WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/TPR/M/214 
8 June 2009 
 (09-2724) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
6 and 8 April 2009  
 
 
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
 
Record of the Meeting  
 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Istvan Major (Hungary) 
 
 
  Page 
 
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 3 
II. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE RE PRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN 
COMMUNITIES  4 
III. STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT 12 
IV. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 18 
V. REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND 
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 68 
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 86 
 
Note:   Advance written questions by WTO Member s and the replies provided by the European 
Communities are reproduced in document WT/TPR /M/214/Add.1 and will be available online 
at:  http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm.    WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
1. The ninth Trade Policy Review of the Eur opean Communities was held on 6 and 8 April 
2009.  The Chairperson H.E. Mr. Istvan Major (Hun gary) welcomed the delegation of the European 
Communities, headed by Mr. Peter Balas, Deputy Di rector General of DG Trade, and the discussant, 
H.E. Mr. Peter Grey (Australia).   
2. The Chairperson recalled the purpose of the Trad e Policy Reviews and the main elements of 
the procedures for the meeting.  The report by th e European Communities was contained in document 
WT/TPR/G/214 and that of the WTO Secretariat in WT/TPR/S/214. 
3. Questions by the following delegations had been  submitted in writing at least two weeks in 
advance and had been transmitted to the delegation of the European Communities:  Brazil;  China; 
Norway;  Japan;  Switzerland;  Australia;  Chinese Ta ipei;  Chile;  Republic of Korea;  Colombia; 
Panama;  Canada;  Dominican Republic;  New Zeala nd;  Hong Kong, China;  Thailand;  Pakistan; 
Turkey;  United States;  Mexico;  Ecuador;  Costa Rica;  and Argentina.  All advance questions, as 
well as the responses received from the delegation of  the European Communities are reproduced in 
WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1. 
4. The following delegations had submitted written questions after the two-week deadline:  
India;  Malaysia;  Philippines;  Nicaragua;  Gu atemala;  Peru;  Viet Nam;  and Indonesia. 
5. The Chairperson said that through the documen tation prepared for this Review, he was 
pleased to note that economic performance in the EC was generally good in 2006-07, although it 
weakened as from the second half of 2008 due to th e global economic crisis.  The EC had remained 
one of the most active Members in the WTO and had contributed to the negotiations in the Doha 
Development Agenda (DDA).  The EC was also trying to make its best to prevent trade protectionism 
in the current economic downturn.   
 WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 4  
 
  II. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 
6. Before making my formal statement, I would lik e to raise a point of procedure or point of 
order which relates to the documentation prepared by the Secretariat for this meeting.  The particular 
issue that I want to raise is a question of consiste ncy concerning the nature of the content to a certain 
extent of the Summary Observations which is a partic ularly important part of the Report as this gives 
a summary of the views of the Secretariat, it is ve ry often the only part of the Report that policy 
makers of journalist reads or very often the statem ents in the Summary Observations can be seen in 
the following period as a reference for internationa l negotiations, and in other cases we can see it also 
in the press. 
7. Furthermore, the Summary Observations constitut es the part of the Report that it is not seen 
in advance by the Member under Review and theref ore there is no chance to comment in advance.  
The issue what I am going to raise is a recurring pr oblem for the Reports prepared by the Secretariat 
by the TPR and we had a similar issue in 2007.  My pa rticular point relates to the last part of the SO 
which is to be found in page x, part (5), Trade Po licy and Trading Partners.  The first observation that  
we looked at similar reports of other major trading pa rtners we did not find any similar part of the SO 
on their cases, but the problem is not so much the title  but it is more about the content of this part. 
8. This is basically of series of recommendations repeating again the elements which are found 
in the previous part of the SO for instance the last  paragraph 20 deals again with the issue of the EC's 
agriculture policies making particular recommend ations in this respect.  This portion and 
paragraph 19 specially has not just an issue which we want to raise from the point of view of the 
specificity of this part of the SO but quite a substa ntive issue and this relat es to the last sentence of 
this paragraph.  Let me read it out:  "It is important  for the EC to consider the discriminatory elements 
of its existing and new PTAs, and he potentially greater advantages of market opening on an MFN 
basis".  We find this a rather strong statement when th e Secretariat states that the EC's past and future 
PTAs content discriminatory elements and I would just note that we did not find any underpinning 
finding or reassessment in the body of the Secretariat' s Report itself.  From the EC's point of view we 
consider our PTAs fully consistent with Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATT and 
we do not share the view of the Secretariat that th ese contain discriminatory elements.  Furthermore, 
we also have a major policy question which I would not want to go into it or in the way the relationship between preferential agreements and MFN liberalization are treated in this case and I emphasize just for the purposes of the EU's TPR. 
9. As I mentioned we did not find on this particular  issue or in general any similar approaches 
even in quite recent TPRs Report made about major pa rticipants.  I have to spell out very clearly.  
First of all, the EU has no problem to be subject to criticism, after all this is the point of this whole 
exercise, and we are criticised as ot hers we certainly will try to res pond to this criticism.  Second we 
do not have a problem if the Secretariat chooses to make recommendations not just assessment but 
specific recommendations to the Me mbers of the Organization although this is somewhat of a novel 
approach in the TPR but as I mentioned if this is s ought to be useful we can live with it.  Where we 
have however a particular problem is the selective a pproach.  That we do not see a selective consistent 
approach in the SO followed by the Secretar iat across the burden for all Members of this 
Organization. 
10. So whatever the route is chosen they wo uld just respectively request through you the 
Secretariat, Mr. Chairman, to ensure a consistency in the structure and in the approach taken towards 
participants subject to TPR Review and this is specially an important issue when we speak about 
major players.  I just wanted to make this point and I leave it to you and to the Secretariat to reflect 
about this issue and decide how to deal with it.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 5 
 
 
  SECRETARIAT 
11. I do not want to comment on the substance of the issue that was raised this morning, but I do 
agree with Ambassador Balas that we must be even  handed in the way we approach the TPR exercise, 
and we must use a consistent approach with regard  to any trade policy advice we include in the TPR 
so we thank the EC for the observations and we will be happy to have a look at this and make sure 
that we do apply an even handed c onsistent approach in the future. 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
12. Before I address the substance, let me reiterate  the importance we attach to the transparency 
pillar of the WTO, with the trade policy reviews at its  core.  Now that it is our turn again, we stand 
ready with my team to explain and clarify any issu e of Members' concern with regard to our trade 
policies and practices. The EC is the largest actor in international trade in goods and services: we 
make up for roughly a fifth of world trade in goods and close to a third of the global services market. Thus we are aware of our particular responsibility.   
13. Prior to this meeting, we have received close to 1000 questions from 26 Members, a record in 
the TPRM history. This certainly shows WTO members’ keen interest in the EU’s trade policy, a fact 
that we welcome. Today we provide written respon ses to all questions submitted by the closing date, 
as well as to most of those that re ached us later. We will work hard  to ensure a similar promptness 
with regard to all further written questions put to us  recently and will also react, of course, to oral 
comments and questions, as part of a cons tructive discussion today and on Wednesday.  
ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
14. Given the dramatic world-wide economic downturn since the start of the deep financial crisis 
last autumn, I will start with the macro-economic  picture and outline the steps the EC and our 
Member States have taken to return  the financial sector to health, to stabilize the real economy, and 
thereby pave the way for the recovery of our ow n and the global economy - the two being closely 
linked. 
15. By now the EC is also fully feeling the pinch. By the end of 2008 the EC economy was 
already  in recession, with GDP falling by 1.4% in the last quarter of 2008 compared to a year ago. 
The downward trend continues into 2009. Our industry is under strain: industrial production in the EC 
has fallen to some 15%  below that of last year. In January 2009 new industrial orders were down by 
almost a third. EC merchandise exports first dropped last November, by 11% year-on-year. This January, they were down almost 25% compared to Ja nuary 2008. Imports have also been falling at an 
increasing - but somewhat slower - pace. Of course, we know that all this is but a part of a very 
dramatic global picture on trade, which the WTO recently forecasted to contract by up to 9% in 
volume this year. 
16. Near-term prospects are also gloomy and expecta tions continue to be revised downwards. The 
Commission’s own forecasts predict ever deeper falls  in GDP for 2009, although a moderate recovery 
in 2010 had been expected. Other institutions’ view s are even bleaker, forecasting drops in the GDP 
of 3 to 4% for the euro area, and casting doubt over the return of growth even in 2010.  
17. The EU in a rapid and coordinated manner reacted  to the financial turmoil, with the primary 
aim of stabilizing financial markets and unlocking credit flows. Monetary easing went hand in hand 
with the implementation of guarantee and recapitalization schemes for banks and other affected financial institutions. Several proposals for revised financial rules have also been put forward to 
ensure a less crisis-prone governance system fo r the future, proposals which the G20 Summit has 
embraced. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 6  
 
  18. As the financial crisis began spilling into the real economy, the EC in December 2008 
adopted an ambitious Economic Recovery Plan. It includes a significant fiscal stimulus to boost demand in short term, while making sure that pub lic funds are spent on forward-looking investment 
that will enhance our long-term economic health, boos t the fight against climate change and increase 
our energy security.  
19. All in all, the fiscal stimulus is already wo rth around 3.3% of the total European economic 
output. If automatic stabilizers, such as public sp ending on welfare payments are included, we are 
around 4%.  We are convinced that the EU and its Member  States have taken measures that are  bold 
and are in proportion with the severity of the crisis. Making sure that we act responsibly – consistent 
with the internal market as well as the WTO rules – has been a guiding principle for all our action. 
20. Many questions have been raised about the poten tial trade effects of government interventions 
in the EU to support financial ins titutions and other sectors adversely affected by the crisis. In reality, 
in the EU these support measures can go ahead only if they  comply with strict state aid rules, with the 
European Commission monitoring national aid schem es to avoid potential distortions to competition. 
Crucially, assistance is only allowed on a temporary basis and must be linked to restructuring plans. 
This is about allowing companies with sound prosp ects to weather the short-term difficulties and get 
the finance they need to make investment. But it is not about keeping fundamentally uncompetitive 
businesses on the lifeline. There are also no “Buy  European" type requirements attached. The 
financial and fiscal packages of the EU are providing a stimulus to overall demand for foreign and domestic goods and services alike. Thereby, they are trade creating. 
21. There can be no mixing up of these stimulus pr ogrammes with tariff or non-tariff  measures 
that directly restrict trade. The EC has introduced  none of these. On the contrary, we have allowed 
unimpeded flows of imports and made active efforts to facilitate trade by stepping up official export 
credit and insurance to fill the gap in trade financing left by private banks. 
22. We are convinced that in addition to our effort s at home the only effective reaction to a global 
crisis is a global, concerted response. This is why institutions for global governance, such as the 
WTO, are crucial. This is why the EU has particip ated so pro-actively in this Body’s monitoring of 
measures taken in response to the economic crisis. A nd this is why the EU and its MS played such an 
active role in the setting up the recent G20 Summit that  devoted much attention also to trade issues.  
TRADE POLICY 
23. Let me now briefly review the last two years’ policy developments within the EC in trade and 
related areas.  
24. Against the background of our substantial ro le in the global trading system, the basic 
objective of our trade policy has always been to support sustainable development at home and abroad, to effectively contribute to an open, balanced a nd well-functioning interna tional trade regime. While 
the basic objective has not changed, we ha ve continuously refined our toolbox.  
25. At the last TPR in 2007 I announced the launch of  our Global Europe strategy as an important 
step in the EU’s trade policy, aimed at contributi ng to European competitiveness, to creating jobs and 
fostering growth, while fully recognizing a basic econom ic premise: we need to import in order to be 
able to export.  
26. Our approach under the Global Europe strategy c ontinues to be based on a clear prioritization 
of multilateralism. Therefore, the EC remains fully  committed to the WTO as the primary vehicle for 
implementing this strategy. In particular, active pa rticipation in the DDA negotiations has been the  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 7 
 
 
  single most important trade policy activity for the EC over the last two years. We are glad to see that 
the Secretariat’s report also recognizes the EU’s efforts to show leadership and to facilitate consensus.   
27. In agriculture, an area of special sensitivity  for the EU, we remain willing to accept cutting 
our overall trade distorting support by 80% and to fu lly give up export subsidies. We are convinced 
that the steps taken since 2003 under the unilateral re form of the CAP have been a major factor in the 
improved conditions of international farm trade in the past period. We would be also ready to  make 
an average cut of 54% in our tariffs and to create new, substantial access possi bilities even in case of 
sensitive products through TRQ's. In case of industria l tariffs, a Swiss coefficient of 8 would halve the 
EU’s already low average duties, to some 2 p.c. In our case, unlike man others, this means applied 
cuts.  In services, we continue to seek an ambitious outcome and have made it clear that, if our 
partners, especially emerging economies, make propor tional efforts, we will make sure to address 
their requests even in the sensitive area of movement of persons. In the TRIPS talks, an area of major 
interest for the EU, we have contributed to bu ilding a platform for a compromise for both better 
protection of geographical indica tions and new disciplines concerning biodiversity. We have also 
shown continuing commitment to other areas of the negotiation, such as trade facilitation, where we 
believe the outcomes would provide a  major contribution also to development objectives. We 
continue to attach great importance to DDA outcomes that benefit  DCs, with special consideration to 
the poorest and weakest of them.   We remain st rongly committed to securing an ambitious, balanced 
and comprehensive agreement on the DDA as swiftly  as possible, and we are prepared to move 
forward on the basis of the current negotiating texts. 
28. In parallel to the DDA, we have stepped up e ngagement with our key trading partners by 
launching negotiations on a new generation of comprehensive FTAs. These FTAs aim to extend 
beyond present agreements in scope and depth of co mmitments, including trade in services, regulatory 
and non-tariff barriers,  intellectual property right s, investment, public procurement and competition. 
These new generation FTAs also integrate hi gh environmental and labour standards.  
29. In this regard, I am pleased that the Secretaria t has confirmed our view that the bilateral and 
regional agreements form "part of the EU’s broa der policy of promoting multilateralism". Therefore it 
is unfortunate, however, that in spite of this, in the “Summary observations” our bilateral trade 
agreements alleged to contain "discriminator y elements" without any supporting evidence or 
explanation. We are convinced that our FTAs meet the requirements of Article XXIV of GATT, as well as of Article V. of GATS and are fully comp arable to FTAs of other WTO members. Thus, it 
seems that using the term “discriminatory” just to th e EU’s FTAs is not just unjustified, but is also a 
discrimination itself.  
30. The Global Europe strategy has not distracted the EU in any way from actively seeking to put 
all elements of our trade policy at the service of de velopment. Thus, our bilateral trade relations with 
developing countries are also guided by this  co mmitment, aimed at responding to our partners’ 
specific needs and helping their efforts to be integr ated into the global trading system. The Economic 
Partnership Agreements (EPAs) towards which we have been working together with the African, 
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries in the last year s, are a case in this point. They are conceived 
explicitly with the aim of supporting national and regional development and poverty reduction 
strategies through WTO-compatible trade agreemen ts. Concerning goods, the EPAs ensure heavily 
asymmetrical market opening, where the EC provid es complete free access to its market starting 
immediately, while the ACP partners liberalise gr adually over an agreed transition period, with 
exclusions to take account of their development needs. These are development-oriented agreements 
which also envisage enhanced cooperation, a stronger framework of  rules and appropriate services 
liberalisation. Overall, EPAs will ensure a transpar ent and more predictable framework for trade and 
investment and stimulate regional integration as well as domestic adjustment and development 
processes.  WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 8  
 
  31. Since 2001 all LDCs have enjoyed duty free, quota free access to our market under the 
"Everything but Arms" initiative which is now in th e final stage of fully implementing the goal of 
DFQF market access for products from the LDCs, agreed in Hong Kong. The only remaining duty-
free tariff quotas on rice and sugar will be fully libe ralized in October 2009, meaning that we will 
have achieved 100% coverage.  
32. Exports from the LDCs to the EC under the EB A have steadily increased. In 2007, the total 
value of goods imported from the LDCs under the EBA was close to 90% above the level in 2001, the 
first year of the scheme . We look forward to other develope d and emerging economies following our 
example in providing comprehensive DFQF market  access to LDCs and reporting similar successes. 
33. We also offer preferential terms of market access to non-LDC developing countries. Indeed, 
our General System of Preferences, which entered into a new three-year cycle on 1 January 2009, is 
the most comprehensive of all developed-count ry autonomous preference regimes, with 176 
beneficiaries and wide product coverage. Additional "GSP+" tariff preferences are available to 
beneficiaries which are particularly vulnerable,  and have committed them selves to international 
standards on human and labour rights, environment and good governance. 
Aid for Trade 
34. We recognize that as well as creating additiona l opportunities to trade, we also should help 
building up the capacities to tap into these opportuniti es. We have taken major steps to enhance the 
quality and quantity of our Aid for Trade programme, of which we are the largest provider world-wide. In October 2007 the EC and its Member States  adopted a joint Aid for Trade Strategy based on 
the recommendations of the WTO Aid for Trade Task  Force. Implementation is now well under way. 
Fresh figures indicate that the pledge we made in Hong Kong in 2005 to step up our Trade Related 
Assistance to € 2 billion annually by 2010 was alrea dy close to being met as early as 2007, as the EC 
and its Member States together allocated € 1.98 billi on for this purpose. Our total commitments to Aid 
for Trade also grew to reach € 7.17 billion. Give n concerns that the economic downturn could impact 
on aid levels, the EC and MSs’ good record of delivery should assuage such concerns.  
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT/CLIMATE CHANGE 
35. Promoting coherence between trade policy and protection of the environment has long been 
high on our agenda. In the DDA negotiations, we have  been favouring early trade liberalization for 
environmental goods and services, as well as seeking to clarify the relationship between the WTO and 
Multilateral Environmental Agreements. As the challe nge of climate change has taken centre stage 
worldwide, there is now a new sense of urgency to act. The EC and its Member States have been in 
the forefront of the fight against climate change bot h at home and in the international arena. We have 
developed a robust policy with some of the most aggressive carbon emissions reduction targets, and 
we play a leading role in the negotiations on a new post-Kyoto climate regime. It should be a priority 
for all of us to ensure that trade policy is co mplementary and makes its full contribution to these 
efforts.  
Internal Market  
36. Let me also touch upon some internal market  and sector-specific policy issues that have 
received much attention in the Secretariat’s repor t, as well as in a good number of questions from 
members. 
37. As regards the Single Market, we have for the most part reached a stage of maturity and 
consolidation. Recent policy initiatives have focused mainly on improving its functioning by  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 9 
 
