  was also frequently mentioned. I would note, 
however, the further advice received from th e EU this morning on many of those issues. 
5.75.  Above all, however, my impression is th at the questions and discussions have served to 
confirm the important place of the EU in the global trading system – both as a key trading partner for many delegations and as a global leader in supporting and advancing the rules based 
multilateral trading system. I would encourage the EU to continue in this role, by taking into 
account and acting on the points made by Members as part of this review, and by continuing its p o s i t i v e  w o r k  h e r e  i n  G e n e v a  o v e r  t h e  n e x t  f e w  m o n t h s  i n  t h e  l e a d - u p  t o  t h e  B a l i  m i n i s t e r i a l  
meeting. 
5.76.  Lastly, I would like just again to briefly thank the Secretariat for all its hard work in 
preparing for this review; and of course the EU as well, particularly in answering so many 
questions in such a timely manner and for participatin g so positively this week; and, finally, to all 
the delegations who also were an integral part of the discussions over the past three days. 
RUSSIAN
 FEDERATION 
5.77.  Since the Russian Federation didn’t take the floor on the first day of the EU TPR, we would 
like first to associate with the statements made here earlier by numerous economies for which the 
EU remains the key trade partner. Russia has been among these countries for a long time and - taking into account the up-growing bilateral economic relations between us – will enjoy the reality 
with the EU being our major trade partner for many years to come. 
5.78.  In this context, Russia attaches much impo rtance and attention to the trade regime of the 
EU and to the continuous efforts of its authorities to be fully consistent with the core principles of 
the multilateral trading system such as transparency, accountability and non-discrimination.  
5.79.  Nevertheless, like most of the WTO Memb ers, in respect of several sectors that are 
important for Russia, we have some serious concerns about the current EU trade practices which affect negatively bilateral trade between Russia and the EU. The issues of particular interest for us 
which we addressed to the EU in writing during this TPR cover anti-dumping policy, SPS measures, WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 61 - 
 
  trade in energy, and road transport transit. Russia would like to thank the EU delegation on this 
TPR for the answers provided to some of our ques tions. We are going to give them a thorough 
consideration.  
5.80.  At the same time, we would like to draw the EU’s attention to the Russia’s question 
concerning consistency of the “Third energy package”. To our regret this written request was left 
by the EU without definite answer. While underst anding technical constrains faced by the EU, 
Russia would appreciate and will be looking forward to receiving from the EU clear and 
comprehensive response for this question in due course. 
5.81.  In conclusion, we would like to thank the delegation of the EU for its impressive work 
throughout these months and congratulate our European partners with their successful 11th TPR round.   
PERU 
5.82.  Significant changes have occurred since the last trade review in 2011. Firstly, 
the European Union has grown larger with the admission of a new member, Croatia, which we 
welcome. It has embarked on a reform of its common agricultural policy, to be implemented in the 
period 2014-2020; and it has reviewed its generali zed system of preferences, focusing on the 
poorest countries; it is also negotiating preferential agreements with several developing countries, 
and has announced its intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with the United States. 
5.83.  After being seriously affected by the global economic crisis in this period, the EU has had to 
cope with the sovereign debt crisis, and its economy shrank by 0.3% in 2012. Despite prospects for recovery in 2014, this is still very frag ile and uneven among its members. Given this 
problematic economic context, with undoubted social costs that have resulted in high levels 
of unemployment in several of its member States, the EU has had to initiate a process of reforms to overcome these vulnerabilities and risks, particularly in the eurozone and in financial markets, 
and to strengthen the framework of European monetary union, while also strengthening the 
competitiveness and sustainability of its economy. 
5.84.  The EU is the world's largest economy and a very important global trading partner for the 
vast majority of WTO Members. We appreciate the fact that, despite this difficult financial 
situation, it has maintained its openness and transparency, and has resisted protectionism. 
5.85.  In the bilateral sphere, the European Union is one of the main destination markets for 
Peruvian exports, which in 2012 posted a record level of US$7.7 billion, doubling in value 
since 2005. Imports, on the other hand, were in the order of US$5.2 billion, which meant 
a bilateral trade surplus for Peru on the order of US$2.5 billion. 
5.86.  Peru has benefited from the generalized sy stem of preferences gran ted by the EU under the 
GSP+ scheme, which has had positive effect s on economy and on improving the welfare 
of its population. For that reason, we will be very keen to assess the new scheme to be 
implemented as from 2014. 
5.87.  The European Union is also Peru's leading source of foreign direct investment, with a stock 
estimated at US$10,898 million in 2012, according to the records of the National Investment Agency PROINVERSIÓN. The leading countries of origin include Spain, the United Kingdom and Holland. 
5.88.  The growing trade and financial relations, and the complementarity of Peru's economy 
and those of members of the EU, led our Governme nts to negotiate a Multiparty Trade Agreement, 
which entered into force on 1 March last. The Agreement includes comprehensive provisions 
on liberalization of trade in goods, servic es, government procurement and trade defence 
measures, competition and intellectual property policies; it also enshrines our Governments' commitment to tighten the links of friendship and cooperation and to contribute towards the 
development of global trade, based on WTO rules. 
5.89.  That is why this Review of the EU's trade policy is of especial importance for my country 
because it enables us to examine and assess the EU's considerable achievements and challenges, WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 62 - 
 
  and the fact that, despite this critical juncture at  the global level, the EU has managed to keep its 
trade and investment regime open and transparent.  My country is concerned, nonetheless, that 
agriculture remains a highly protected sector, with  an average applied tariff of 14.8% compared 
to 6.5% for other sectors. We hope that the new stage of the Common Agricultural Policy will 
continue the process of reducing agricultural tariffs and subsidies that distort trade. 
5.90.  My delegation has submitted some questi ons concerning the EU's customs procedures, the 
single window, import permits and technical regulations. Lastly, we must reiterate our concern 
about Regulation No. 258/97, which continues to restrict access to the European market for certain 
food and food ingredients (termed "novel foods"). This affects trade in products derived from our biodiversity, for example, camu camu, yacón and sacha inchi, which are consumed domestically are sold without any problem on large global markets, but are prevented from 
entering the European market. This issue has b een raised repeatedly by my delegation in 
the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, among other forums, but no reply has yet been received. On this point, we would be grateful for any replies that the EU can give to 
these questions and concerns. 
PHILIPPINES 5.91.  The Philippines fully associates itself with the statement made by Brunei Darussalam on 
behalf of ASEAN last Tuesday. In addition to the points raised therein, we would like to enumerate 
a few observations regarding the EU and its value to the multilateral trading system and to the Philippines. 
5.92.  Firstly, the EU is a pillar of strength of the multilateral trading system, the Doha 
Development Agenda, and the upcoming 9th Ministerial Conference in Bali. EU’s unwavering and 
unequivocal commitment to a rules-based, open and fair trading system is a significant contribution in the midst of continuing global challenges and protectionist pressures. In this 
regard, we share others’ views that the active leadership, deep engagement, and maximum 
flexibility of the EU will be essential in achieving a meaningful and development-oriented Bali package. 
5.93.  Secondly, in spite of current fiscal and related challenges within the union, the EU continues 
to be a shining light for regional integration that functions effectively within our multilateral framework. The Philippines continues to learn from the good practices and policies of EU and its member States as we strive to contribute positi vely to the establishment of an ASEAN Economic 
Community in the near future. 
5.94.  Thirdly, even if the EU is collectively an advanced economy, it is still a work-in-progress like 
the rest of the membership. The EU’s dedication and hard work in attempting to resolve current 
challenges and to continue to grow in its integration process has been cited. We appreciate the 
inclusive manner in which the policies and programmes have been undertaken, and we hope and expect that the EU will continue to take into consideration the well-being of the multilateral trading 
system and all WTO Members, particularly developing countries, in pursuit of its own development 
agenda. 
5.95.  Fourthly, the Philippines appreciates the EU ’s transparency and openness to dialogue in 
addressing bilateral and other concerns. We look forward to continuing close engagement with the 
EU through this open-door policy.  
5.96.  Fifthly, the EU is a credible advocate for development, leading the way concretely in helping 
LDCs and other developing countries achieve greater participation in global trade through Aid for 
Trade, Trade Related Technical Assistance, and other donor programmes. The Philippines looks 
forward to continuing our dynamic partnership with  the EU in these capacity-building endeavours.  