 
  empowering  consumers, enhancing the supportive envir onment for small businesses and stimulating 
innovation.  
38. The Secretariat in its report highlights diffe rences in internal taxation and incentives as 
indicators of an incomplete internal market. Simila r views are also expressed in a number of questions 
by members. These remarks show a major misundersta nding of the distinctive institutional nature of 
the EU. The EU remains a union of sovereign nation states, where competence is shifted to the 
supranational level only if the subsidiary test is  met: not all policy instruments are destined for 
harmonisation, and they don't even ne ed to be for the internal market to function properly. The truth is 
that in many key respects the EU achieved a higher le vel of harmonisation than several federal states. 
Services  
39. In so far as we concur with the Secretariat’s observation that the internal market integration 
for services remains work in progress, we have  made real advances since the last TPR. The 
implementation of the Services Directive of December 2006 and other recent sector-specific legislation such as for financial services, telecoms  and postal services, to a large extent reduced the 
remaining regulatory and administrative obstacles to intr a-EC trade. We don’t think that the real trade 
effects of the remaining differences would justify su ch a focus on internal measures, considering the 
established practice of WTO trade policy reviews. The EU has one of the most open markets for 
services in the world, it is the biggest importe r of commercial services. We regard further 
improvement of market access for services providers as an essential component of the DDA and of bilateral trade negotiations, offering possibly the largest long-term potential benefits.  
CAP Reform 
40. Now to our agricultural policies and their im pact on trade. The transformation of the 
European agricultural policy has continued at an  unabated pace, without consideration of WTO 
negotiating tactics. Reforms during the period under re view focused on the sugar, fruit and vegetables, 
cotton and wine subsectors. In November 2008, we concluded the Health Check of the 2003 CAP 
reform with an agreement on further important adju stments. Notably, all remaining coupled payments 
to farmers, with the exception of some animal  premia, have been decoupled from production and 
moved to the Single Payment Scheme, which falls unde r the Green Box. The combined result is that 
over 90% of the EC direct payments to  farmers will be decoupled by 2013. 
41. It is disappointing to see that these far reach ing policy changes don’t get proper recognition 
from a number of quarters. Criticism could have b een more understood, had the EC not been alone 
among the major players to implement during the DDA unilaterally a thorough reform of domestic 
farm support. 
42. It must be stressed that the EC is by far the world's largest agricultural importer. We import 
more agricultural goods from developing countries than the U.S., Canada, Japan, Australia and New 
Zealand combined. The EC also provides a market for almost 60% of all ag ricultural exports from 
LDCs. 
43. Even so, we are ready to do more, as part of a concerted global move towards further 
liberalisation of agricultural trade. Thanks to our reforms, as part of an overall Doha agreement, the 
EC can accept not just a steep reduction in our trad e-distorting subsidies, the elimination of export 
subsidies, but also a significant reduction of our borde r protection. But the deal must also cover issues 
of particular interest to the EC, including meani ngful results on geographical indications, so that our 
farmers are able to take advantage of their competitiveness in high-quality processed food products. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 10  
 
  44. A point to keep in mind, however: agriculture is distinct from any other sector. In addition to 
the vital economic function of supplying food, it also plays an indispensable role in protecting the environment, biodiversity and animal welfare,  as well as in preserving the countryside.  While 
European consumers attach great importance to su ch wider objectives, the market does not always 
adequately compensate farmers for the services th ey provide in this regard. Hence, there is a 
continued need for an active multifunctional agricultura l policy that is however less and less based on 
trade-distorting subsidies. 
45. Let me also use this opportunity to address th e export refunds for dairy products reinstated 
earlier this year, which prompted a large number of accusations. So, it’s need to stress that the EC 
remains committed to eliminate all forms of e xport subsidies by 2013 as part our conditional 
agricultural offer in the DDA. Nevertheless, in so me sectors, including dairy, for the time being the 
possibility of providing export subsidies  still remain s. When world prices for dairy products were 
high, export refunds did not kick in. The recent abr upt drop in dairy prices, however, has triggered the 
mechanism of their reintroduction, in line with th e CAP implementation rules. The reinstatement of 
these limited subsidies was fully consistent with ou r WTO obligations. I must thus strongly disagree 
with anyone who interprets this fact as a revers al of the CAP reform or of our position on export 
subsidies in the DDA. If anything, it is a good re minder of the value of the concession the EC has 
offered in the multilateral negotiations. 
MANUFACTURING 
46. We were also concerned by unsubstantiated claims in the Secretariat Report stating that 
manufacturing in the EU is a major beneficiary of state aid. We fail to see on what figures this 
assessment is based, what is the point of reference? If the basis is supposed to be international 
comparison, we couldn’t find reliabl e and consistent cross-country da ta in the TPR reports prepared 
about other major players. So, before using such qua lifications for aid as “large”, or “major”, it would 
be necessary to see first also from other important members of the WTO equally comprehensive information on state aid and to check how those relate to ours. 
47. As for our enterprise and industrial policies, I can  assure you that they have little to do with 
old-style interventionism. What they aim at is creating a better environment in which manufacturing industries can thrive – primarily by simplifying regulation,  lowering administrative burden on 
businesses, improving skills and stimulating innovation. We pursue less but better targeted aid to meet 
the horizontal objectives such as research, improve d access to finance for SMEs, environmental 
protection, and regional development. Our pref erred choice are therefore cross-sectoral support 
schemes that favour no particular industry.  
48. Let me also refer to the openness of our manufacturing sector. The EC industrial tariffs are 
among the lowest in the world. Our average MFN tariff on industrial goods is 4%  with over a quarter of tariff lines at 0. Here I should clarify that the slightly higher reported figures for some industrial 
tariffs in 2008 compared to 2006 are due merely  to changes in nomenclature which has been 
streamlined and simplified. We have not raised our duties, as some Members have suggested in their 
advance questions, on the contrary, as the Secret ariat also points out, our applied tariff average 
dropped to 6,7% from 6,9% indicated in the last report. We might just wish if all countries respected to the same extent their G20 commitments on border protection.  
49. Also important to note is that most manufactured goods from developing countries enter at 
even lower preferential rates, on the basis of bilateral agreements or our autonomous trade 
preferences. Insofar as MFN industrial tariffs remain of relevance, I can again refer to our position in 
the DDA as the avenue for bringing them down even further.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 11 
 
 
  50. As referred to earlier, recent forecasts have  dashed hopes of an early economic recovery. 
There is no doubt that the recession gives an opportuni ty and an excuse to protectionist forces all over 
the world. The EU is no exception, but we are determ ined to resist such pressures. We will sustain our 
efforts to follow through on the G20 pledge made in  Washington last November and reaffirmed just a 
few days ago at the London Summit. 
51. We fully recognize the imperative of keeping ma rkets open so that trade can play its role 
alongside stimulus packages in reactivating our economi es in these strenuous times.  In this context, I 
would like to restate our strong endorsement for th e global monitoring process piloted by the WTO. I 
should also note that under this initiative the EC has provided a model in terms of transparency, self-reporting the relevant measures adopted since late  2008 in the most comprehensive and exhaustive 
manner.  
52. We do not, however, stop there. We will continue to work tirelessly to bring DDA 
negotiations to their successful conclusion. This is more necessary now than ever, not least to restore 
confidence in the global economic order. We are also  committed to contribute to further trade opening 
through our bilateral agenda. 
53. This concludes the remarks I wish to make by wa y of introduction. I hope I have not only set 
the scene but also already provided some useful clarif ications. As I pass the floor to the discussant and 
Members, let me say that listening attentively to all statements is a big part of why we are here, and I 
can assure you that these views will feed into our ow n reflection on the future course of trade policy 
in the EU. 
 WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 12  
 
  III. STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT (H .E. Mr. Peter Grey (Australia)) 
Introductory comments 
54. It is a great pleasure to serve as discussant fo r the European Communities’ (EC) latest trade 
policy review.  I would like to start by welcoming back to Geneva the head of the EC’s delegation 
Balas and members of his delegation from Brussels.   I would also like to express my thanks to 
Ambassador Guth and his team from the EC Mission in  Geneva for their work on this TPR - and also 
the Secretariat for their preparation of another high quality trade policy review report. 
55. The EC always sets for itself broad ranging and ambitious goals, and this certainly applies to 
its trade policy.  As set out in Article 131 of the Treaty of Nice, the EC's trade policy aims to "contribute, in the common interest, to the harm onious development of world trade, the progressive 
abolition of restrictions on international trad e and the lowering of customs barriers".   
56. As the Secretariat’s report notes this objective is  in line with the general aims of the Treaty 
"to promote, throughout the Community, a harmoni ous, balanced and sustai nable development of 
economic activities, a high level of employment and social protection, equality between men and 
women, a high degree of competitiveness and converg ence of economic performance, a high level of 
protection and improvement of the quality of the envi ronment, the raising of the standard of living and 
quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Members".   
57. While these are commendable and important objectiv es, the EC’s trading partners are likely 
to assess at the end of the day the EC’s trade po licies through a narrower prism, namely the impact 
such policies have on their direct, commercial in terests. Nevertheless these broader objectives are 
worth having in the back of our minds during the course of this TPR as they are indicative of the 
range of policy considerations that are in play w ithin the EC. And, with the global economic turmoil 
forming the backdrop to this TPR, there is heighten ed anxiety regarding the risks of protectionist 
policy interventions impacting upon the direction of trade policies not solely of course from the EC.  
58. The involvement of the EC and many Member States in the G20 Leaders’ Summit in London 
last week and their endorsement, along with all ot her participants, of the need to “minimise any 
negative impact on trade and investment of our domestic policy actions including fiscal policy and 
action in support of the financial sector” is therefore very reassuring. 
59. The most recent enlargement of the Europ ean Union (with the accession of Romania and 
Bulgaria on 1 January 2007) occurred just at the out set of the current review period (in fact shortly 
before the last trade policy review of the EC, held in February 2007). 
60. As a result the composition of the EC has been stable since the last TPR, as has its 
institutional framework.  Not surprisingly issues of enlargement and institutional change do not have 
quite the same focus as they have had in previous  TPRs. They do, however, remain relevant.  If 
foreshadowed institutional reforms, particularly with respect to decision making processes, had been 
completed, and further progress made on completing the single market, it would perhaps have been 
easier for the EC to manage in the current difficu lt economic circumstances. I appreciate this is a 
contentious issue but any comments that the EC mi ght like to make on this would I’m sure be of 
interest to WTO Members.  
61. More generally, there can be no doubt that th is TPR remains of enormous interest to 
Members.   
62. This, of course, is not surprising given that, as the Secretariat report notes, the EC is the 
world’s leading merchandise trader (accounting fo r 17% of world merchandise trade);  world’s  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 13 
 
 
  leading trader in services;  world’s largest energy importer;  world’s largest provider and recipient of 
foreign direct investment. 
63. But trade policy developments of economic heav yweights such as the EC clearly take on an 
even greater significance for WTO Members in tim es of economic turmoil and uncertainty, such as 
we are experiencing now.  It is not just the direct impact on Members but also the indirect “signalling” 
influence of the EC. 
64. This is perhaps the main reason for the enormous  growth in the number of questions directed 
at the EC in this TPR – although some colleag ues have suggested that the large number of 
unemployed, capital based trade negotiators as a result  of the present lull in the Doha Round is also a 
factor.  Whatever the reason the reality is that Peter Balas, Ambassador Gu th and their teams will 
need to respond to questions from 28 Members who have submitted a total of more than 1400 
questions, a figure double that of the 2007 TPR. 
Economic circumstances 
65. I don’t propose to explore in any detail the cu rrent economic turmoil and its impact on the EC 
as this continues to be the subject of sustaine d examination and debate  in capitals and other 
international organisations.  Instead I will confine my self to a few remarks of more direct relevance to 
the EC’s trade policy. 
66. As the Secretariat’s report notes, the EC’s economic performance in 2006-07 was generally 
positive.  Average growth in the EC was around 3% , although at the Member State level there was 
very significant variation.  The EC’s labour ma rket situation was showing signs of improving, 
although average unemployment was stubbornly high at around 7% - again with significant Member 
State variations. 
67. Like others, of course, the EC has not been  spared the adverse impacts of the global 
downturn. The Secretariat’s report refers to the Commission’s interim forecasts in January 2009 that:  the EC’s GDP would contract this year, with several Member States to experience recession.  While 2010 would see a small recovery in GDP growth, for some but not all Member States.  Labour 
markets were expected to deteriorate, with aver age unemployment expected to rise from 7% in 2008 
to 8.7% in 2009 to 9.5% in 2010.  More recent forecasts are however even more severe with the 
interim OECD economic outlook report (released at  the end of March 2009) projecting unemployment 
in the Eurozone reaching 11.7% in 2010.  As dema nd drops, growth in expor ts of goods and services 
will fall markedly (by two thirds from 2007 to 2009);  imports will fall even more – leading to an 
increase in the current account deficit. 
68. These are clearly serious challenges and would seem to have the potential to fuel any 
underlying protectionist pressures in the EC. 
69. Of course trade policy is never determined in  isolation.  The social and economic policy 
responses of the EC, and the national responses by its major Members, to the current crisis (such as 
policies to promote employment) have the potential to  significantly impact the trading environment.  
Coordinating these policy responses in such a way as to ensure or at least minimise trade distortionary 
effects would seem to pose some significant challeng es for Brussels, particularly bearing in mind the 
differing responsibilities in critical economic and social policy areas of the various EC institutions and the relationship between these and Member States. 
70. I believe it could be interesting to hear wh ether the EC shares these views regarding the 
challenges of policy and decision making coherence w ithin the EC in the current economic climate.  WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 14  
 
  Trade Policy 
71. The EC has been an unwavering supporter of the DDA.  Importantly, it has maintained its 
focus on an outcome that delivers on the DDA ma ndate by being both trade liberalising and 
supportive of development.  
72. At the same time the EC has been a very active participant in preferential trade arrangements.  
So much so that, as the Secretariat report notes, the EC’s MFN tariff is applied to only nine WTO 
Members. And given what I understand to be their current FTA agenda, this list of nine may be 
further reduced by the time of the next TPR.  
73. This tension between ‘multilatera list’ and ‘preferentialist’ trade policies is not unique to the 
EC.  But it does have particular significance given the EC’s trade weight.  
74. However the EC has made it very clear, including in a very practical way through its 
leadership in the DDA negotiations, that it is first a nd foremost a multilateralist, and that its focus will 
remain on the Doha Round. 
75. While it may be seen as excessively optimistic to be contemplating policy options in a post 
DDA world it would nevertheless be interesting to hear  whether the EC has given any thought to this 
question.  After all the range of pot ential partners for new preferential trade arrangement is really very 
limited and includes the other ‘giants’ of world tr ade, where the systemic implications of the EC 
seeking preferential trade arrangements w ould be very substantial indeed.  
Individual sectors 
Agriculture 
76. At the outset, it’s important to acknowledge th e positive direction of CAP reforms and the 
political ‘capital’ which has needed to be employed  in Brussels to ensure their success and secure 
their continuance.  This situation is in marked cont rast to the direction of farm policy in recent years 
in some other major developed Members.   
77. As the Secretariat’s report notes, these reforms have, for example:  enhanced the market 
orientation of various sub-sectors (e.g. sugar, fruit and vegetables, wine); and significantly reduced 
the level of support that remains coupled to production.  
78. The EC is continuing to push the reform pr ocess:  The Secretariat’s Report notes that in 
November 2008 the Council of Ministers agreed to proposals, arising from the Health Check of the CAP, that will continue to increase the market or ientation of the agriculture sector, including by 
increasing the level of decoupled support. 
79. The ongoing nature of these reforms is indeed welc ome because, frankly, it is clear that there 
is still much more to do.   
80. Some tariffs remain very high:  MFN tariffs on cereals, for example, average just under 50%; 
on sugar and sugar products the average is 35.7% and on dairy the average is 32.4% (a level which the 
report notes “discourages out of quota imports”);  su bstantial tariff peaks remain – I understand it is 
only in agriculture that the EC maintains tariffs  over 100%;  and agricultural products also remain 
protected by the complexity of the tariff structure and tariff quotas. 
81. As regards domestic support there have been  real and substantive improvements:  
nevertheless a significant level of product specific s upport remains linked to production and/or prices.   WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 15 
 
 
  The report notes, for example, that support tied to  production still represen ts about 40-50% of 
producer revenues for sugar and most meats 
82. And while export subsidies are not the scourge of  world trade as they were in the 1980s and 
1990s, they do continue to be used as we have s een most recently with the regrettable re-introduction 
in January this year of export refunds on various dairy products (SMP, WMP, butter and cheese).  An 
action that could encourage others to follow suit. 
83. One aspect of the CAP reform process that does need special mention is that while creating 
‘space’ in third country markets for other agri cultural exporters, the reform process does not 
automatically translate into additional market access fo r external suppliers.  I th ink it would be fair to 
say that when the EC thinks of reform in the manufacturing and services sectors in other Members, 
what they really have in mind at the end of the da y is that such reform will lead in a quite direct 
fashion to greater market access opportunities for EC Members and other external suppliers – 
otherwise the value of the domestic re form would likely be questioned.   
84. Nevertheless, to be fair, in the context of  the DDA negotiations, the EC has shown its 
willingness to negotiate constructively in order to  expand market access opportunities in the wake of 
CAP reform. 
Manufacturing 
85. The Secretariat’s report has highlighted the im portance of the manufacturing sector in the EC, 
which accounts for over three quarters of the EC’s merchandise exports.  But, at the same time, according to the Secretariat’s report, the sector does continue to be s upported through generous 
allocations of state aid (I understand that the EC has questioned this point).  To date, much of this 
State Aid has as its stated aim improvements in productivity, and the competitiveness of small and 
medium enterprises. 
86. However, in a situation of rapidly rising unemp loyment it is to be hoped that the EC and its 
Member States can resist the pressure to shift the em phasis of state aid to the maintenance of existing 
employment levels.  As noted earlier the indications so far from the EC and key Member States as 
reflected in the G20 Leader statement are very enc ouraging.   This was also a point noted by the 
Director-General in his most recent report to th e TPRB where he stressed that the measures involving 
state aid “can prolong the operations of uncompetitive  or insolvent firms, which denies market share 
to more efficient producers including fo reign suppliers” (para. 31, JOB(09)/30) 
87. Any comment that the EC may wish to make on th e role of state aid and its implications for 
trade policy, particularly in the current econom ic circumstances, would be of interest.  
Services 
88. The Secretariat’s Report notes that services accounts for approximately 70% of gross value 
added and employment and with its comparative advantages in this sector, services is very much the backbone of the EC economy. 
89. Since the last TPR progress has been made on th e implementation of strategies and reforms in 
the financial services, telecoms, postal services and transport sectors. However, as the report notes, 
many other services, such as tourism, distribution,  construction, engineeri ng and consultancy, and 
employment agencies activities are not subject to a comprehensive internal market policy.  WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 16  
 
  90. Variations in the liberalization of services among Member States also poses challenges for 
non-EC countries engaging in services trade, includi ng because it necessitates dealing with different 
national legislation in those sectors that are not regulated at the EC level. 
91. Clearly, the continued progress towards a single market for services will be overwhelmingly 
positive, for both the EC itself and other WTO Memb ers.  However during the transitional stages 
which of necessity will be lengthy, difficulties and ch allenges will continue to emerge for external 
suppliers of services. 
EC – Regulation 
92. One of the most striking features of this TPR of  the EC, is the scope and breadth of concern 
of trading partners with EC regulatory processes.  Around 25% of all questio ns related to TBT and 
SPS issues, and when broader regulatory issues are in cluded that percentage for many of the trading 
partners of the EC rises to around 50%.  The reas ons for this are not examined in detail in the 
Secretariat’s Report perhaps due to some divergen ce between the, entirely appropriate, broader trade 
policy perspectives adopted in the Secretariat’s Repor t and the concerns of Members in the day to day 
commercial reality of the EC’s regulatory framework.   
93. While recognising that the EC has taken steps to significantly increase the level 
of transparency in its decision-making process, a simple reading of the Secretariat report (e.g. paragraphs 8-13, pp. 15-17, which describe the EC’s process of ‘Policy Formulation and 
Implementation’) highlights the continued complexi ty of the EC’s institutions and the multilayered 
and variable decision-making processes. 
94. Not surprisingly having gone through the of ten tortuous processes of achieving agreement 
within the EC there is at times, limited enthusiasm  for re-opening regulatory issues as a result of the 
concerns of non-EC Members.   
95. The complexity of the EC system, while presumably having a stimulatory effect on the 
employment of lawyers and lobbyists – where anec dotal evidence suggests numbers in Brussels now 
approach or perhaps even exceed Washington – can have adverse commercial consequences for the 
EC’s trading partners 
96. Considerable effort and cost has to be expe nded to understand the EC regulatory environment 
- essential if one is to access the EC market – and comply with the EC’s regulatory settings.  This can 
act as a disincentive to entry into  the EC market, particularly for those with limited resources to 
understand or comply with the EC ’s regulatory settings.    
97. A good example is the EC’s regulatory system fo r chemicals (REACH) which is described in 
the Secretariat’s Report.  I am aware myself of a number of small and medium enterprises that ceased 
exporting to the EC as a direct result of the complexities and challe nges posed by REACH. 
98. There is also at least the perception that it’s difficult for stakeholders both within and outside 
the EC to feed their views into the regulatory process.   This has been suggested as a particular concern 
for developing countries directly affected by EC  regulatory regimes, as the debates surrounding the 
EC’s Dangerous Substances Directive and its successor regime reveal. 
99. Another feature of the EC regulatory system is th e capacity of the EC to in effect ‘export’ its 
regulatory standards to other Members who may ha ve no option but to comply with EC regulatory 
standards even though there may be no direct trade with the EC in a particular product or to a particular area.  To some extent, of course, this is an inevitable result of the size of the EC and its markets, but can nevertheless cause real problems.    WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 17 
 
 
  100. I am aware that the EC has strong views on th ese issues, and may not agree with the above 
points.  Any comments or clarifications would of course be welcome.  
Concluding remarks 
101. The EC is, of course, of enormous signifi cance politically and economically and its trade 
policies have a major impact on the rest of the WT O membership.  We are fortunate, then, that it has 
demonstrated such a strong commitment to the multilateral trading system.   
102. In particular as mentioned earlier its determination to bring the DDA to a satisfactory and 
early conclusion is not just welcome but critical to the DDA’s eventual success.   
103. This TPR is occurring at an interesting time.  The EC’s next TPR will provide an important 
opportunity for us to consider how the EC’s in stitutions and policies have served in helping it 
navigate its way through the curre nt economic predicament – and what , implications, this has for the 
future directions of the WTO. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 18  
 
  IV. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 
BRAZIL 
104. The sheer size of the European Union economy and its position in world trade speaks for the 
importance of this biannual exercise of review of th e block’s trade policies and of its relevance to its 
trade partners. We have many comments to make, but  in the interest of time we will highlight some 
issues and provide the Secretariat with a longer, written statement for the record. 
105. The EC’s responsibilities in relation to the gl obal public good enshrined in the multilateral 
trading system are commensurate with its weight. We appreciate the Commission’s reiteration of its commitment to maintain and strengthen the WTO and, in particular, the priority accorded to the rapid 
conclusion of the Doha Round as the most adequate  trade response to the global economic crisis. 
Brazil shares those objectives.  Concluding the Round will help to avoid the contagion of open 
protectionism or its more subtle forms of "low-int ensity protectionism", to borrow from the Director 
General of the WTO.  The EU Commission and Member countries and Brazil acted in tandem to promote this view during the recent London G-20 Summit Meeting.  
106. The EU is Brazil's largest trading partner, acc ounting for 22% of our external trade in 2008. 
Bilateral trade has grown significantly in recent years. In 2008 our exports to the European 
Communities increased by 14.7%, while imports from Europe rose 35.4%.  We are therefore pleased 
to have provided the EC with very substantial real  additional market access.  Two-way bilateral trade 
surpassed 80 billion dollars in 2008.  Investment has also been dynamic.  After a small decrease in 
2006, investments from EC countries in Brazil more than doubled in 2007, reaching €15.3 billion 
while Brazil invested €2 billion in the EU in that sam e year. The excellent trade relations revealed by 
these numbers can and should be improved and expanded. 
107. From the EC’s report, one could get the impr ession that the creation of new market access 
opportunities or maintaining markets open is contingent on actions to be taken by other partners and 
that very little remains to be done by the EC  and its Member States. Remaining offenses and 
peccadillos within EC’s regulations are to be dismissed lightly.  
108. But there remains significant distortions and obs tacles to market access in the EC.  We would 
be the first to recognize that over the years the EC h as taken steps to reform itself. It has, of course, 
followed its own rhythm: sometimes unnervingly sl ow; sometimes at neckbreaking speed. Like an 
aircraft carrier, once set upon its course, the EC has tr udged on. This has led it to present, at times, its 
own choices as blueprints for the othe rs, not always with the same rega rd to circumstances or special 
needs particularly of developing countries.   
109. In agriculture, CAP Reform continues after th e completion of its “Health Check”.  Coupled 
payments and direct aids are being discountinue d and the Single Farm Payments progressively 
account for a larger share of domestic support.  Ne vertheless in some commodities, an accumulation 
of different types of support is being maintained, rais ing doubts as to the final orientation and effect of 
the support policies.  Likewise, monitoring of th e CAP reform is further complicated by national 
implementation of the measures, as Member states can  retain up to 10% of the national ceilings for 
environmental and other measures. 
110. Agricultural export subsidies are a throwback to the past. That the EC continues to provide 
over a billion euros every year should be reason for embarrassment. And yet, as reported in the DG’s 
report to the TPR, and acknowledged today in sector s like dairy export refunds were reintroduced, 
sending the wrong signal at the worst possible time. We regret, by the way, that the EC has been more 
critical of increases in applied tari ffs than in applied subsidies.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 19 
 
 
  111. As to market access, the Secretariat’s report does not provide an accurate account of 
the current level of agricultural MFN tariffs ( 17.6%), since a number of tariff lines were not 
considered in the calculation.  Furthermore, hi gh prices of agricultural commodities in 2007 and 2008 
have reduced the ad valorem  equivalents of specific duties.  It is worth bearing in mind that although 
non-ad valorem  duties comprise only 4.8% of all tariff lines, they account for a staggering 45.8% of 
agricultural tariff lines. These come on top of a large tool-kit of redundant levels of protection like 
Tariff-Rate Quotas, Special Safeguards,  tariff escalation, tariff peaks.  
112. A clear example of double standards in agricultu re but also in NAMA can be found in the 
case of tariff escalation and export taxes.  The Secretariat’s document indicates the permanence of a considerable degree of tariff escalation, with highe r protection afforded to fully processed goods.  
Coffee is a good example:  Germany is the world's largest exporter of processed coffee, although it 
would be hard to find a coffee tree in Europe out side botanical gardens.  At the same time, the 
Commission’s report recalls the EC’s request for the creation of disciplines for export taxes.  Given that adding value to agricultural products through pro cessing is one of the most efficient alternatives 
for developing countries to attain higher levels of development, the EC would do well to consider 
removing its own distorting taxes rather than tryi ng to further restrict the policies available to 
developing countries. 
113. We still entertain the hope, however, that the EC ’s tariff arsenal can be reduced through the 
DDA negotiations. Perhaps more worrisome is the tendency to impose sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures that are either more restrictive than those agreed by the international standard-setting 
organizations (like setting Maximum Residue Levels  below Codex Alimentarius levels) or that 
correspond to a de facto  multilateralization of domestic practices suited to EC conditions such as the 
requirements regarding the traceability of farm animals.  We have tabled questions in this regard and 
look forward to the EC’s responses.  In any case, for the reasons summarized above, we have grounds 
to believe that much remains to be  done by the EC in agriculture. 
114. In NAMA the Secretariat Report mentions that the EC has around only 8% of tariffs that are 
internationally classified as tariff peaks.  Those ta riff peaks however are concentrated in sectors of 
key export interest to developing countries. In fish  and fish products, for instance, tariffs can be as 
high as 25%, for footwear 17%, for clothing, tariffs for many products are set at 12%, three times higher than the average for industrial products. All those sectors are labor-intensive, employ millions 
of people in developing countries and account fo r a substantial proportion of their exports. 
115. On TBT we agree with the comments that were made by the discussant.  We are particularly 
concerned about some EU initiatives notified to the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade in view 
of their potential impact on trade, in sectors su ch as chemicals, novel foods, and nickel.  Those 
matters require attention and may disproportionately affect providers.  We are committed to assuring 
that those initiatives comply with EC obligations. 
116. On Services as the leading importer and exporter of services, the EC claims that its domestic 
market for services is open and that its regulatory framework is transparent. Nevertheless, its GATS 
commitments are complex and have many conditi ons attached, failing to provide clarity and 
predictability for foreign providers.  In the horizont al commitments, for inst ance, public utilities are 
not defined or listed.  Restrictions may therefore affect any sector, in what seems to amount to an 
open-ended carve-out.  Consequently, the EC schedul e lacks predictability and should be improved.  
Furthermore, within the EC services offer in  the Doha Round, we find economic needs tests  in 
distribution services  
in several Member States which subject the commitment to a discretionary 
evaluation of criteria such as number and impact of existing stores, population density, geographic 
spread, impact on traffic conditions a nd creation of new employment.  Those caveats  undermine 
significantly the commercial value of  those market access commitments. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 20  
 
  117. Regarding preferential trade, Brazil observes th e expansion in scope and in the number of 
partners of RTAs notified by the EC, and, in pa rticular, the Economic Part nership Agreements with 
ACP countries and LDC’s.  All the applicable pr ocedures must be followed so as to ensure an 
adequate degree of transparency concerning these agreements. 
118. Brazil also takes note of the recent notification of the new EC’s GSPs for the years 2009-
2011, which contains important changes compared to the previous version. Notwithstanding the 
positive evolution observed in the notification re garding statistical data and other relevant 
information, Brazil remains concerned about the in sufficient transparency of the EC’s scheme. The 
EC still seems reluctant to provide information a bout GSP imports in a free and unrestricted manner – 
information that is important, in fact essential to examine  deviations from the MFN clause and from 
its stated criteria for eligibility.  
119. Brazil is also attentively following the new a pplication requirements for countries wishing to 
benefit from the preferences granted under the GSP + scheme, in particular with regard to their 
compatibility with the non-discrimination require ments of the Enabling Clause and the covered 
agreements. 
120. As stated at the EC's last TPR, we welcom e the process of enlargement of the European 
Union, with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania.  Brazil is still engaged in discussions with the EC 
with a view to ensuring that our export inter ests towards those two countries are preserved, 
particularly in the sectors of pou ltry, bovine meat and sugar. 
121. On TRIPS Brazil had the opportunity to state its views on the General Council and in the 
TRIPS Council regarding the recent seizure of a cargo of generic medicines imported by Brazil from 
India while in transit via the Netherlands. This action is not in conformity with WTO disciplines in 
general nor with the flexibilities provided by the TR IPS agreement. Brazil is gravely concerned with 
this incident which should not be seen in isola tion, as the EC and some other developed countries 
continue to pursue a TRIP-plus agenda in fora  like the World Health Organization and the World 
Customs Organization.  
CHINA 
122. The EC is one of the key Members of this organization and we appreciate very much the great 
contribution the EC has made to world trade. The EC’s commitment to multilateral trading system, especially during the difficult times of DDA talks, wher e the EC continued to provide leadership and 
facilitate the progress of the negotiations in many areas, has left a deep impression on us. The evolvement of the EC in both political and ec onomic areas has built up a sound and robust foundation 
for the EC to strengthen its leadership in the wo rld economy and to contribute to the recovery from 
the current crisis. The EURO has shown its poten tial to assume greater importance for the future 
world financial system. And the London G20 Summit has demonstrated that the EC is ready to devote 
more resources together with the rest of th e world to stabilize the current world economy. 
123. We are glad to learn from the Secretariat Report that the real GDP growth in the EC remained 
robust at 3% for the period under review, while the fiscal deficit declined to 0.9% in 2007 and well 
under control with an estimated 2% in 2008. Also fo r the period under review, the EC is the world’s 
leading exporter and second-largest importer of goods, remaining the world’s largest trader in 
services, and the largest recipient and supplier of FDI. 
124. China and the EC enjoy very close economic ties.  According to our statistics, bilateral trade 
reached 356.2 billion USD in 2007, while in 2008, the number grew further to 425.58 billion USD, 
with an increase of 19.5% despite the breakout of financial crisis in the second half of the year. 
Currently, the EC is China’s largest tradi ng partner and the largest exporting market.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 21 
 
 
  125. China believes that one of the important pr inciples to conduct SINO-EC trade and economic 
relations is to achieve mutual benefit for both sides.  In the past few years, the momentum of SINO-EC 
trade relations remained sound and healthy. We  look forward to the second SINO-EU High-level 
Economic and Trade Dialogue to be held very soon. 
126. Prior to this review meeting, China submitted written questions to the EC, with a view to 
having a better understanding of some  economic and trade policies and measures by the EC and to 
address some of our concerns. Our trade concern is mainly focused on the following areas: Tariff structure; Customs procedures; Technical regulations; SPS measures; government procurement; Subsidies, especially in agriculture ; and Investment barriers maintain ed by some EU Member States. 
Now I would like to highlight two major concerns. 
127. First, on TBT and SPS measures.  One of the major features of the current trade protection 
and measures is the growing NTB measures rather than  tariffs.  We have noted that during the period 
under review the EC has modified hundreds of ne w TBT and SPS measures whic h created substantial 
trade barriers for not only Chinese enterprises, but en terprises across the developing world. Ever since 
China’s first participation in the Trade Policy Review  of the EC, China has been requesting the EC to 
phase out some of its technical regulations or directives which brought unnecessary and excessive 
burden for manufacturers and importers.  However, th e situation is becoming even more difficult. The 
EC has created more and more constraints on tr ade.  For instance, the introduction of risk 
management system and the residue standard are sometimes not purely based on scientific analysis. 
The standards on chemicals in “REACH” in pa rticular are of great concern to China. 
128. Second, on trade remedy measures. As the Secret ariat has pointed out in its document, the EC 
has become a major player in the application of  trade remedy measures including anti-dumping.  
According to the statistics as s hown in the Secretariat report, for the period under review, 36 new 
antidumping cases were initiated and just in the first half of 2008, 131 definitive anti-dumping 
measures were in place, while 45 were against Chinese exports. As China has become the most 
frequent target of anti-dumping investigations, the negative impact caused by them on the bilateral 
trade is evident. China would like to urge the EC to refrain from abusing trade remedy measures in the 
future.  
129. Besides, the EC has kept refusing China’s request for consultation for compensation as a 
result of its modification of Schedule on poultry m eat. We would like very much to seek an early 
solution to this issue. 
130. In the current economic and financial crisis , the slowing down of the world economy is 
evident, and we have witnessed a negative grow th of SINO-EC bilateral trade since 2009. The 
decrease in trade volume has impacted both sid es, especially Chinese industries and SMEs. China 
believes that it is our common wish to fight agai nst trade protectionism and China hereby hopes the 
EC will continue to open its market in areas of trade in goods, trade in services, investment and 
technology. It is also our hope that the EC will c ontinue to commit itself in further improving its trade 
regime and practices, demonstrate pioneering spirit in DDA negotiations and make greater 
contribution towards the multilateral trading system.  
NORWAY 
131. We find ourselves in the midst of a financial and economic crisis.  This crisis has hit Europe's 
economies with different intensity.  We are confiden t that the EC economies are sufficiently strong to 
weather the storm.  We appreciate the leadership demonstrated by the European Commission and key 
EU Member States in the international effort to bring the world economy back on the road to 
recovery.  In this regard, we share th e EC's concern regarding protectionism. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 22  
 