5.97.  Last but not the least, the Philippines vi ews the EU as an important partner in trade and 
overall foreign policy. Our Partnership and Cooperation Agreement is a concrete manifestation of 
our strong bilateral relations and yearning for closer collaboration in many areas. We look forward to realizing the potential to strengthen our relationship, including possible future economic and trade engagements. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 63 - 
 
  MALAYSIA 
5.98.  Malaysia would like to revisit issue raised by Malaysia on Tuesday regarding the EU revision 
of the Renewable Energy Directive. Malaysia is very disappointed that despite Malaysia cooperation and inputs into the process, on 11 July, the European Parliament's Environment Committee has 
voted to push ahead with a discriminatory and unscientific approach to the revision of the 
Renewable Energy Directive. The vote represented a vote in favour of incomplete and uncertain 
science, and a vote against innovation and grow th. Over 300,000 small farmers across Malaysia, 
who rely on oil palm for their livelihood, w ill be affected by the Committee's decisions. 
5.99.  Malaysia deemed the decision as a transparent attempt by European agriculture producers 
to block market access for Malaysian palm oil at the expense of small farmers in Malaysia. This discriminatory treatment of Malaysian palm oil calls into question the European Parliament's 
commitment to international trade agreements, including the on-going negotiations for an 
EU-Malaysia Free Trade Agreement. 
5.100.  Oil palm is by far the most land-efficient oilseed crop in production, with productivity far 
greater than rapeseed, soybean and sunflower. Palm oil biodiesel, responsibly produced in 
Malaysia, can be a major contributor to reducing GHG emissions in Europe. The development of oil palm is a leading contributor to poverty alleviation, economic growth, and social development in 
Malaysia. Malaysia has also proven its commitment to environmental protection by pledging to 
preserve 50% forest cover - a far higher percentage that any European Union country - and the palm oil industry is proud to be an important part  of Malaysia's environmental conservation efforts. 
5.101.  Malaysia calls on members of the European  Parliament to support the text drafted by the 
Industry and Energy Committee, which is based on realistic assessment of the current science, and 
would support both the environmental goals of th e European Union, and access to the EU market 
for biofuels by Malaysia's palm oil farmers. 
CHINA 
5.102.  China takes note of the statement made by  Mr Balas, Head of the EU delegation. China 
also appreciates the new observations made by the discussant, Ambassador Yeend.  
5.103.  Since the EU is a key partner of China in  terms of trade and economic relations, China 
would like to take this opportunity to learn more about EU policies through the review, including our written questions. We were prepared to than k the EU delegation for its statement today, but 
after listening to Mr Balas’s statement, I have to say that China is very disappointed. The 
statement concerning the part of China’s state interference vis-à-vis  EU trade defence policies is 
totally unacceptable. Of course, there are also other points I would like to take in order to make further comments and seek follow-up clarifications from the EU. 
5.104.  First, on trade remedies. The statement by the EU obviously does not agree with the facts 
as we have evidence to indicate that unfair trade measures taken by the EU against Chinese products are based on criteria that are problema tic, and arbitrary or discriminatory, to say the 
least. The EU says that only a small fraction (about 1%) of Chinese imports is subject to the 
measures and that other Members such as Canada  and the US have taken more measures against 
imports from China. China does not believe that the portion of trade affected or behaviour of other Members could be justification for abuse of trade remedies. As we stated on Tuesday, what worries 
us is the clear upward trend of trade remedies of the EU targeting Chinese products. The more 
frequent initiations of cases against China involving larger trade values is certainly a sign of abuse of the measures on the part of the EU, and this has triggered a strong public outcry in China. 
Therefore, China urges the EU to reflect soberl y on the problem of its trade policies and the 
negative impact on the bilateral trade relations, an d refrain from recourse to such measures to the 
extent possible, especially those that are not based on complaint. Some investigations are not 
based on complaints by businesses, but by othe r stakeholders. They are strongly opposed by 
consumers within the EU. It hurts the interests of the vast majority of the practitioners and consumers. Therefore, we urge the EU to correct  its attitude. We do not like the attitude of 
defiance of the EU, especially for this exercise, because we believe it does not help the EU to 
diagnose its problems and make the corrections necessary in order to increase its competitiveness 
or overcome its difficulties. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 64 - 
 
  5.105.  Turning to the second issue of agriculture,  I agree with the statement or observation made 
by distinguished Discussant Ambassador Yeend. A lo t more needs to be done by the EU in this 
regard. This is also a common misunderstanding by many WTO Members. We note that in the answers to our questions regarding agricultural ta riffs and quotas, the EU emphasized the results 
of the Uruguay Round negotiations and indicated that reform of its agriculture policy is not 
intended to address market access issues. In China’s view, one aspect of the agricultural policy of the EU is a prominent representation of state interference in the market and the economy, 
resulting in trade distortion and affecting seriously the interests of other Members. While we 
welcome efforts of the EU to reform the policy, we  would also like to urge the EU to address more 
substantially the concerns of WTO Members in the reform process. 