  132. Both the EC's report and the Secretariat Report confirm the EC's deep commitment to a strong 
multilateral trading system.  Norway recognizes and appreciates the active participation of the EC in the WTO.  We share this commitment and we are convinced that concluding the Doha Round would 
trigger economic growth and mitigate the impact of th e crisis.  We also value highly the EC's essential 
contribution to Aid for Trade.   
133. Norway has submitted a number of written questions  regarding the trade policies of the EC in 
this review.  I see that a very thick compilation of replies is now being circulated, I thank the EC for 
these replies which we will study with keen interest. 
134. The Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA) effectively integrates Norway into 
the EC Internal Market and is the basis for cl ose cooperation on a wide range of policy areas.  
Norwegian and EC companies, workers, consumer s and students are benefiting from the agreement 
every day. 
135. The EC is Norway's largest trading partner.  Norw ay is the EC's sixth largest trading partner.  
Let me illustrate this with a few numbers. 
136. Norway is the second largest exporter of natural gas to the EC.  Norway is the largest single 
exporter of seafood to the EC.  In 2007 some 59% of  Norway's total exports of seafood were exported 
to the EC.  Thousands of workers in the processing industry in the EC rely on a steady supply of Norwegian fish as an indispensable input.  Despite  this, our exports of seafood have experienced some 
frictions over the years.  Some of the challenges have been related to the complex quota system for 
seafood.  Today, some 50 different seafood quotas are based on agreements between Norway and the 
EC.  At the same time, exporters and importers have to relate to GATT quotas and autonomous EC 
quotas.  We are convinced that a simplification of the quota systems would facilitate trade and be of 
mutual benefit. 
137. Another area of concern as regards seafood h as been the application of trade remedy 
measures – anti-dumping duties.  The latest such measures were discontinued in 2008.  No measures 
are applied today and we trust th at this situation will prevail. 
138. On a more general level, Norway would we lcome increased transparency in the EC's 
application of trade defence instruments.  We have  therefore followed with great interest the EC's 
work on the Green Paper on Europe's Trade Defence Instruments in a Changing Global Economy, and 
we will continue to do so. 
139. In the field of agriculture, Norway and the EC  share many of the same concerns objectives 
related to rural developments.  We note with inter est in the Secretariat Report that these concerns are 
being addressed in a constructive manner in th e reform of the EC's agricultural policy. 
140. The Secretariat Report notes that the EC remain s the world's largest trader in services.  
During the previous trade policy review of the EC in 2007, Mr. Balas stated that once the Services 
Directive is incorporated into the national legisla tion of its Member States and implemented, it will 
create great opportunities and thus benefit the EC's  partners.  We are pleased to now that the 
implementation of the directive will take place, as scheduled, later this year. 
141. Allow me to raise an issue of concern.  Norway has taken due note of the EC notification 
concerning trade in seal products and we have ra ised our concerns in the TBT Committee.  We 
understand that neither the notified proposed regula tion, nor the proposed regulation adopted by the 
Internal Market Committee of the European Parliame nt may be the final version.  Both versions, 
however, pose challenges to Norway's exports and raise doubts about the WTO consistency of such 
trade restrictions.  Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent in the matter of sustainable harvesting of  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 23 
 
 
  renewable resources.  While hoping that this issue could be solved throu gh dialogue between close 
partners, the Norwegian government has decided to  initiate consultations under the WDSU should the 
EC take a decision along the lines that now seem to be developing. 
142. The EC is an important and active player on th e multilateral stage, an economic engine in the 
world, and hence, an important trading partner for most of the Members.  This review will therefore 
no doubt be interesting and useful not only fo r the EC, but also for all other participants. 
JAPAN  
143. Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the Europ ean Communities, announced this March that the 
GDP growth rates of the European Union (EU) regi stered negative growth consecutively in the third 
and fourth quarters of 2008. This indicates that the EU is still struggling with a serious economic 
situation due to the global economic downturn. Japan  notes that in response to the current economic 
and financial crisis, the European Commission unve iled an Economic Recovery  Plan and measures 
for financial stability. Japan finds it quite signifi cant that each Government is undertaking fiscal 
expansion to restore growth. Japan hopes for and looks to the European countries to undertake further fiscal expansion.  
144. Today, Japan would like to touch upon five points regarding the EC's trade policies. 
145. The first point concerns regulations and standa rds setting by the EC. Japan believes that it is 
essential for the overall development of the global ec onomy that the EU keeps its market harmonized, 
open and competitive in the process of integration a nd expansion. Japan has strong interest in the 
setting of regulations and standards by the EC in su ch areas as the investment, environment, health 
and medical care, food safety, consumer protection, financial and telecommunications sectors. In this 
context, Japan hopes that the EC will make use of  this TPR to further enhance the simplicity and 
transparency of the rules related to the EC market  as well as to see to it that such rules are 
implemented uniformly in each EU Member country to  ensure a single market in a substantial sense. 
146. The second point is related to innovation. Japan, like other Members, respects the spirit of the 
"Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products (ITA: Information Technology 
Agreement)". The ITA places emphasis on the impor tance of information technology innovation as 
well as on the trade liberalization of informa tion technology products. In order to guide the 
development of information technology together with the EC, Japan would like to have a close 
discussion on this matter with the EC as the EC has a great impact on global standard-setting. In this 
regard, on the customs classifications of inform ation communication devices such as multi-functional 
mobile phones, Japan strongly hopes that the EC will make its decision from a comprehensive 
perspective and in the spirit of the aforementioned ITA. 
147. The third point is about agricultural policy. Japan continues to closely follow the Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU. Japan, in particular, would appreciate it if the EC would 
elaborate on the impact of the measures revised by the Health Check of the CAP on the actual 
distribution of direct payments, which appear to be in favor of a small number of large-scale farmers. 
In addition, we would like the EC to explain how th e effects of the Health Check solve the disparity 
of direct payment distribution among the new Member  States, or among sector s. The EC also might 
want to indicate the effects of the introduction of  decoupled payments on agricultural structure, 
including cultivated production, farmers’ incomes and the price of eligible crops. 
148. 
The fourth point concerns counter protectionism and the promotion of the DDA. Japan has to 
express our concern that the EC has introduced certain  protectionist measures since last autumn, such 
as (1) reintroduction of export refunds for dairy pro ducts, (2) resumption of market interventions to 
buy butter and skim milk powder, and (3) reintr oduction of customs duties on imports of certain WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 24  
 
  cereals. Taking this opportunity, Japan would like to stress our hope that the EC will develop a model 
for economic recovery by maintaining a free trade re gime, rather than by introducing these kinds of 
protectionist measures. This is especially true as the EC has achieved its development to this point 
through internal economic integration.   
149. On the DDA, Japan and the EC have repeatedly  confirmed a common view towards an early 
conclusion of the DDA, on various occasions in cluding the Japan-EU Summit Meeting and the Japan-
EU high-level consultations. We also share the same  standpoint on a number of the negotiation areas 
such as agriculture negotiations between the G10 and the EC, NAMA and services negotiations. 
Bearing this in mind, Japan would like to continue  coordination with the EC aimed at advancing the 
DDA. 
150. The last, but not least, point relates to the b ilateral economic relationship between Japan and 
the EC. We are pleased to point out to WTO Memb ers our collective efforts in forums such as the 
annual Japan-EU Regulatory Reform Dialogue, in order to overcome issues in specific areas of concern to both sides. Japan also aims to coopera te together with the EC to further improve the 
business environment as well as to strengthen regulator y cooperation. Furthermore, Japan would like 
to continue to work with the EU on considerin g what measures should be put in place to create a 
foundation for promoting the further deve lopment of Japan-EU economic relations. 
151. Let me express our appreciation for the EC’s c ontributions to the further improvement of the 
TPRB. Japan is of the solid view that the TPR is a useful tool to enhance transparency and mutual 
understanding of Members' trade and economic polici es. Japan welcomes that, being fully aware of 
the TPR’s role, the EC, in close cooperation with  several members includi ng Japan, made a wide 
range of contributions to the discussion in the third appraisal of the operation of the TPRB last year.  
152. We very much appreciate that the EC has ju st provided its written r esponses to our advance 
written questions this morning.  Japan will carefu lly examine them and make some comments on 
Wednesday, if necessary. 
153. In conclusion, Japan would like to reiterate its hope that the EC will continue to promote trade 
liberalization and structural reform as well as to contribute to the further progress of the DDA 
negotiations, in order to strengthe n and benefit from the multilateral trading system. Japan sincerely 
hopes that intensive discussion and oral and writte n responses today and on Wednesday will help us 
enhance transparency and our mutual understa nding of the EC’s trade and economic policy. 
SWITZERLAND 
154. The gravity of the global financial crisis – a nd this was almost inevitable – could not fail to 
have a negative impact on the real economy.  There is hardly any national economy that has not seen 
a marked slowdown in economic activity.  Negativ e growth forecasts are increasingly becoming the 
norm.  In such a situation, there is an increasing temptation to turn to protectionist measures.  As recent reports from the WTO and the World Bank s how, a shift towards protectionism has already 
begun. 
155. The European Union (EU) is of course the major economic partner for Switzerland as well, 
but it is much more than that, and it is less we ll known that Switzerland is the second most important 
destination for goods originating in the EU, as indica ted in paragraph 21 of the Commission's report.  
We are therefore a partner in an important partnership. 
156. We are in the reassuring situation of being able  to tell this body th at the trade relations 
between Switzerland and the EU are not veering towards protectionism.  On the contrary, the 
economic links between Switzerland and the Community market are becoming increasingly closer.   WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 25 
 
 
  They are not affected by any departure from liber alization obligations, previously accepted but now 
called into question by the crisis.  In November la st, negotiations began with a view to a free-trade 
agreement in the agri-food and public health sector.  This agreement is particularly important because 
of the large volume of agricultural trade between Sw itzerland the EU.  It not only aims to eliminate 
customs duty, but also to achieve a significant lowering of non-tariff barriers to trade.  It will concern 
agricultural raw materials, but also upstream a nd downstream sectors, i.e. the means of production 
and the products of the food industry. 
157. Switzerland the EU have also just completed th eir negotiations on what is called "the 24-hour 
rule", namely, amendment of the agreement on the simplification of controls for the transport of goods following the planned introduction of the new EU  Customs Code this year.  A new agreement 
that avoids additional red tape and is in the reciprocal interest  of our economic operators was recently 
initialled. 
158. We welcome the optimism continually generated by the EU as regards the Doha negotiations.  
We are keenly aware of the EU's efforts in favour of recognition of non-trade concerns in agriculture, 
i.e. the multifunctionality of the measures taken in areas such as trade and the environment or the 
protection of geographical indications.  We also expe ct this Review to be another example that will 
enable us to improve the horizontal  monitoring of any protectionist measures worldwide and to have a 
calm and factual debate on the best soluti ons to be adopted in these difficult times. 
159. In a context in which economic problems abound,  the people of Switzerland have shown their 
spirit of openness by approving the renewal of th e Agreement between Switzerland and the EU on the 
free movement of persons, as well as its extension to Bulgaria and Romania, following a vote by the 
people in February 2009.  Inasmuch as other bila teral agreements, for example, those on mutual 
recognition of conformity assessment or on trade in certain agricultural products, are legally linked to 
the free movement of persons, the Swiss people' s decision means confirmation of a package of 
measures.  The YES by the Swiss is also a "yes" to  stability and maintenance of the contractual basis 
for our relations with the EU.  But this YES is also a more general expr ession in favour of trade 
liberalization and highlights Switzerland's reliab ility as a negotiating partner in a tumultuous and 
uncertain period. 
160. It goes without saying that extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.  The financial 
system must be stabilized.  The real economy is in di re need of a boost.  In such a situation, most 
States rely on a combination of monetary and fiscal  measures to try to stimulate growth and economic 
activity.  Moreover, rescue plans, going as far as  nationalizing part of the banking sector, have 
become unavoidable.  Will such action, even if lim ited in time, not have any effect on international 
trade?  Will it have positive or negative repercussions  that will, perhaps, distort competitive capacity 
and trade itself? 
161. Recently, the Commission of the European Co mmunities expanded the framework giving 
Member States the possibility of granting State suppor t.  This new framework  is aimed at giving 
flat-rate support, State guarantees for loans together  with a lower premium, low-interest loans or 
support in the form of investment capital.  Fu rther measures are envisaged in support of the 
automobile industry.  The Secretariat's Report indicat es that, in 2006 and 2007, i.e. prior to the crisis, 
58 per cent of State support within the EU already went to manufacturing industry.  We noted with interest the objections of the dele gation of the EU in this respect and the comments of our Rapporteur.  
We would like to hear the explanations of the EU in this regard.  Furtherm ore, Switzerland hopes that, 
when recovery begins, the EU will review these su bsidy mechanisms in detail as they are likely to 
discriminate against foreign producers.  The cl ose and manifold interdependence of the Swiss 
economy and the Community market is the reason for my country's particular interest in these matters.  This is why Switzerland would like to hear more during this session. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 26  
 
  162. My delegation would like, in advance, to expr ess its sincere gratitude for the replies to its 
written questions, which it will study closely. 
AUSTRALIA 
163. Taken as a single entity, the EC is the world’s la rgest trader.  It is also Australia’s largest 
trading partner, as it is for many other Members he re.  While the EC has an overall trade deficit with 
the rest of the world, in our case, the trade balan ce is heavily in the EC’s favour.  The EC is also 
Australia’s largest source of foreign investment, wh ile it is the second largest  foreign destination for 
Australian investors. 
164. Australia is pleased to have a close bilateral re lationship with the EC as well as a long history 
of cooperation in the WTO and in other internationa l organizations.  Most recently we have worked 
together closely at the G20 London Summit to emph asise the dangers of protectionism – including the 
WTO’s important work in this area - and the impor tance of the Doha Round.  Concluding the Round 
is our best insurance against protectionism and would also provide a much-needed boost to global 
economic confidence.   
165. Trade is vital to both Australia and the EC’s  economies and we both support a strong, open 
and rules-based multilateral trading system .  Australia enjoys a close and productive working 
relationship with the EC in the Doha negotiations and we welcome the EC’s efforts, led by Trade 
Commissioner Ashton, to progress the Round.  We  share many interests in the negotiations. 
166. As the world’s largest importer and exporter of agricultural products, the EC plays a central 
role in agricultural trade issues, both in terms of trade policy and in the Doha Round.  The EC is an 
important market for Australian exporters, for ma ny of our fellow Cairns Group members and for 
developing countries.  Agriculture remains the most heavily distorted sector of international trade, and 
the EC will remain by far the world’s leading subsid iser of agriculture even after the Doha Round is 
concluded. 
167. We urge the EC to stay on track for further refo rm and to resist internal pressures to resort to 
protectionist measures in the face of the financia l crisis and the resulting increased pressures on 
competitiveness for European farmers.  Strengthene d agricultural trade flows are key to delivering 
food security, particularly in developing countries. 
168. Australia welcomes the EC’s commitment to elimin ating the use of export subsidies by 2013.  
This is a positive move that will benefit agricu ltural producers in the EC and around the world, 
including in many developing countries, by removi ng a measure which has the effect of undermining 
world prices.  At the same time, Australia – together with other Cairns Group members – has been 
very concerned by the EC’s reintroduction of export subsidies for dairy products.  The EC’s 
reintroduction of export subsidies at this time se nds an unhelpful signal in the context of the global 
financial crisis and the G20 commitment to an open gl obal economy.  It also amplifies the prospect of 
a damaging subsidies war with other countries.  Australia urges the EC, as the world’s largest 
agricultural trader, to demonstrate l eadership by working to ensure th at market-oriented trade is part 
of the solution to the current economic crisis. 
169. Many Members share Australia’s interest in  the ongoing reform of the EC’s Common 
Agricultural Policy (CAP).  In particular, we have  paid close attention to the outcomes of the CAP 
Health Check reform process, which were finalised late last year.  Australia welcomes the solid progress on CAP reform achieved by the EC in the period covered by this trade policy review, in 
particular the decoupling of payments from the production of certain agricultural products, and the 
movement toward less trade-distorting forms of direct payments.  Australia notes, however, that  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 27 
 
 
  overall levels of CAP payments have not decreased , and that the CAP still accounts for some 46% of 
Community expenditure.  
170. While the internal reforms are welcome, the absence of simultaneous reductions in market 
access barriers means that compe titive exporters still find it very difficult to access the EU market.  
The Secretariat’s report also makes it clear that there continues to be a significant disparity in the EC 
between agricultural and NAMA tariffs, with substa ntially higher average tariffs in agriculture.  
Australia urges the EC not to seek to introduce furt her protectionist measures for agricultural products 
including through the global intellectual property regime. 
171. The reports highlight the central importance of services in the EC economy.  Australia works 
cooperatively with the EC on services issues in the WTO.  We are pleased that services remain a 
priority for the EC and encourage it to continue effo rts to create a genuine internal market through the 
removal of regulatory and administrative barriers to trade in services between Member States.  
172. The EC’s regulatory environment is another ke y area of interest to Australia and other 
Members.  We recognise there are legitimate public policy concerns relating to issues such as food 
safety and environmental protection, and acknowledge the generally transparent way in which the EC 
develops and adopts measures affecting trade. 
173. We note, however, that problems do arise, including in the decision making process with the 
interplay of Member States’ interests and also in the execution of policies when inconsistencies arise 
in the approaches of individual Member States.  As we have seen with REACH and the reclassification of nickel compounds, a decision once made can be very difficult to reverse – even after it has become clear that the reasons  for the decision have not been sound.  
174. We note that the EC has pursued regional trad e agreements and other preferential trading 
arrangements, and that only nine WTO members, in cluding Australia, are subject to MFN tariffs.  In 
this regard, we urge the EC to pursue such agre ements in a way supports  the multilateral trading 
system by seeking the maximum possible coverage of trade in such arrangements.   
175. Australia notes that the WTO has unfinished bus iness with the EC’s last three expansions, 
which took the EC from 12 to 27 Members.  We look forward to continuing engagement with the EC 
over how to reach multilateral agreement on the EC’s modified agricultural support commitment 
schedules.  We also look forward to continuing to  work to resolve outstanding issues on services 
arising from enlargement. 
176. The Secretariat’s report highlights that the EC  is one of the most active members in WTO 
dispute settlement.  We welcome the reforms that the EC has made in response to the WTO dispute 
settlement decision on the EC’s export subsidies on  sugar, and will continue to work cooperatively 
with the EC in the implementation of this dispute outcome. 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
177. According to the WTO's press release last month and the Secretariat Report, even if we 
exclude the internal trade within the European Communities, the EC continues to be the world's 
largest trader in both goods and services.  In 2008,  its exports of merchandise accounted for 15.9% of 
the world total, with a value of 1.73 trillion dolla rs, while its exports in services accounted for over 
27% of services exports worldwide, with a value of 5.9 trillon dollars. 
178. With the world facing the most serious downturn in economic activity since World War II, we 
appreciate the recent combined efforts of the G-20 leaders and we very much welcome the global recovery package announced in their joint statement last Thursday.  We would also echo their words WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 28  
 