5.106.  Thirdly, let me turn to the issues for furt her clarification. One of our questions was on the 
relationship between the state-aid programmes of the EU and its subsidy programmes notified to 
the WTO. While the answer of the EU elaborates on its subsidy notification to the WTO, it does not 
seem to have explained its relationship with state-aid programmes, which was the point of our 
interest in the question.  
5.107.  Fourthly, another follow-up is in regard to paragraph 3.2 of the Secretariat Report. The 
paragraph says that, according to the Commission, customs declaration rules are to be 
streamlined in the coming Union Customs Code (UCC), which will provide for “only one type of 
simplified declaration”. While our question was to s eek the meaning of this “one type of simplified 
declaration”, the reply of the EU is somewhat perplexing, saying that  the UCC will provide 
“different types of simplifications”.  We therefore hope that the EU could provide some clarification. 
5.108.  In the interest of time, I will refrain from  going further. My delegation has received a few 
additional questions from the Capital and they will be forwarded to the EU, together with the follow-up questions, including what I have just me ntioned. We look forward to replies from the EU 
in the coming month.  
5.109.  Finally, China urges the EU to reflect upon its trade policies soberly so as to find out those 
problematic aspects of those policies and make necessary adjustments, because we believe this 
will be good for the EU to create an environment that is conducive to growth of robust trade and 
business cooperation with other WTO Members. 
CANADA 5.110.  Canada acknowledges the efforts made by th e EU in its statement in providing additional 
information on a number of issues of interest to Members. Canada, in particular, appreciates the 
details on EU's Fuel Quality Directive, implementing measures, as well as government procurement, SPS and TBT policies and practices. 
5.111.  We again thank the EU for its written responses to our questions. We do have a number of 
follow-up questions that we shared this morning. These cover procurement, but also the new Investment Agreement and the relationship to the existing bilateral treaties, as well as on 
Renewable Energy Directive. We afford to receiving those responses and reviewing them. 
UNITED
 STATES 
5.112.  The United States wishes to thank the EU delegation for the answers to our written 
questions and for its engagement this morning and over the past several weeks in the preparation 
for this week. 
5.113.  We have a small number of follow-up qu estions for the EU which we provided to the 
Secretariat this morning. Very briefly, we would be interested in additional information regarding 
the consultations of stakeholders on proposed legislation and policies. We also seek clarification 
with regards to whether risk assessment would not be relevant for measures adopted by the Commission. And finally, we are seeking clarification with regards to the nature of the refusal of 
the trademark registration to cover protected traditional terms for wine. WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 65 - 
 
  JAPAN 
5.114.  Japan appreciates the effort made by the EU delegation led by Mr Balas for providing us 
with helpful explanations in response to our concerns. I also appreciate the insightful comments from the discussant, H.E. Mr Tim Yeend. 
5.115.  It has been a timely and significant Trade Policy Review given the on-going negotiation of 
the Japan-EU Economic Partnership Agreement. We would like to conclude the negotiation as soon as possible, and hope that the results of the nego tiation will contribute to the multilateral trading 
system. 
5.116.  The questions and answers through the TPR ar e useful for us to grasp the overall picture of 
the present EU trade policies in the multilateral trad ing system both in terms of its strength as well 
as some shortcomings. 
5.117.  Let me state three additional specific questions from Tokyo taking into account our 
discussion on the first day. 
5.118.  Firstly, "Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Voluntary Partnership 
Agreements" (FLEGT VPA). We would like to know and understand the progress of establishing the 
licensing scheme and the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) and so on, related to VPA. 
5.119.  Secondly, GPA and the International Procur ement Initiative of the EU. Please provide us 
with the EU’s answers to some of the advanc e questions where the International Procurement 
Initiative is applied. 