  by saying that resisting protectionism and promot ing global trade and investment should be an 
integral part of the solution.  And, in this rega rd, we look to the EC to take a leadership role by 
keeping to its commitments to the multilateral tr ading system, maintaining open markets and pushing 
for an early conclusion to the Doha Round of negotiations. 
179. We have been enjoying for some time now a cl ose relationship with the EC and its Member 
States.  The EC is our fourth largest trading partner;   we are the 13th largest trading partner of the EC 
worldwide and the 5th largest in Asia.  The valu e of our bilateral trade amounted to 47.7 billion 
dollars in 2008.  On top of that, the EC is the most  important source of foreign investment for us.  By 
the end of 2008, the figures had reached 26.2 billion dollars, or 25% of our total FDI.  The amount of 
investment outstrips those of our second and third largest investors (the US and Japan) which have 
provided 19% and 16% respectively of our total FDI to date. 
180. We have been holding regular bila teral meetings with the EC for many years.  And, recently, 
to step up the efforts of both sides to streamline our  bilateral trade, we have established four working 
groups in the automotive, pharmaceutical, IPR and SPS sectors.  We are glad that our technical 
experts are engaging in exchanging views with their EC  counterparts on issues of our mutual concern.  
As we are one of the only nine WTO Members that are subject to the EC's MFN tariff rate, we also 
look forward to establishing perhaps a more systema tized arrangement to further enhance our bilateral 
trade and economic relations in the future. 
181. This Trade Policy Review provides us with  a valuable opportunity to get a better 
understanding of the EC's trade policies, practices and regulatory measures in these difficult times.  In 
our written questions submitted to th e EC in advance, we have alr eady identified certain policy areas 
in which we have a particular interest.  These include:  the relationship between the European 
Economic Recovery Plan and the renewed Lisbon Strategy;  the po licies of the EC's new Member 
States to encourage inward FDI;  detailed inform ation on how to improve the free movement of 
goods, services, capital and labour within the EC;  info rmation regarding the EC 's public consultations 
on its trade defence instruments;  and so on.  The fact that we have so many questins illustrates the 
strength of our interest in the EC's trade policy – an d we thank the EC for its answers.  We shall study 
them carefully and come back with any further questions on Wednesday, if necessary. 
CHILE 
182. The statement by Ambassador Grey was not only interesting and comprehensive, but also 
raised a number of points and questions with which we concur, for example, those concerning European agricultural policy, where, despite positiv e reforms, different tari ff schemes predominate, 
including excessive tariffs and quotas, as well as domestic support and distorting subsidies. 
183. I will not refer to the development of the Europ ean economy and its external trade, but simply 
point out that it accounts for around 20 per cent of globa l trade.  It is, likewise, the principal supplier 
and recipient of foreign investment worldwide. 
184. As a trading bloc or as a group, the EU is our leading trade partner and the main source of 
foreign investment in Chile.  The Associati on Agreement between us came into force in 
February 2003, when the EU only had 15 Members.   Six years and 12 Members later, our trade 
exceeds US$24 billion, with a surplus of almost US$10 billion for Chile.  In fact, in recent years, our 
external trade with this bloc has on average increased more than all our  foreign trade with the rest of 
the world.  One special feature worthy of attention is the broad diversification of the exportable offer 
and the growing involvement of sm all and medium-sized Chilean comp anies (SMEs) in this bilateral 
trade.  Currently, these SMEs account for 22 per cent of all shipments to Europe.  This is attributable 
above all to the cooperation programmes under the A ssociation Agreement with the EU, which focus 
in particular on SMEs.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 29 
 
 
  185. Actual flows of European direct investme nt to Chile exceed US$27 billion and represent 
43 per cent of total investment in Chile. 
186. The Association Agreement is unique because of its three pillars:  a trade pillar, which is the 
free-trade agreement, a cooperation pillar in various  areas, and a political cooperation pillar.  In other 
words, a framework for discussing su ch diverse issues as restrictive tr ade practices, rules of origin, 
intellectual property and political dialogue.  This h as helped to make our bilateral relations much 
richer and has enabled our economy to become better integrated in the European market. 
187. The EU is also a leading actor in the WTO.  We share the commitment to multilateralism and 
to the need for a prompt conclusion of the D oha Round.  Although we have diverging views on 
sensitive issues such as agriculture and geographical indications, we aspire to ambitious results in 
services, rules and, perhaps with some nuances, in fi shing.  We would also like to see tangible results 
in the negotiations on trade and the environment.  The important role given by the European Communities (EC) to civil society in formulating tr ade policy should be an inducement to achieving a 
positive result for all. 
188. This commitment to the multilateral system is, however, sometimes called into question by 
certain of the EC's acts.  For example, the recent  reintroduction of export subs idies for dairy products.  
Likewise, the lack of determination to resolve the long-standing dispute on bananas.  Or the increasing number of regulations questioned in this Or ganization, for example, almost one quarter of 
the trade concerns raised in the Committee on Tec hnical Barriers to Trade are measures taken by the 
EU, some of which hold the record for the numbe r of times they have been discussed in the 
Committee (more than 18 times) and for the number of Members which have expressed their concern 
(over 30).  The large number of anti-dumping measures (130 are in force today) does not help either, 
particularly when the majority of these are taken against developing countries.  The EC should preach 
by example. 
189. In addition, the Report indicates, and we are an  example of this, that the EC uses regional 
trade agreements as important instruments of its tr ade policy.  It highlights, in particular, the 
Economic Partnership Agreements  (EPAs), which are soon to be reviewed, and in which many 
Members have shown great interest, including in what  is called the MFN clause.  One of our questions 
precisely focuses on how the EC considers that these  clauses contribute towards multilateralism.  The 
consistency of regional agreements w ith the WTO is also an issue of interest to us and we would like 
to see the EC play a more active role in the negot iations on regional agreements in order to move 
ahead with these discussions. 
190. The present crisis is once again putting the EU to the test.  Up until now, with the exception 
of specific measures such as those al ready mentioned, the EC and its Member States have been able to 
withstand protectionist pressures.  The EU should con tinue to set an example to us in these uncertain 
times.  But we also need clearer signals of its commitment to the Doha Round and its prompt and successful conclusion. 
KOREA 
191. As noted in various degrees by my previous speak ers, the EC plays a pivotal role in the global 
economy. The EC is the principal engine of globa l economic growth, accounting for nearly a fifth of 
the global goods market, and clos e to a third of the global services trade. As such, a healthy 
and vibrant EC is a "must" for the global economy to rebound from the pr esent financial and 
economic crisis plaguing the entire world. 
192. In this context, my delegation would like to express its appreciations to the EC member states 
for their economic stimulus packages that are in the process of being implemented. We look WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 30  
 
  forward to these measures producing their designed effects thereby propelling the EC and the World 
economy out of the current recession and back into the dynamic state we are look for. 
193. Over the years Korea and the EC have enjoyed st able and fruitful trade relations. Both the EC 
and Korea are strong believers in the principles  and institutions of the multilateral trading 
system, and thus, strong supporters  of its enhancement. The EC is Korea's second largest trading 
partner as a whole while Korea is the fourth la rgest non-European trading partner for the EC, and 
the EC is Korea's largest source of Foreign Direct Investment. 
194. Recently, with a view to further strengthening the existing bilateral ties, Korea and the EC 
have initiated negotiations on an ambitious and comprehensive FTA which encompasses trade in 
goods, non-tariff barriers, trade remedies, SPS/TBT, services, investment, e-commerce, government 
procurement, competition, and intellectual propert y, among others. The Korea-EC FTA is the most 
advanced, ambitious, and comprehensive FTA initiative of the EC, and Korea is proud to be a partner 
in this endeavour. Currently, the negotiations are in the final stretches with only a handful of issues left to iron-out. 
195. We look forward to a swift and amicable comp romise in the coming weeks, and it will be 
the great pleasure of this delegation to comment - during the EC's next TPR in two years - on the 
phenomenal progress in the bilate ral relationship experienced by the two sides as a result of this 
FTA. 
196. In terms of the EC's trade policy, there are some areas of both interest and concern to 
Korea.  First, the EC's resort to contingency me asures: As the Secretariat report states, the EC 
remains as one of the more impor tant users of contingency measures within this house. In light 
of the large impact that each contingency measure undertaken by the EC has on world trade, this is an area of particular concern to us and the entire WTO membership. In this context, we are 
particularly interested in knowing what measures have been taken by the EC to ensure that its 
contingency measures investigations are objective and fair without discriminating upon a product from one origin over another. So today, I would like to invite my colleagues from Brussels to elaborate on how the EC ensures that its contingency measures investigations, in particular for AD investigations, are c onducted in a fair and objective manner. 
197. Second, the lack of uniform and harmonized EC regulation with regards to technical 
regulations, standards, and confor mity assessment procedures: Due to  the current situation in which 
each EC Member State still holds much authority on TBT matters, the private sector of non-EC regions are subject to much difficulty in accessing th e EC market. With different regulations applying 
in different countries, multiple number of standardiz ation, testing, and certification procedures must 
be conducted for the same product. Furthermore, in many cases the agencies designated for the 
conformity assessment work are located within th e EC area only, thereby further burdening non-EC 
based companies such as ours. Clearly these are non-tariff barriers which require swift remedial 
action. So in this regard, I would like to invite the EC to clarify on 1) the measures that are being 
taken by the EC to further accelerate the harm onization of EC rules pertaining to technical 
regulations, standards, and conformity assessment procedures, and 2) whether the EC is open to 
concluding MRAs with non-EC countries in the meantime. 
198. Third, classification of Information Technology products by EC customs administration: In 
the IT-sector the "buzz word" is "convergence" where new functions and features are added-on to 
existing products. A classic example of this phenomenon is the mobile phone. Manufacturers have added-on the features of a digital camera some ti me ago, and now they have added-on new features 
such as music listening (similar to i-tunes capabiliti es), and tele-banking, among others. Despite these 
advances in the market, we have been informed th at the EC generally does not acknowledge this trend 
of "convergence", and often classifies new products w ith new features in some other distinct category  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 31 
 
 
  that is subject to a higher tariff rate. We are of the view that this practice of the EC needs to be 
reviewed. So in this context, I would like to i nvite the EC to clarify its position on this issue. 
199. Lastly, with regards to customs procedures in gene ral: As described in the Secretariat's report, 
the EC Customs Code(CC) and its implementin g provisions presently govern the EC's customs 
procedures. In this regard, my delegation would be interested in  getting better acquainted with the 
measures undertaken by the EC to ensure that its new member states are well informed of the 
Customs Code(CC), including its implementing provisi ons, so that those provisions are applied in a 
uniform manner. Like previous items, we would appreciate the EC's response to this point on 
Wednesday as well. 
200. Prior to the two week deadline my dele gation submitted a number of advance written 
questions to the EC on issues of interest to us. I would like to thank the EC for providing provisional 
answers this morning. Seoul will look into them carefully, and revert on the second day if necessary. 
COLOMBIA 
201. We note that, as a result of the financial crisis, th e EC has seen a marked decline in its rate of 
economic growth, from 3 per cent in 2007 to 1 per cent in 2008.  This has been accompanied by 
deterioration in its fiscal accounts and increased inflation. 
202. We hope that the economic stimulus and financ ial regulation plans under way, together with 
the global coordination agreed within the G-20 framewo rk last week, will lead to prompt recovery of 
Europe's economy. 
203. Because of its size and the extent of its trad e relations, the EC's performance has a significant 
impact at the global level;  its r ecovery and support are, therefore, decisive for global growth and 
prosperity. 
204. There have not been any major changes in the EC's trade policy, but there still remains the 
high level of protection and support for agriculture, at  considerable cost to consumers, the Community 
budget and international trade. 
205. Moreover, the tariff system applicable to ag riculture is extremely complex and therefore 
involves problems of transparency.  In addition to ad valorem , specific, combined and matrix estimate 
tariffs, there are quantitative restrictions, safe guards and a generous domestic support programme. 
206. Although the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) adopted in 2003 has moved towards greater 
liberalization of the sector, the trade in agricultural products remains highly protected. 
207. We are concerned at the recent reinstatement of  subsidies for the export of dairy products, 
which not only generates greater distortions in the in ternational market but also takes trade away from 
countries with no subsidization capacity and, in  particular, affects efficient production and 
employment opportunities in developing countries. 
208. We recognize that the EC is an important a nd proactive participant in the Doha Round 
negotiations.  This is why we seek its fullest po ssible commitment so as to achieve better market 
access for agricultural products, which is essentia l for the conclusion of these negotiations. 
209. In addition, we regret that discrimination is once again being applied to imports of 
MFN bananas.  We thought that this issue had been resolved following the agreement reached in 
July last year, but it was not signed by the EC.  Colombia remains ready to seek a solution based on 
the agreement of July last year.  This is a matter of priority for my country because it involves WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 32  
 
  non-compliance with the multilateral trade rules and because of the massive losses caused to our 
exporters. 
210. We also await a satisfactory solution regard ing European Regulation (EC) 258/97 on "Novel 
Foods" so that it does not turn into a restriction fo r traditional products from third countries.  In this 
connection, we hope that the recommendations subm itted to the European Parliament by the Andean 
Community on amendment of Article 8 of this Regulation will be taken into account. 
211. Regarding technical regulations, we have noted a positive effort to harmonize Maximum 
Residue Levels (MRLs) within the EU.  Neverthel ess, for pesticides, MRLs are specified for some 
500 substances and for the other pesticid es a specific MRL applies by default. 
212. Colombia requests the EC to base itself on ri sk analysis and scientific information when 
determining the MRLs to be applie d by default to non-specified pes ticides or pesticides that are not 
covered by the international refere nce bodies.  This is to ensure th at the MRLs currently applied by 
default to such pesticides do not b ecome an unjustified trade barrier. 
213. We also seek the EC's active support to prevent th e proliferation of "private standards", which 
have become an increasing barrier to  entry into the European market. 
214. As regards bilateral trade relati ons, the EC is an extremely im portant partner for Colombia.  
Trade as a whole is over US$10 billion, making the EC our second most important trade partner at the global level. 
215. In 2008, Colombia's exports to the EU amounted  to US$4.79 billion, an increase of 9.3 per 
cent compared with the previous year.  The prin cipal exports are commodities such as coal, coffee, 
petroleum, bananas, ferro-nickel and flowers. 
216. In 2008, Colombia imported goods  amounting to US$5.3 billion from the EU, an increase of 
30.4 per cent compared with 2007.  These mainly consisted of machinery and equipment, basic 
chemicals, metal articles, motor vehicl e industry goods, soap and cosmetics. 
217. We highlight the importance of the GSP granted by the EC as a tool that has helped to 
increase and diversify Colombia's exports.  We ar e now negotiating an Association Agreement, which 
we hope will be ready this year. 
218. The EC is also responsible for a large propor tion of foreign direct investment (FDI) in 
Colombia.  Between January and September 2008, this amounted to US$621 million, a 42 per cent 
increase compared with the same period in 2007, to the benefit of all. 
219. We welcome the replies to the questions sent in advance and wish the EC a satisfactory 
outcome to this ninth Review of its trade policy.  Because of the scale of its economy, its important 
role in global trade and investment and because of th e wealth and diversity of its relations, the EC is a 
major partner in the international economic commun ity.  This is why we hope it will continue to 
follow a trade policy conducive to the opening of its markets and of global markets. 
CANADA 
220. Canada and the EC have had mutually beneficial  economic relations for a long time.  In fact, 
Canada was the first non-European country to si gn a trade and economic cooperation agreement with 
the EEC in 1976.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 33 
 
 
  221. Today, the EC is Canada's second most impor tant trade partner, with trade in goods 
amounting to US$84.8 billion in 2008.  For Canada, it is also the second largest supplier and recipient 
of FDI, with inward and outward flows amounting to around US$264 billion in 2007. 
222. Relations between Canada and the EC also cove r non-traditional areas, for example, science, 
technology and innovation are becoming increasingly im portant.  The EC has become one of the most 
important sources of new technology for Canada. 
223. In order to boost these economic relations, in March, Canada and the EC published a joint 
report identifying areas for the negotiation of an am bitious global economic agreement.  Together 
with the provinces and territories and in consultation with Canadian stakeholders, Canada is currently 
drawing up its terms of reference so as to launc h the negotiations officially as soon as possible. 
224. Canada views this process as complementary to the Doha Round and as a strong signal that 
protectionism is no solution in the current difficult economic context. 
225. In this period of uncertainty and global economic turmoil, it is more important than ever to 
boost trade liberalization by resisting protectionist  measures and by continuing to create new outlets 
for trade and investment.  Canada congratulates the EC on its ongoing commitment to the Doha 
negotiations. 
226. The biggest issue that Canada has with the EC’s  trade policy regime is its regulatory system. 
All countries have a duty to ensure that their re gulatory regime remains trade neutral and does not 
create impediments and/or barriers to trade. Given the size and importance of the EC and its markets, it is imperative that it be more forthcoming in te rms of its regulatory polic ies and rationale. Canada 
encourages the EC to develop policies in a manne r that doesn’t place in jeopardy the market access 
that has been afforded to WTO members.  
227. There are a number of significant regulatory im pediments that continue to pose serious 
concern for Canada. For example the EC’s recent a doption of a proposal to classify certain nickel 
compounds as ‘dangerous substances’ will have si gnificant negative impacts on the nickel industry. 
Canada certainly recognises the importance of en suring a high standard of protection for human 
health and environment, and suppor ts the development of regulatory strategies to achieve such 
protection. But we would reiterate that these re gulations should not create unnecessary obstacles to 
international trade.  
228. We have other concerns with significant regul atory impediments. These include the EC ban 
on the importation of meat derived from animals treat ed with certain hormone treatments, and barriers 
to the importation of biotechnology products into the EC. Regarding hormones, we see no scientific 
justification for the EC’s hormones ban. On the bi otech dispute, while noting that some progress has 
been made, Canada expects the EC to fully comply  with the Panel's recommendations. We expect the 
EC to ensure that the approval process for GMOs f unctions in a manner that is timely, predictable, 
and based on science. The recent approval of a GM canola of interest to Canada was a welcome development, but it took over 4 years, and some EC Member States continue to slow down the 
process and maintain unjustified and illegal bans on the marketing of certain GMOs. 
229. Many of the trade irritants that existed betw een the EC and Canada in 2007 remain. In the 
area of customs procedures, Canada welcomes the EC’s new Modernized Customs Code (MCC), and the new action program for customs. Despite th ese changes, however, customs procedures and 
practices, and the interpretation of EC requirements, are not always consistent from Member State to 
Member State. Canada hopes that implementati on of the MCC will harmonise the application of 
customs procedures and facilitate trade. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 34  
 