5.120.  Third and finally, competition policy and re gulatory issues on the pharmaceutical industry. 
W e  s h o u l d  b e  g r a t e f u l  t o  b e  i n f o r m e d  o f  t h e  criteria for the EU to determine if a settlement 
agreement “delays” entry of generic medicine. 
EUROPEAN
 UNION 
5.121.  Thank you for the continued interest of the delegations in the EU's trade policies and 
especially those delegations who were not able to speak earlier and spoke for the first time today, 
giving broader reaction to the points made in our statement during the process and in the Reports. In this respect, we would like to, of course, to  acknowledge and thank other positive statements 
made about the EU's trade policies, like Peru or the Philippines. 
5.122.  We would also like to thank the further fo llow-up questions which have been either sent or 
given directly by some WTO Members, like Canada and the United States and we will reply in the thirty days deadline to their questions. 
5.123.  Let me make some specific points about the issues raised. First of all, concerning the 
statement of Russia and, more specifically, the ques tions about the issue which they raised in their 
written questions. The Third Energy Package is an  area on which we have already provided quite 
detailed replies and, furthermore, this is an area which is the subject of permanent bilateral 
c o n s u l t a t i o n s  b e t w e e n  t h e  E U  a n d  R u s s i a .  I  w i l l  j u s t  s a y  t h a t  e a r l y  n e x t  w e e k  w e  w i l l  h a v e  a  bilateral consultation and this should be on the agenda, and we will have the opportunity to spell 
out the EU's position and the concerns of Russia with respect to the WTO-related implications of 
the Third Energy Package. This is a piece of legislation that has much broader implications.  
5.124.  Concerning the statement of Malaysia about the recently adopted resolution of the 
European Parliament's Environment Committee on process, you can understand it is not 
appropriate for the European Commission to make any views about legislative action. This is not 
an action by the European Parliament but by the Environmental Committee, and this is a decisional resolution subject to further consultations. It is up to the legislators to reflect on this subject. I 
won't go into further comments. 
5.125.  Concerning the specific questions raised by Japan, let me come back to those concerning 
the details on imports of timber, of the Volunt ary Partnership Agreement. These are bilateral 
agreements between the European Union and timb er exporting countries which aim to guarantee WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 66 - 
 
  that the goods exported to the EU are from legal sources and to support partner countries in 
improving their own regulation and governance of the sector. The envisaged licensing system is to 
certify legal timber for export to the EU market. There are quite a large number of goods exporting countries in all parts of the world (Africa, Central and South America) which have expressed 
interest in participating in this Voluntary Partnership Agreement. Further details might be given in 
our written replies. 
5.126.  The Japanese delegation has also made a point about the on-going process of the 
international procurement instrument. This falls in the category which is still draft legislation in the 
process of work between the legislators, the Counc il and the European Parliament. We have taken 
note of these views but as this is not a final piece of legislation, I do not wish to comment. I would like to point out that other EU legislative init iatives are also subject to very broad public 
consultations. Those views will be taken duly into account. 
5.127.  Concerning generic medicines, we replied in written form and I think it covers the question 
raised but we are ready to look at it if Japan requires further clarification. 
5.128.  Concerning the statement made by China, please let me make a personal comment. As a 
longstanding Representative of my home country  in the GATT and the WTO as ex-Ambassador, I 
am surprised about the tone of the Chinese statemen t. I think that this kind of term is totally 
unacceptable and this is not the usual way to discuss issues in the WTO. Of course, countries can 
raise concerns. But as for what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, it is not so much the views of the individual representatives or even co untries, but if there are disputes, we have the 
rule of law here, the dispute settlement procedures and those procedures will decide whether 
these actions or lack of actions from certain Members of the WTO to meet their legal obligations.  
5.129.  In what concerns trade defence, there are a number of on-going cases involving among 
others China and I don't think one could say these dispute settlement procedures would have 
supported in most cases the views of the Chinese delegation, in particular the Representative of 
China. But I don’t want to go into this kind of polemic. I would just note that I think it is useful to look at the way we express ourselves and I can a ssure the Representative of China that when we 
take actions we do it soberly. I also think that other member States will take due note of all this 
when they will look at pieces of legislation proposals coming from the European Commission. 