  230. It is also very important for me to note that  the recent developments  pushing for bans on the 
import and use of all seal products, at the Member State and EC levels, is another area of great 
concern for Canada. The proposed measures to ban the importation of seal products are inconsistent 
with the EC's WTO obligations. The Canadian seal hunts are humane, sustainable, well-managed and 
well-regulated. We are pleased that the European Co mmission itself has recognized that there is no 
conservation threat to the seal population. Therefor e, we call on the EC and its Member States to 
recognize that there is no scientific or legal basis to prohibit trade of seal products and to stop their 
efforts to do so. The only acceptable solution is to de velop reasonable international welfare standards, 
which can only be achieved through dialogue and coll aboration. Canada is also concerned about the 
EC’s decisions during the trade policy review peri od to re-introduce export subsidies for a number of 
agricultural products. This step sends an extremely negative signal at a time when all Members must 
resist the use of trade-distorting measures. We therefore urge the EC to reverse its decision to re-introduce export subsidies.  
231. The EC continues to be one of Canada’s mo st important commercial partners. We look 
forward to further strengthening this relationship. We welcome the opportunity to participate in this 
review. And we look forward to discussing the EC’s responses to the questions we have submitted.  
PANAMA 
232. For the Republic of Panama, the EC is the second most important trade partner.  In 2007, the 
volume of our bilateral trade was over US$860 million.   Panamanian exports to the EC are mainly 
products such as bananas, melons, water melons, pi neapples and shrimps.  As for imports, the most 
important are motor vehicles, petroleum and machinery. 
233. In terms of gross value added, the EC's majo r economic sector is services, which accounts for 
around 70 per cent.  The aim of its industrial polic y is to make industry more competitive, while 
agriculture only represents some 2 per cent of gross value added, even though it remains important for 
some members and this is probably preventing mo re open trade that would benefit developing 
countries that export agricultural products. 
234. The EC has 17 per cent of global trade in goods and is the leader in trade in services.  It is the 
principal importer and second largest consumer of en ergy in the world and, moreover, is the main 
supplier and recipient of FDI.  Regarding the latter issue, Panama would like to have further details 
concerning FDI in Latin America, especially in Central America. 
235. In the area of intellectual property, the EC h as taken measures to streamline the granting of 
patents, in trademarks, new plant varieties, copyright and geographical indications.  In the 
negotiations on the plurilateral trade agreement, it is active in the fight against counterfeiting and 
piracy.  We should like to have further details on the nature and status of this agreement. 
236. The EC states that the Doha Development Agenda is the best way of preventing 
protectionism.  It is one of the main sponsors of the Aid for Trade process and grants unilateral 
preferences through the GSP, GSP+ and "Everything But Arms" programmes. 
237. It is currently extending its network of preferential trade agreements, including the 
negotiations under way with Central American count ries, in which Panama is participating as an 
observer. 
238. It is important to emphasize that the EC's tari ff regime is extremely complex and that its 
highest tariffs continue to apply to agricultural pr oducts, to the detriment of exports from developing 
countries.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 35 
 
 
  239. The EC has declared that it would be ready to  reduce its trade-distorting agricultural subsidies 
and to phase out export subsidies if there is an "accepta ble package" in the negotiations.  It is not clear 
to us, however, what the EC means by this term. 
240. After reading the Report, we also have doubts concerning the planned time-frame for 
harmonizing technical standards and regulations on sanitary and phytosanitary  measures in member 
States.  We should also like clarification of the limits on appeals for review of safeguard measures. 
241. Other aspects that call for attention are the barriers to intracommunity trade in services 
because of the monopolies and the different regulations in member States and the measures adopted regarding re-registration of ships.  In this connec tion, we should like to know what type of sanctions 
may be imposed on European ship owners using the flags of third countries. 
242. Within the WTO, the EC is also one of the mo st active Members in th e settlement of disputes 
and during the period under review participated in six disputes as a complainant and six as a 
defendant, as well as 13 as a third party.  As we all know, one of these disputes concerns one of the 
EC's most long-standing and damaging trade restrict ions, namely, its banana regime.  Its policies on 
bananas have been condemned more times under th e dispute settlement mechanism than any other 
policy in the history of the multilateral trading system. 
243. That the EC propose minor tariff reductions at some time in the future if all the 
WTO Members approve is not an adequate respons e.  Compliance cannot be achieved by making 
gradual reductions which the EC had already promised to make before losing for the thirteenth time or 
by handing over responsibility for taking remedial measures to the membership of the WTO as a whole. 
244. The solution to this protectionist regime of long  date is already on the table.  The EC agreed 
on the terms of an agreement with Panama and other Latin American countries in July last year.  The 
only thing preventing a settlement of this dispute is the refusal of the EC itself to ratify the 
commitments made in July and to comply with it s commitments promptly.  Panama takes due note of 
the EC's commitment to fight protectionism and hopes that it will apply this commitment to its own 
history of illegal acts in the banana dispute by  reinstating the July agreement without delay. 
245. Leaving aside these long-standing and complex disputes, Panama has always recognized the 
important role played by the EC in the multilatera l negotiations and welcomes in advance the replies 
to the questions put in connection with this Review .  We hope to receive further interesting details on 
its trade policy in the replies to the questions submitted by other Members. 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 
246. With regard to macroeconomic performance, like other countries in the world, the EC is not 
immune to the impact of the current global financ ial crisis.  The Secretariat's Report indicates that 
after growing by 3 per cent annually over the peri od 2006-2007, real GDP fell to 1 per cent in 2008, 
and the forecast of international organizations for 2009 is negative growth of 2.5 per cent because of 
the deepening global financial crisis.  It is importa nt to note that the EC accounts for 17 per cent of 
global trade in goods, it is the largest trader in  services in the world an d the main supplier and 
recipient of global FDI, accounting for some 40 pe r cent of the global inward flow of FDI and over 
50 per cent of the outward flow.  In this respect , because of its importance, we urge the member 
countries of the EC not to take protectionist measures  to deal with the aforementioned financial crisis 
and provide enough fiscal stimulus to encourage consumption and investment once again in view of its role and contribution to gl obal economic growth and trade. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 36  
 
  247. We also view with interest the importance at tached by the EC to the Doha Development 
Agenda at the multilateral level as the best way of  preventing a return to trade protectionism during 
the current decline in the global economic situation. 
248. For the Dominican Republic, the EU is the second largest trade partner and the first as far as 
the inflow of foreign investment is concerned.   Until last year, our trade relations were under 
unilateral preferential schemes within the framework  of the Cotonou Agreement between the EC and 
the ACP Group.  More recently, an Economic Asso ciation Agreement has been concluded between 
the EC and CARIFORUM, which covers almost all trade between both groups of countries, based on 
reciprocal preferences, the gradual elimination of trade restrictions and a lowering of tariff barriers.  In return, this Agreement includes wide-ranging technical and financial cooperation programmes, 
making it a true example of a tool for development.   In this connection, we should emphasize that 
these Agreements have provided and will continue to provide important benefits for small and 
vulnerable developing countries such as the Domi nican Republic, making a sizable contribution to its 
economic growth. 
249. We should emphasize, however, that we are c oncerned at the large number of non-tariff 
measures notified by the EC, particularly under the TB T Agreement.  As indicated in the Secretariat's 
Report, several Members have commented on the fact that these measures create or might create unnecessary trade barriers.  We have submitted questions to the EC, inter alia , on the Commission 
Directive amending Council Directive 67/548/EEC on dangerous chemical substances, which includes 
over 100 nickel substances as danger ous substances.  We shall not re iterate here the concerns this 
Directive causes us as we have done so exhaustivel y in the TBT Committee, but we await the EC's 
response to our concerns as the aforementioned Di rective was adopted without taking proper account 
of the comments of the Members concerned.  It is worrying that the EC is taking such measures as we 
consider that they erode the market access we have  negotiated and agreed in the recent Association 
Agreement between the EC and CARIFORUM, in addition to being significant barriers preventing 
SMEs in poor countries such as the Dominican Republic from really exporting to the EC and 
benefiting from the agreements signed and the opport unities afforded by this market.  We await the 
replies of the EC with interest. 
NEW ZEALAND 
250. The EC plays a key role in the multilateral trading system. Important in times of prosperity, 
this role is critical in a time of global uncerta inty. Continued trade liberalisation, including in 
agriculture, remains central to the growth of th e global economy and has the potential to help drive 
global economic recovery. 
251. We therefore welcome the EC’s efforts to st imulate the earliest possible conclusion of the 
Doha Round, including its calls for prompt reenga gement on the basis of the 6 December 2008 draft 
Agriculture and NAMA texts.  
252. We also acknowledge the EC’s on-going refo rms of the common agricultural policy, 
particularly the movement to use less tr ade-distorting measures than previously. 
253. Against this background, the EC’s decision to  reintroduce export subsidies on dairy products 
in January 2009 is deeply troubling.  To quote the World Bank recent report on protectionism in the 
G20, export subsides are the “most egregious” of trad e-distorting measures.  Like others this morning 
New Zealand is concerned about the signal their re introduction sends to the global trading system, and 
we urge the EC to remove these measures as soon as possible. 
254. The report notes there remains considerable scope for improvements in market access for 
agriculture.  In terms of tariff barriers, the S ecretariat notes the EC’s applied MFN tariffs on  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 37 
 
 
  agricultural goods currently average around 17.9%.  Th is is considerably higher than the 4% average 
tariff for industrial products but also as others including Brazil this morning have noted masks a complex reality, including prohibitive tariffs on ma ny highly traded products and other products 
subject to very high, complex tariff structures and tariff quotas.  
255. The Secretariat report notes that European fisheries production “remains beyond sustainable 
levels”.  We encourage the EC to continuing modi fying its regime with the objective of developing a 
more coherent policy framework, in cluding its subsidy and fleet manage ment policies, which have an 
impact on fisheries outside as well as inside Community waters. 
256. We note a continued tendency by the EC to regulate before fully taking into account of the 
impact on third countries. This includes wide -ranging and prescriptive regulations on food and 
beverages. We urge the EC to take into account th e interests and WTO rights of its trading partners in 
advance of introducing new regulations, even on issues th at appear to the EC to  have minimal external 
relevance.  
257. We welcome the EC’s work, on behalf of Memb er States, to uphold the TRIPs Agreement.  
The Secretariat’s report (section III, paras. 194-196)  outlines the EC’s regulations on Geographical 
Indications.  New Zealand has concerns that aspects of these regulations are ambiguous, creating 
uncertainties for exporters.  New Zealand is curre ntly testing the objection procedures of EC 
Regulation 510/2006.  We continue to work with the Member State concerned – and the 
Commission – to ensure our objections are taken in to account and given appropriate weight in the 
EC’s decision making process.    
258. We welcome the EC’s Modernised Customs Code and other trade facilitating measures, 
including the EC’s Customs 2013 programme.  We also welcome the EC’s emphasis on the mutual 
recognition of trade security programmes. 
259. Bilaterally New Zealand attaches great importanc e to its trading relationship with the EC, 
collectively our second-largest trading partner after Australia. Agriculture re mains a major focus of 
our exports but our exports are also diversifying with increases in areas su ch as seafood, machinery 
and other manufactured products.  Trade in services and levels of FDI investment are also increasing.  
260. We value our sanitary agreement with the EC, as it has enabled the practical application of 
important SPS Agreement principles and the impl ementation of least-trade-restrictive sanitary 
measures between the parties.  We appreciate the Commission’s constructive approach to amendment 
of our mutual recognition agreement on conformity  assessment.  We have started negotiations on a 
comprehensive air services agreement and we l ook forward to commencing negotiation of a wine 
agreement.  
261. We place great value in our constructive enga gement with the EC, both multilaterally and 
bilaterally, and we look forward to this cooperation continuing into the future.  
HONG KONG, CHINA 
 262. Regarding trade in goods, we appreciate that  the EC has bound all its tariff lines and has 
maintained the same applied and bound rates for almost 99% of them.  We would also like to 
commend the EC for reducing the overall average app lied tariff rate from 6.9% in 2006 to 6.7% in 
2008.  On the other hand, it is noted that the tariff structure of the EC remains complex due to the existence of both ad valorem  and non ad valorem  rates.  In addition, the number of tariff lines subject 
to tariff quotas has increased from 3.4% to 4.8% in the last two years.  We would encourage the EC to 
reduce its tariff rates further and simplify its tari ff structure to facilitate its trade with other WTO 
Members. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 38  
 
  263. On Technical Barriers to Trade we note that the EC's technical regulations, standards, and 
conformity assessment procedures in some sectors ha ve not been harmonised.  There are more than 
15,000 European-wide (voluntary) standards.  About 30% of the standards developed by the European Committee for Standardisation and about 60% of sta ndards developed by the European Committee for 
Electrotechnical Standardisation are identical to ISO st andards.  To facilitate the flow of international 
trade, we would encourage the EC to step up its efforts in harmonisation and to align its standards 
with the international ones as far as possible.   
264. On Anti-dumping we note that the total number of contingency measures notified to the WTO 
had been decreasing as from 2005.  However, the trend appears to have reversed in 2008, especially 
with regard to anti-dumping.  The number of an ti-dumping cases initiated has doubled from 9 in 2007 
to 18 last year, and the number of definitive measures has also increased from 12 to 16 during the 
same period.  We find the increase somewhat alarming , and strongly urge the EC to exercise restraint 
in respect of such measures in the face of the current global financial turmoil. 
265. Let me now turn to services.  In many ways , both the EC and Hong Kong, China attach much 
importance in pursuing continuous liberalisation of  trade in services, which is a key component not 
only of the current Round of negotiations, but also for a global economic recovery.  We appreciate the 
EC's active participation in the Services negotiatio ns and the many inputs it has contributed to the 
negotiations so far.  
266. Regarding Internal Market Integration for Serv ices we note the EC's efforts in eliminating 
barriers to trade in services at th e intra-EC level through initiatives su ch as the Directive on Services 
in the Internal Market.  Given the importance of th at market, such initiatives, when directed also to 
the EC's other trading partners, could bring about tremendous benefits for all.  We therefore look 
forward to the EC's continued efforts in liberalising its services sector,  both at the intra- and extra-EC 
levels. 
267. On Maritime Transport Services we note that the EC's Integrated Maritime Policy aims at 
enhancing Europe's capacity to face the challe nges of globalisation and competitiveness, maritime 
safety and security, as well as energy security and sustainability.  We certainly hope that in pursuing 
these objectives, this Policy would also bring about further liberalisation of the EC's maritime transport and logistics services . 
268. As reflected in its GATS schedule, the EC curre ntly maintains a number of MFN exemptions, 
many of which are of indefinite intended duration.  In line with the Annex on Article II Exemptions to 
the GATS, which requires that all MFN exemptions s hould be reviewed from time to time and be in 
principle not more than 10 years in duration, we urge the EC seriously to consider removing the 
exemptions or setting down a timeframe for doing so. 
269. On trade facilitation, we are pleased to note that  the EC has introduced thorough reforms to 
modernise customs rules and procedures within the Community.  We fully share the EC's view that 
trade facilitation measures can bring about substant ial benefits to all WTO Members by reducing the 
cost of trading across borders through simpler cust oms formalities.  We have been working closely 
with the EC in the negotiations on trade fac ilitation, and we look forward to our continued 
cooperation in advanc ing these negotiations. 
BRUNEI DARUSSALAM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ASEAN 
270. The EC is an important trade partner for ASEAN.  ASEAN was the EC's largest source of 
imports in 2007.  ASEAN and the EC had recorded to tal trade of €675,800 million in 2007 with total 
imports of €345,480 million a nd €330,320 million of exports.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 39 
 
 
  271. On ASEAN-EC bilateral cooperation, ASEAN welcomes the decision to further strengthen 
bilateral cooperation during the 17th ASEAN-EC Joint Co-operation Committee (JCC) meeting held 
in Phnom Penh, Cambodia on 6 February 2009. 
272. Since the last Trade Policy Review, I note the re port by the Secretariat that whilst there have 
been no major changes to the EC's institutional framework, the EC has, through her trade policy, 
continued to aim for the progressive dismantling of r estrictions on international trade and the lowering 
of customs barriers, pursued at the multilateral, b ilateral and unilateral levels .  ASEAN welcomes this, 
and in light of the EC's importance as a trading part ner to ASEAN, hopes that the EC's aims will have 
a positive economic impact for both the EC Member states and its trading partners. 
273. I also note that whilst the economic performance of the EC was generally good in 2007, the 
EC's economic performance has since been affected by the global financial crisis.  I'd therefore like to 
encourage the EC's efforts at turning around he r economic growth, where ASEAN certainly looks 
forward to its recovery. 
274. I shall now touch on the EC's trade policy in struments.  ASEAN notes that since its last 
review, the trade regime of the EC has remained largely unchanged.  Whilst the average applied MFN 
tariff has decreased slightly from 6.9% in 2006 to 6.7% in 2008, a wide dispersion ranging from 0% 
to 604.3% AVE remain.  The application of non- ad valorem duties also remains high at 10.1% of total 
tariff lines, which together with the existence of tariff peaks, are mostly confined to agricultural 
products. 
275. ASEAN also notes the Secretariat's observation that some positive developments have taken 
place in the agricultural sector since the last TPR.  However, in spite of this, room for improvement 
remains, in areas such as export subsidies which remain high and other complex measures in place, 
for which we look forward to further improvement on by the EC. 
276. ASEAN is also concerned by the decision of the EC to re-introduce export refunds for a 
number of agriculture products.  This decision se nds negative signal of increasing trade distorting 
measures and protectionism in the time of crisis. 
277. We also note from the Secretariat Report that servi ces play an important role in the EC's real 
GDP and economy, accounting for 69.5% of gross va lue added, 68.9% of employment and 96% of 
new jobs created in 2007.  We therefore welcome the active role the EC has taken in the services 
negotiations. 
278. The EC's trade policies have also continued to  take into account developmental priorities of 
developing countries, where a number of preferential schemes such as the GSP are in place.  We 
certainly hope that the EC will also take ASEAN's development concerns into  consideration in our 
own FTA negotiations with the EC. 
279. ASEAN also appreciates the EC's significant role  and contributions to the preparation and 
implementation of Enhanced Integrated Framework for LDCs, as well as the effective implementation of the Everything But Arms Initiative and welcomes  the EC's commitment to lift the quotas for the 
LDCs on sugar and rice, which will enter into force from 1
st October 2009. 
280. Concerning the implementation of REACH, we hope  that the EC would continue to engage 
with third countries such as ASEAN including the di ssemination of practical information and updated 
guidance documents.  As REACH becomes more co mplex, ASEAN countries would require further 
technical assistance to understand and comply with such detailed requirements.  We note that SMEs, 
who constitute a large part of our entrepreneurs,  may face particular difficulties in this regard. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 40  
 
  281. ASEAN recognizes the EC's long standing commitment towards the multilateral trading 
system and the DDA, being a key player during its launch, as well as its tireless efforts as a major participant in the ongoing DDA negotiations.  ASE AN also welcomes contributions from the EC and 
its individual member states to the DDA Global Tr ust Fund and its contributions in making specific 
activities possible, such as the WTO Public Forum in 2007. 
282. ASEAN would also like to highlight its concern on the EU Directive on Renewable Energy, 
which lays down requirements to verify complian ce with the obligatory environmental sustainability 
criteria for biofuels.  EU must ensure that the requirements are not too burdensome for developing countries. 
283. Finally, some of us in ASEAN have submitte d written questions to the EC delegation and 
would like to thank them in advance for their written responses. 
PAKISTAN 
284. The EC is a major global player. The report by  EC and the Secretariat portray substantial 
progress and consolidation of achievements by the EC  during the period under review, as indeed also 
highlighted by the speakers before me. It is satisfy ing to note that the EC remains committed to Doha 
Development Agenda as the best approach to pr event trade protectionism in the current economic 
downturn. The EC also remains one of the most  active Members in WTO and has been making 
several proposals in a wide range of areas. From the developing countries’ perspective, the EC is also 
a major sponsor of trade-related technical assistance within its Aid for Trade framework. The EC also 
handsomely contributes to the DDA Global Trust F und and has financed or co-financed specific 
activities under the DDA. Indeed, it has also co-funded the WTO Public Forum 2007 as well. 
285. The EC has wide ranging economic and devel opment cooperation with Pakistan as well as 
trade and investment promotion activities through va rious regional and bilateral projects. Diplomatic 
relations between Pakistan and the Community we re established in 1962.  The EC- Pakistan 
Commercial Cooperation Agreement dates from 1976, a  1986 by a  Commercial and Cooperation 
Agreement followed by a third generation agr eement. Commercial, economic and development 
cooperation have known a dynamic e volution under these Agreements.  
286. The EC remains Pakistan’s largest trading partner receiving approximately a third of 
Pakistan’s exports and providing 20 % of its total imports. Pak-EU trade has expanded by 116 % since 
2001-02. The trade balance is in EU’s favour. Pakistan ’s trade with the EU is mainly composed of 
textiles, which account for over 60% of the total Paki stani exports to the EU, followed by leather and 
other products. The imports from the EU to Pakistan mainly comprise finished products like 
mechanical and electrical machinery, followed by  chemical and pharmaceuticals and several other 
products.  He continues to resolve various issu es at a bilateral level for mutual benefit. 
287. Pakistan-EC Country Strategy Paper for 2007-20 13 seeks to strengthen the relationship under 
the new 3rd Generation Cooperation Agreement, wh ich entered into force in 2004. In line with 
Pakistan’s policy priorities, the key objective for 2007-2013 will be poverty redu ction. The first focal 
area for assistance is rural development and natural resources management in North-West Frontier 
Province and Baluchistan with a view to reduci ng regional disparities and promoting stability in 
Pakistan’s sensitive provinces bordering Afgha nistan. Under the Development Cooperation 
Instrument (DCI), an indicative allocation of € 398 million has been earmarked for Pakistan for the 
period 2007-2013 aimed at augmenting human res ources through education, trade development, 
democratization and human rights. To maximise the impact of EC assistance, key cross-cutting issues, 
in particular the environment, conflict preventi on, gender, HIV/AIDS, human rights and governance 
are mainstreamed in this CSP. The Multi-Annual Indicative Programme for 2007-10 reflects the focus 
on poverty reduction in the CSP for 2007-13, while concentrating and conso lidating EC support and  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 41 
 
 
  enabling the EC to continue the drive to provide the bulk of its support through sector approaches and 
budgetary support. However, we look forward to greater market access and economic support from 
the EU. 
288. Trade is recognised as the engine of global economic growth – largely thanks to the 
multilateral trading system. The rule-based, open, multila teral, international trading system is a key 
factor in global prosperity to all partners. The EU wants to see these advantages extended and 
therefore is strongly in favour of an outcome of  the current WTO trade negotiations, which should 
entail concrete gains in particular , for developing countries and cont ribute to better enhance benefits 
and limit risks arising from the globalisation process.  
289. We hope to witness further strengthening of ou r bilateral ties and also look forward to 
stronger EC playing a more active role in culmination of the DDA. 
TURKEY 
290. We have deep rooted relations with the EC, wh ich date back to the Ankara Agreement signed 
in 1963.  Since then, Turkey has established a long association with the project of European 
integration.  
291. The establishment of customs union in 1996 is another important step in the history of our 
relations. The Customs Union between Turkey and the EC has a unique character beyond the 
traditional definition of the customs unions.  The scope of the Customs Union covers trade in manufactured products between Turkey and the EU, a nd also entails alignment by Turkey with certain 
EU policies, such as technical regulation of produc ts, competition, and intellectual property rights. We 
also work with the EC on a number of regional ma tters including the free trade agreements and the 
GSP. However, agriculture is not covered under the Customs Union.  
292. Today, Turkey is an acceding country to the EU. As the sixth largest European economy, 
Turkey and the EC have been cooperating even more  intensively. We are in the well advanced stage 
of aligning our legislation with those of the EC.  
293. As stated at the Secretariat’s report, the EC is the world’s leading trader. It offers remarkable 
market opportunities for all WTO members as it is the world’s second largest merchandise importer 
and the leading recipient of world’s services imports. In  this respect, we believe this meeting will very 
much contribute to the transparency of the world trading system.  
294. In respect of our trade relations with the EC, we enjoy intense trade relationship. The 
Secretariat’s report indicates that Turkey is the fi fth largest export market for the EC, and seventh 
biggest import source. In fact, the figures are even more impressive when compared with some other 
members. For instance, we rank among the top thr ee trading partners for members like Romania and 
Bulgaria.  
295. In 2008, the total volume of our merchandise tr ade with the EC was 138 billion dollars. About 
48% of our exports with a value of 63 billion dollars  were shipped to the EC markets and, about 37 % 
of imports with a value of 75 billion dollars were  sourced from the EC. Annually almost 40 thousands 
Turkish companies trade with at least one EC member. 
296. Similarly, trade in services also forms considerable part of commercial relations. While we 
rank at the 7th place with regard to the services expor ts of the EC, we are the 13th largest supplier of 
services to the EC market. The total turnover is around 18 billion dollars.  
297. The EC companies are the main i nvestors in the Turkish market.  WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 42  
 
  298. Today, about 70% of all foreign direct investme nts in Turkey originate from the EC members. 
There are about twelve thousands EC companies with a total investment of 67 billion dollars in Turkey, working in various sectors from retail trade to banking. 
299. Deep commitment of the EC to the sustainable development manifests itself in her efforts at 
the multilateral level within the GSP implementati on, and the decision to provide duty free quota free 
market access for the LDCs. Similarly, its role  in the aid for trade is worth to remember.  
300. The most immediate challenge the EU faces is  the current economic crisis. Europe succeeded 
to overcome such challenges in the past, and it is well equipped to face the present challenge.  
301. Until now, it has responded to the current crisis in  a swift manner with a stimulus package of 
200 billion Euros. It should also be noted that the m easures against the crisis also cover support to the 
social security nets. Nevertheless, we hope that the current crisis will not interrupt the reform of the 
common agricultural policy, particularly with regard to the export subsidies, and the EC will continue 
to avoid low intensity types of protectionism like the policies favoring domestic producers at the expense of foreign competition.   
302. We praise the role of the EU during the last week’s G-20 summit, and its contribution to the 
commitment made to resist the protectionism.  
303. Aiming to achieve economic growth and prosper ity through open trade, the EC pursues a 
strategy of trade liberalization through regional a nd bilateral trade negotiations, while it also gives 
priority to multilateralism. The EC does have a crucial role for completion of the DDA.  
304. With regard to the trade policy developments  since its last review, on the TBT front, we 
welcome the new regulation adopted in July 2008 to  establish common rules and structures for market 
surveillance and accreditation of conformity assessments . As pointed at the Secretariat’s report, it will 
facilitate the movement of goods; ease the burden on trade partners of the EU.  
305. On the SPS front, we also commend the EC’s initiative to consolidate the regulations 
concerning maximum residue levels, and ha rmonize and simplify the overall system.  
306. Despite the long standing and strong trade a nd economic relations be tween Turkey and the 
EU, we also would like to raise concerns with rega rd to several policies of the EC. Most of these 
issues have been raised by us at different committees under this roof. 
307. One such area is the REACH. This issue was discussed extensively at the pervious TPR 
meeting of the EC by various members. The regulati on has now been in effect. However, we are still 
not convinced about its impact on the trade and, particularly on the small and medium sized companies. While urging companies to comply with  the new regulation, we are still concerned with 
its complex structure and its burden on trade flow s. Similarly, we also have worries that the 
amendment regarding borates under the Dangerous Subs tances Directive of the EC is more restrictive 
than necessary.  
308. Another important area where we look forward to work more closely with the EC is the road 
transportation, particularly right of transit passag e as defined at the GATT Article V. Unfortunately, 
we are regularly reported about the problems arisi ng mainly in the forms of transit road quotas and 
transit charges applied by some Member States, whic h often generate restric tions and limitations in 
transit, contrary to the stipulations of Article V.  We hope to continue this discussion, and clarify the 
issue under the trade facilitation negotiations.   WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 43 
 
 
  309. Before concluding, we would like to point out that we share the commitment of the EC in 
improving market access for goods and services, strengthening the existing WTO rules, and 
integrating developing countries gradually in global trade. We are ready to wo rk with the EC towards 
that end.  
UNITED STATES 
310. As a point of departure, I would like to take  a moment to reflect on the many valuable 
attributes of our commercial and trade policy rela tionship with the EC.  Like many other WTO 
Members, the United States has benefitted immensel y from its commercial relationship between the 
United States and the EC.  Indeed, EC member States are, collectively, our largest trading partner.  
Every day, nearly $2.7 billion in goods and services originating on one side of the Atlantic are 
delivered on the other side.  U.S. and European co mpanies have directly invested nearly $1.5 trillion 
in each other’s economies, supporting tens of millions of jobs.  The growth and technological development generated by these immense trade a nd investment flows have created valuable 
opportunities for exporters all around the world. 
311. The United States and other WTO Members have  also benefitted from the EC’s strong 
support, over many decades, for a rules-based multila teral trading system.  Finally, it is important to 
note that the vast majority of our bilateral trad e with the EC proceeds without conflict, and the 
disagreements that we sometimes have on bilateral issues or on multilateral issues of common interest 
do not interfere with our cooperation on a wide range of issues. 
312. Precisely because the EC plays such an importa nt role in international commerce and in 
global trade policy deliberations, however, we have  an obligation to conduct a constructive and 
responsible review of its trade policies.  The Secr etariat’s comprehensive analysis and the European 
Commission’s detailed description of its trade regime have given us a lot of valuable material with 
which to work.  These documents – as well as th e knowledge of EC trade policies that we have 
acquired through our engagement over many years – have prompted a number of our questions about 
the relationship of specific trade policies to the EC ’s WTO obligations.  This review of EC trade 
policy could not come at a more critical time.  W ith the volume of global trade declining significantly 
for the first time in many years, and with the te mptation to erect new barriers to imports growing, 
Members should expect that their trade policies will be  of great interest to their trading partners.  
313. We have concerns about EC policies in several ar eas.  I would briefly like to highlight several 
of these concerns.   
314. With respect to agriculture, tariff protection cont inues to be high in the EC.  Agricultural and 
food products that the United States safely consum es at home and exports to dozens of other Members 
have been excluded from the EC market by SPS measu res that appear to lack sufficient scientific 
justification.  In some cases, the EC has im posed SPS barriers on products that the EC’s own 
scientists have concluded pose no risk to human, anim al, and plant life or health.  Because of SPS and 
other barriers, U.S. agricultural exporters have  been unable to access fully the EC’s post-Uruguay 
Round market. 
315. In the area of technical barriers to trade, the EC is attempting to transform an essentially EC 
regional standard on olive oil into a Codex standard .  Although the EC has not been explicit about the 
reasons behind its position on linolenic acid, we are co ncerned that the effect of this position would be 
to unjustly preclude extra virgin olive oil produced ou tside the EC from bearing the extra virgin label.  
The United States also continues to have concerns regarding EC measures that severely restrict the 
ability of non-EC wine to use common or descr iptive and commercially valuable terms, on the 
grounds that those terms are traditional to European wi nes.  This is particularly disturbing when some 
of these terms do not have a common definition across all member States, we are aware of no effort to WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 44  
 
  monitor or limit the use of these terms within the EC, and these terms have been used in the EC 
market on U.S. wines for many years with no apparent problems.   
316. EC standards, testing, and certification ru les and EC regulatory practices have become 
increasingly important determinants of market acce ss for firms around the world.  Unfortunately, we 
have found that by the time the EC issues public notices on regulatory proposals – some with 
enormous trade implications – deliberations am ong EC member States have progressed too far to 
allow for meaningful consideration of the views of tr ading partners.  As we have for several years, we 
continue to urge the EC to offer WTO Members a nd their private sector stakeholders meaningful 
opportunities to comment on regulatory proposals and assurances that those comments will be taken 
into consideration before a final re gulation is promulgated and enforced. 
317. Some major EC regulatory initiatives, such as REACH, the new regulatory regime for 
chemicals, have proven to be extraordinarily – and needlessly – burdensome to exporters.  In the case 
of REACH – which has as one of its objectives increasing the competitiveness of the European 
chemical industry – the United States has raised sev eral concerns in TBT Committee meetings.  These 
include REACH’s disproportionate impact on SMEs; its Only Representative provision; and the 
continued failure of the EC to remedy discriminati on in the treatment of certain “phase in substances,” 
particularly substances in imported cosmetics.  We have also expressed concern about the operation of 
the Substance Information Exchange Fora; the lack  of uniform enforcement and interpretation of 
REACH across the member States; and the anal ytical methods supporting decisions to place 
substances on the authorization candi date list and the EC’s failure to clarify the legal status of 
substances placed on the list.  We have urged the EC  to give careful consideration to the expressions 
of concern that have been registered by its tradin g partners and other interested parties on REACH, 
and to offer a meaningful opportunity to reflect th e views of non-EC governments and stakeholders in 
the implementation process.   
318. Both in the area of SPS regulations and with r espect to the standards applied to manufactured 
products, we continue to be concerned that some  measures maintained by the EC on the grounds of 
food safety or environmental protection may not be  appropriately supported by science-based risk 
assessments. 
319. More generally, inconsistent implementation of internal market rules and burdensome 
regulatory requirements hinder trade for EC and foreign producers alike.  We applaud the European Commission’s efforts to address lingering internal barr iers to the free flow of goods, and look forward 
to hearing how the Commission intends to address re maining barriers, including those that are not 
scientifically substantiated, to the free flow of  goods at the EC and member State levels.  
320. The United States notes the Secretariat’s recognition of the EC’s status as a key player in the 
WTO and a major force behind the Doha Developmen t Agenda (DDA) negotiations.  Now more than 
ever we must work together to minimize barriers to trade and find ways to increase  trade as a means 
to reverse the economic downturn.  A strong, ma rket-opening agreement for both goods and services 
in the  Doha Round negotiations would be an important step towards fighting the threat of 
protectionism and a major contribution to addressing the global economic crisis, as part of the effort 
to restore trade’s role in leading economic growth and development.  We look forward to continuing 
our work with the EC and other Members to reach  an ambitious and balanced result in the Doha 
Round.   
321. We would like to thank the EC again for providi ng answers to our written questions.  We plan 
to review the responses carefully, provide substa ntive comments and request clarifications as 
necessary on Wednesday.   WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 45 
 