5.130.  Now, turning to the substance, I would like to point out that, again, concerning trade 
defence measures, what China calls discriminatory in the treatment of China, we consider that we 
simply apply the rule of law, the WTO and the EU law on the claims of industry in most cases and 
we follow and proceed to a deeper investigation. There is, however, an admitted specificity of the trade defence measures procedures concerning China due to the fact that China has a special 
accession protocol, which is valid until 2016, and which was, of course, accepted by China at the 
time of its accession to the WTO. And the EU, as some other Members of the WTO, based their 
trade defence procedures on the particular specificities of that accession protocol that reflected 
again the particular specificity of the Chinese economy when it joined the WTO. So, this is not at 
all illegal or unlawful or even discriminatory when we follow the rule of the law. We take note that, according to the Representative of China, this is an abuse by the EU. But again, we have the Dispute Settlement Mechanism to decide what is use and what is abuse. It is also true that in 
certain cases the European Commission launches its cases ex-officio  on its own initiative. This is a 
rather exceptional situation and based normally on EU consideration and interest.  
5.131.  We take note of China's call on us to do more in the reform of the EU's agriculture policies 
and we admit that market access is not part of the present reform of the common agriculture 
policy. Therefore, we call, among others, on China to work with us effectively in order to create the conditions for a successful completion of the Doha Round and that would be an opportunity to 
deal with market access issues not only in the EU but also in other WTO Members. 
5.132.  Finally, we also take note of the view that our notifications on subsidies are not sufficiently 
transparent and we will look at the notifications of other partners like China to find good examples.  WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 67 - 
 
  CHINA 
5.133.  After listening to the statement by Mr Balas, I feel obligated to respond in defence of 
China’s interest and position. 
5.134.  No.1, I hope that the EU is not saying that all the outcomes of dispute cases in the WTO 
support all the views of the EU. I hope this is not the case the EU is trying to suggest. 
5.135.  No 2, I hope that by the EU saying that, in the trade defence measures, it has followed the 
rule of law. There are requests in the bilateral consultations on such specific issues that are 
obvious violations of WTO laws and rules, while the EU has rejected to discuss this matter saying 
that its concerns have to be addressed, regardless of WTO rules and laws. 
5.136.  No.3, concerning agriculture and Doha negotiations, China is ready to engage with the EU 
and other Members to try to create necessary conditions and to take necessary steps to see what 
will be substantial and concrete results in th e outcome of MC9, or even in the form of 
early-harvest status. 
5.137.  No.4, concerning the notification of subsid ies, the interesting thing is that we understand 
the EU is running some subsidies in the state-aid programme. Since the EU has been accusing 
China of state interference, sometimes in the form  of subsidies, on one occasion we suggested 
that we would like to send a team to the EU to study the subsidy programme and notification 
mechanism, but this request was declined by the EU . So I think this is an indication of the EU’s 
hypocrisy.  WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 68 - 
 
  6  CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
6.1.  This was the eleventh Trade Policy Review of the European Union and it attracted a lot of 
interest from WTO Members with well over one th ousand questions were asked and responded by 
the EU. More than forty different delegations took the floor on both days. Our discussion was 
greatly helped by the comments of the discussant, Ambassador Tim Yeend of Australia, and the 
statements by the head of the EU delegation, Peter Balas. 
6.2.   As many delegations noted, the economic crisis in the EU has dominated developments over 
the past two years. Although other international organizations have greater roles in developing 
and analysing financial and macroeconomic measures, the Trade Policy Review cannot ignore these developments as they have had a considerab le impact on trade. The general state of EU’s 
economy was focused in the reports prepared by the EU, the Secretariat, the discussant and many 
delegations in their questions and intervention s. For a number of reasons, though domestic 
demand remains subdued, trade was the main engine of growth.  
6.3.  Although a considerable number of measures to address the crises have been taken at the 
levels of the EU and its Member states and there are several positive signs, the economic recovery 
is still fragile and unemployment in some Member states remains high. However, the reforms that are being undertaken, including fiscal reform and banking union, should help lead the way to a 
sustainable recovery that will benefit not only the EU but also its trading partners.  
6.4.  It was also widely noted by delegations th at, despite the crises, the EU has not resorted to 
introducing new protectionist measures which is a positive indication of both the strength of, and the EU's commitment to, the multilateral trading system. Furthermore, although a wide range of 
issues were raised by delegations during the m eeting, on the whole, the EU has low barriers to 
trade and investment and its laws and procedures are transparent and, to a large extent, uniformly applied throughout the 28 Member states. Furthermore, as Peter Balas noted in his 
opening remarks, the recent accession of Croatia is "another sign that the EU, the current 
economic difficulties notwithstanding, remains a successful and attractive entity."  
6.5.  The EU's commitment to the multilater al trading system, the Doha round, and the 
preparations for the next Ministerial Conference in  Bali in December were appreciated by Members 
including EU’s statement that the WTO represents the multilateral bedrock of its trade policy. Members consider that as the EU is the largest trading entity in the world and one of the main 
trading partners for many countries, its support for the WTO and active engagement in its work 
are essential for the multilateral trading system. However, while appreciating the EU's right to 
negotiate free trade agreements with other countries, several delegations urged the EU to take care that these agreements do not dilute its commitment to the multilateral trading system, 
particularly given the start of negotiations last week with the United States on the Transatlantic 
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and on-going negotiations with other major economies. 
6.6.  Several delegations commended the EU for it s support for aid for trade and noted that the EU 
was the largest provider in the world for such aid.  
6.7.  Despite the focus of developments in the EU over the past two years being on measures 
related to the on-going economic crises, several trade-related measures have been agreed, although in some cases they have not yet been fully implemented. The changes to the GSP 
scheme, which are to be implemented from the start of 2014, was one area which drew comments 
by some Members. Other reforms awaiting full implementation relate to customs procedures and the introduction of the single electronic window, which could help reduce differences in 
implementation of customs laws among Member st ates, and the application of the single unitary 
patent which should make registration of patents in the EU less difficult. 
6.8.  Given the size and importance of the EU to world trade and the diversity of its economy, it is 
difficult to cover each and every issue that was raised on Tuesday and today. However, I noted 
that some of the points made by delegations in their interventions were also raised in earlier trade policy reviews of the EU, although it is reassuri ng to see that there are not many new issues.  
 Tariffs: The EU was commended for the high number of duty free tariff lines and its 
relatively low average tariff. However, many delegations noted that some sectors continue WT/TPR/M/284 • European Union 
 
- 69 - 
 
  to be protected by high tariffs which are ofte n specific duties or complex forms of duties 
while some agricultural products are also subject to seasonal tariffs.  
 Agriculture: Although the EU has reached a political agreement on further reforms of the 
Common Agricultural Policy to apply from 2014, and the general trend is towards greater 
market orientation of agriculture in the EU, delegations noted that market access was not 
being directly addressed in these, or previous, reforms. There were also some concerns 
about the levels of support to producers as well as the continued, albeit declining, use of export subsidies. In this respect, successful completion of the Doha Round is essential to 
address these issues globally.  
 Fisheries: The reform of the Common Fisheries Policy also attracted a lot of interest, 
particularly concerns about overfishing, subsidies that could increase fishing capacity, and 
the possible application of unilateral trade sanctions against third countries for over-exploiting fisheries stocks shared with the EU. 
 Government procurement: While government procurement above certain thresholds has 
been harmonised and must comply with EU laws, there were concerns about procurement 
below these thresholds by Member states, sub-federal agencies, and state-owned 
enterprises.  
 SPS and TBT measures: SPS and TBT measures also remain a concern for other WTO 
Members who called for better opportunities to participate in the formulation of these 
measures which should be based on science and should be no more trade restrictive than 
necessary to meet their objectives.  
6.9.  Despite the great diversity among the Member states of the EU, it is, in many ways a single 
economic unit with common rules governing trade and most trade-related areas. However, some differences remain in the application of rules an d procedures and member States have different 
legal and administrative systems while retaining competence or have considerable flexibility in 
some areas such as corporation tax, excise duties, and VAT. Nevertheless, there is a considerable degree of harmonization in areas where the EU has competence, which now also includes 
investment. 
6.10.  I would like to thank the EU for choosing to use the alternative timeline for this Trade Policy 
Review which gave all delegations time to consider its replies and has helped our discussion. From 
the statements from delegations, it is clear that, on the whole, the EU has managed to provide 
satisfactory answers to practically all the questions put to it although I appreciate the fact that in 
some areas the questions referred to proposals for future legislation where it was not possible to provide definitive answers. Nevertheless, the EU  is to be commended for answering so many 
questions and we look forward to getting the last re plies over the next four weeks. Finally, I would 
like to thank the EU, our discussant Ambassador Tim Yeend, and the delegations for contributing to a successful review of EU trade policy. 
__________