 
  MEXICO 
322. We note from the Reports both by the Secretar iat and the EC that, according to the EC's 
November 2008 forecast, growth in imports will slow down significantly to 0.9 per cent.  Exports are 
also expected to slow down, but to a lesser de gree (1.5 per cent).  We should like to ask the 
Commission what is its current forecast for the re mainder of 2009 on the decline in Community and 
extra-Community trade? 
323. As far as tariffs are concerned, the situation has essentially not change d and is still somewhat 
complex.  Average applied MFN tariffs fell slight ly from 6.9 to 6.7 per cent in 2006, with rates 
ranging from 0 per cent to 604 per cent or the ad valorem  equivalent.  The highest tariffs continue to 
apply to agricultural products. 
324. It is precisely in the agricultural sector where the EC should make a significant contribution to 
progress in the Doha negotiations.  The EC's positi on on disciplines for sensitive products, tropical 
products and the erosion of preferences will result in  a marked decrease in the level of market access 
for products of interest to developing countries.   Although we understand the complexities of its 
negotiating position, we urge the EC to remain activ e and show a level of ambition in agriculture that 
helps to maintain a high level of ambition in the negotiations on industrial goods. 
325. The EC could take stronger measures to comp lete the full implementation of its internal 
market and the trade regime applicable to agricu ltural products could be further liberalized by 
simplifying the Community tariff structure. 
326. Regarding the services sector, the EC-27 occupies first place in global trade in services.  In 
2006, it accounted for 27.3 per cent of global exports  of services and 24 per cent of imports.  The 
EC-27's exports of services amount ed to €501.4 billion in 2007, compared with €402.9 billion in 
2005, while imports of services amounted to €413 bil lion in 2007, compared to €350 billion in 2005. 
327. The expansion of trade is an essential tool in overcoming economic stagnation, which means 
that it is vitally necessary to keep global market s open and prevent attempts to fall back on 
protectionism.  Nevertheless, a plethora of protectionist measures would worsen the economic 
situation for all and would cast a shadow over e xpectations for a prompt recovery in economic 
activity, as indicated by Pascal Lamy in his report on the financial economic crisis.  Unfortunately, 
this report shows that the EC is reinstating s ubsidies on the export of butter, cheese and whole and 
skimmed milk in powder form.  From all points of view, this unilateral meas ure is contrary to the 
spirit and objective of the Doha negotiations.  More over, as indicated in the article by the World Bank 
entitled Trade Protection:  Incipient but Worrisome Trends , the support measures given for 
agricultural products can lead to a decline in commodity prices. 
328. I should like to make a comment on European State support.  The plan announced by France 
to rescue the automobile industry, amounting to some  €6 billion, in the form of loans to companies 
such as Peugeot and Renault, triggered the pr ocedures under Community law on domestic support.  
This is why the Commission announced that it w ould limit and monitor the French authorities to 
ensure that they did not make the granting of th e loan subject to requirements such as keeping 
enterprises in France or the French nationality of suppliers.  The Community's regulations on domestic support are not the only legal guideline appli cable to such State aid.  The EC must also 
comply with the WTO guidelines on non-discrimina tion and the granting of subsidies.  This is 
essential, as other Member States of the EC are also implementing similar economic stimulus packages.  For example, Germ any has several stimulus packages such as the €50 billion for 
consumption, the €115 billion for the real econom y and the €400 billion fo r financial institutions. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 46  
 
  329. The individual reaction to the economic crisis by Member States has given rise to criticism on 
the possible lack of coordination within the EC  and on its complex decision-making mechanism.  
Nevertheless, we think that both the Community's institutions and the leadership of the Commission 
will reinforce unity among EC Member States.  Such  unity is essential to achieving coordination with 
other WTO Members and thereby seeking global soluti ons to the economic crisis without falling back 
on protectionist measures. 
330. It is essential that the stronger Members of the WTO, which the EC undoubtedly is, should 
make a significant contribution to global economic re covery.  We are certain that its example will be 
followed by smaller Members.  We must reverse th e WTO's forecast of a 9 per cent decline in global 
trade in 2009. 
331. Since 2000, Mexico and the EC have had a free- trade agreement in force, the first between 
the American and European continents.  In the ei ght years since it came into effect, trade between 
Mexico and the EC has tripled, reaching a figure of some US$60 billion. 
332. FDI also plays an important role in these rela tions.  In December 2008, the EC became the 
second largest source of FDI, with 9,083 companies with European capital established in Mexico 
bringing in a cumulative total of US$71.382 b illion between 1999 and 2008, accounting for 33.7 per 
cent of total FDI in Mexico, of which 44.2 per cent went to the manufacturing industries and 25 per 
cent to financial services. 
333. Mexico does, however, have some concer ns regarding these bilateral relations. 
334. FIRSTLY.  Regarding the REACH regulation in fo rce since 1 June 2007, there is concern at 
the possible negative effects on various Mexican production sectors and their exports.  There is still 
confusion regarding the implementation of REAC H among non-Community manufacturers.  This is 
why Mexico will continue to monitor the implem entation of this programme through the various 
channels afforded by our trade relations. 
335. SECONDLY.  With regard to tequila, the EC continues to import and market beverages 
alleged to be tequila, which do not comply with Mexican legislation on eligibility to use this name.  
Mexico continues to emphasize that the Community customs s hould require the authenticity 
certificate issued by the Tequila Regulatory Counc il so as to limit the cases of fraud, adulteration and 
counterfeiting of tequila.  Mexico hopes to be able to continue to rely on the EC's collaboration in 
order to protect the use of the appellation of origin for tequila. 
336. THIRDLY.  I should like to comment on the new Community programme entitled "Quality 
agricultural products" or "Green Paper", introduced by the EC on 15 October 2008.  In May 2009, the 
EC will submit proposed legislation on the future of agricultural product quality policies.  Mexico is 
concerned that the rules and regulations established under this proposal might be inconsistent with its 
obligations in the WTO, especially the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Agreement 
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es.  Lastly, we consider that geographical indications should not 
be used to discriminate against non-Community products. 
ECUADOR 
337. The EC plays a fundamental role in the growth and expansion of the global economy.  The 
27 Member States belonging to the EC, as a whole, o ccupy first place in global trade in goods and 
services as, respectively, they represent 17 per cent of global trade in goods and are also the main 
suppliers and recipients of FDI in the world.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 47 
 
 
  338. This is why it is a matter of concern that th ere was a significant deterioration in its economic 
performance in 2008, as can be seen from the decline from a 3 per cent annual rate of growth over the 
period 2006-2007 to 1 per cent in 2008, the result of th e impact of the global financial crisis, whose 
extent and seriousness we are still unable to discern. 
339. The EC's commitment to a successful conclusi on of the Doha Development Agenda needs to 
be underlined.  Along the same lines, the EC has a political commitment with Ecuador to negotiate a 
trade agreement for development, based on recogniti on of the intra- and interregional inequalities, the 
different levels of development,  the importance of the social, human and environmental aspects of 
trade agreements, genuine special and differential treatment and sufficient technical cooperation to 
implement the results of the multiparty agreements to be reached. 
340. The EC should also receive recognition for its support for the economies of developing 
countries through the granting of unilateral preferen ces under the Generalized System of Preferences, 
the "Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustaina ble Development and Good Governance" (GSP+), 
which rightly gives countries that apply interna tional sustainable development and good governance 
standards additional tariff benefits. 
341. The common MFN tariff structure of the EC is still complex and contains ad valorem  and 
non-ad valorem  rates which may be specific, compound, mixed or variable.  The non- ad valorem  
rates basically apply to agricultural products a nd many of these, according to the WTO Report, are 
also subject to tariff quotas. 
342. Although the average tariff in the EC has fallen from 6.9 per cent in 2006 to 6.7 per cent 
today, we cannot fail to note with the utmost conc ern that agricultural products, the major export for 
the vast majority of developing countries such as Ecua dor, are still subject to the highest tariff rates, in 
some cases over 100 per cent.  Moreover, according to  the WTO Report, it is quite likely that the level 
of tariff protection for agricultural products is higher than the level calculated using ad valorem  
equivalents. 
343. The foregoing leads to the conclusion that, po ssibly, the estimated level of overall tariff 
protection is well below the real level.  In this  connection, it can be seen that, unfortunately, the 
EC maintains subsidy programmes for the export of agricultural products.  Subsidies programmes that 
only developed Members such as the EC and its Member States have the economic capacity to 
sustain, to the detriment of agricultural exports  from developing Members,  particularly Ecuador, 
which does not have the financial reserves to implem ent them.  A further concern is the increase in 
support for European banana producers. 
344. In addition, Ecuador has specific concerns regard ing pending issues still to be resolved by the 
EC which affect or could affect our exports, for example:  the increase in private regulations, permanent amendment of the MRLs in agricultural products and the lack of flexibility to amend 
regulations such as REACH in technical barriers to trade. 
345. We should acknowledge that, since the previous Re view of the EC's trade policy, the reform 
of the CAP has enhanced the market orientation and competitiveness of the sugar, vegetables, and 
wine subsectors.  Nevertheless, we should also point  out that, despite the reform of the CAP in 2003, 
the percentage of this regime corresponding to aid increased from 1 per cent of estimated total 
producer support (€1.4 billion) in 2 004 to 33 per cent (€32.4 billion) in 2007.  It can also be seen that 
there is still support for specific products linked to production and/or prices, even though at reduced 
levels. 
346. It should be noted as well that the EC still h as certain sectoral weaknesses, for example, lack 
of competitiveness in certain indust rial sectors has obliged it to give them support by granting State WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 48  
 
  aid.  Moreover, as the growth of productivity in  this sector has declined, since 2005 a new industrial 
policy has been implemented with the aim of promoting the competitiveness of certain sectors. 
347. In the area of bilateral trade, we should draw attention to the importance of the EC market for 
Ecuador as it is the country's leading non-oil trade pa rtner and, in addition, the largest market for the 
export of Ecuadorian bananas.  Indeed, between 20 04 and 2008, total real trade with the EC was 
US$5 billion for imports from the EC and almost US $8 billion for Ecuador's exports to the EC.  This 
means, and we have to acknowledge  this, a favourable aggregate trade balance for Ecuador of over 
US$2.3 billion. 
348. We cannot conclude this statement without recallin g that this is the ninth Review of the EC's 
trade policy and the banana issue is still awaiting settle ment, the longest legal dispute in the history of 
the WTO and its predecessor GATT, and even since the signing of the Treaty of Rome itself.  This 
issue has become an ongoing irritant in global rela tions between my country and the EC.  Its recent 
proposals to settle this issue, which represent a departure from the overall balance reached on 
28 July 2008, will be difficult to negotiate because they impose additional conditions, add 
uncertainties that make it very difficult to foresee that an agreement will be reached, and include a 
tariff reduction freeze, thus extending the period of im plementation until the final tariff is reached.  
We recall that there must be compliance with the Dispute Settlement Body's recommendations and 
resolutions, more recently those reflected in Ecuador 's new legal victory in the DSB against the EC's 
banana import regime, as well as the compensati ons due for the extensions in 2004 and 2006, 
pursuant to Articles XXIV and XXVIII of GATT 1994. 
COSTA RICA 
349. Costa Rica recognizes and concurs with the gr eat importance attached by the EC to the 
multilateral trading system and to th e Doha Round.  The EC has made the utmost effort to achieve a 
multilateral trading system with stronger rules that  expand the trade liberalization process and benefit 
all Members, particularly the developing countri es.  Costa Rica shares these objectives and also 
similar ambitions with regard to areas in the current Doha Round negot iations, such as trade 
facilitation, the negotiations on rules or NAMA.  Nevertheless, we conti nue to have concerns 
regarding the EC's position on agriculture, as well as certain measures recently taken which appear to 
go against the spirit and letter of the negotiating ma ndate, for example, the reinstatement of certain 
export subsidies on some agricultural products (but ter, cheese and powdered milk) in January this 
year, which have been listed in the Director Gene ral's report to this body concerning the economic and 
financial crisis and trad e-related developments.
1 
350. The EC2, as a whole, is our second most important trade partner after the United States of 
America.  It takes 13.8 per cent of Costa Rica's exports and is the source of 11 per cent of our 
country's imports, as well as 23 per cent of FDI.3  In this connection, Costa Rica hopes to reinforce 
these relations through the new advances to be made in the Doha Round, as well as through the conclusion of the Association Agreement currently being negotiated. 
351. For my country, the questions and comments on the EC's trade policy could not be complete 
without referring to one issue which, unfortunately , has still not been resolved by the EC:  its 
MFN banana import regime.  Since 1992, this regi me has been addressed in various bodies, both in 
the GATT and in the WTO, which have always reaffirm ed that it is illegal according to the rules of 
the multilateral trading system.  The solution to this long-standing dispute was found on 27 July 2008.  
This was the only time when the EU and all Latin American countries under the MFN regime 
                                                     
 
1 Job (09)/30, Annex I, also quoted in Job (09)/2, paragraph 32. 
2 EC-27. 
3 Source :  Ministry of Foreign Trade, COMEX, at www. comex.go.cr.  Figures available up to 2007.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 49 
 
 
  achieved convergence on this issue.  It is important not to lose sight of the great importance of this 
fact and so avoid any attempt to reinvent the wh eel.  Costa Rica calls on the EC to make a major 
effort to resolve this issue, wh ich continues to be an irritant between our regions and has caused 
artificial problems between developing countries. 
352. In addition, my delegation subm itted several questions to the EC on the subject of taxes on 
alcohol and alcoholic beverages, export permits for agricultural products, technical regulations, 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures and government pr ocurement.  We are grateful for the attention 
given to these questions. 
353. I should also like to take this opportunity to request further details concerning the Economic 
Association Agreement with the ACP countries.  Pa ragraph 61 of the EC's Report indicates that the 
Agreement negotiated with CARIFORUM was signe d on 15 October 2008 and that the negotiations 
with a view to signing Association Agreements with  other regions were ongoing.  Could it inform us 
whether the CARIFORUM Agreement has already entered into force and, if this is not the case, when 
it is expected that it will come into effect?  Could the EC also describe the pr ogress being made in the 
negotiations on Association Agre ements with other regions? 
ARGENTINA 
354. On this occasion, given the fragile economic situation, which has a negative impact on the 
growth of trade in developing countries, this trade Review is of particular importance, especially in 
the case of one of the most important trading Members such as the EC. 
355. Economic relations with the EC have always been extremely important to Argentina and 
continue to be so.  Our industry benefits from im ports from the EC, which have high value added as 
they are generally capital goods, especially machiner y and equipment.  These are important inputs for 
Argentine industry and help to generate empl oyment in both markets and in key sectors. 
356. The EC is also still one of the major destinati ons for our agricultural exports, which explains 
our interest in continuing to expa nd bilateral trade.  In this connection, we hope that work will go on 
to achieve an ambitious and balanced result in the Doha Round in order to remedy the current 
imbalances in the international trading system. 
357. In this connection, it should be noted that th e EC has a trading system administered on the 
basis of specific restrictions through tariff m echanisms such as excessive tariffs and special 
safeguards, inter alia , as well as non-tariff mechanisms, complex administration of tariff quotas and 
the use of non-tariff barriers. 
358. To these "traditional" practices must be a dded recent measures such as higher duties on 
cereals and subsidies under the time-frame adopt ed by the Commission in December 2008 (cash 
subsidies;  subsidized guarantees;  subsidized loans;  export credit insurance for large and small 
enterprises). 
359. Lastly, in addition to the above practices, mu st be added the current high level of export 
subsidies in the EC, as well as the recent reinstat ement of export subsidies for some dairy and poultry 
products, at a time when there is a marked decline in international trade.  Such practices seriously 
distort markets and mainly affect competitive supplie rs that are not subsidized.  Export subsidies are 
one of the measures that should be abolished immediately, unilaterally, as a contribution to 
overcoming the current econom ic and financial crisis. 
360. In the present circumstances, it is absolutely  vital not to turn to measures which depress 
international trade and threaten the effectiveness of policies designed to restore the global economy's WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 50  
 
  growth, particularly when the Member applying such  measures is of the trade importance of the EC:  
the foremost exporter and second largest importer of goods worldwide. 
361. Argentina wishes to conclude by stating that  strict compliance with the current trade 
disciplines and NO introduction of new trade-restric ting or distorting measures is essential to underpin 
the international efforts aimed at overcom ing the global financial economic crisis. 
INDIA 
362. The emergence of the EEC, in the aftermath of  the Second World War wa s a seminal event of 
the 20
th century.  The Community is a unique experi ment to develop an economic and political 
partnership between sovereign member states with the aim of achieving peace and prosperity for their citizens. The success of this experiment has provided an  excellent template for efforts in other parts of 
the world aimed at fostering closer institutionalised regional cooperation.  
363. The EU today is an economic giant which accounts for almost a third of the world's total 
economic output. It is also the largest exporter in the world and the second largest importer.  The rest of the world has a vested interest in the econom ic well being of the European Union. For most 
developing countries including India, it is a very im portant trading partner and therefore the trade 
policies pursued by the EU are of great interest to the developing world. 
364. The Secretariat report has clearly laid out the state of play on the issues of internal economic 
integration in the EU as well as the key issues related to  its trade regime with the rest of the world.  
Allow me, to list out some of the areas where we would expect the EU to make more rapid progress:  harmonisation of customs procedures, internal taxation including VAT and excise duties, incentives, etc.;  harmonisation of technical requirements incl uding SPS issues, standards, technical regulations, 
etc.;  harmonisation of the IPR regime;  rationalisation of the tariff structure – specifically the 
conversion of non ad valorem  tariffs to ad valorem . 
365. The lack of harmonisation often creates market access barriers especially for products of 
developing countries as exporters of developing co untries are not always conversant with specific 
requirements of the Member States of the EU.  We ho pe that the EU will accord the utmost priority to 
the harmonisation issue.   
366. The second set of issues relates to the Agricultu re and Services sectors.  On Agriculture, our 
concerns are well known.  Subsidies at one-third of the total producer support estimates remain at 
very high levels.  The protection to agriculture is further compounded by non-transparent tariffs, 
TRQs, SPS measures not always supported by so und science and so on.  We hope the EU can 
appreciate that unless very significant reforms are undertaken in this sector, the integration of 
agriculture into the rules-based global trading system  will remain unfinished business for the WTO.   
367. Similarly in Services, the integration remains far from complete.  While the EC has recently 
taken steps in this direction in telecom and pos tal services, a number of other sectors are still not 
subject to a comprehensive internal market policy.  Restrictions on the movement of natural persons 
and the differential application of rules regarding such restrictions in the various Member States 
remain a major obstacle in Services trade with the EU.   
368. In the context of the ongoing economic crisis, we  note with concern that some of the steps 
taken by EU Member States clearly do not take into account the impact of such measures on other 
countries, particularly developing countries.  I do not  wish to be overly critical about such measures 
as in times of crisis the first responsibility of any gov ernment is to address the distress of its citizens.  
However, when such measures aff ect the interests of others, gove rnments have a responsibility to 
exercise restraint.  In recent w eeks, there has been a spate of such measures.  Apart from the  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 51 
 
 
  reintroduction of export subsidies for dairy products, which has a special resonance in the Doha 
Round negotiations, there have been announcements of  various stimulus packages, bank bailouts and 
automobile sector bailouts.  The automobile sect or bailouts, by changing competitive conditions, will 
obviously affect the automobile industries in ot her countries which do not have the resources to 
provide such support to their automobile sectors.  We are also concerned that Members States of the 
EC are pushing their banks to lend money only to dom estic borrowers.  Such a move does not help in 
alleviating the pain of developing countries fro m whom capital has been sucked out due to the 
problems being faced by developed country banks and other financial ins titutions in their home 
countries.  In recent years, most developing c ountries have opened their banking sectors to foreign 
banks, especially banks from developed countries.  If in  this crisis situation, such banks abandon the 
interests of developing countries who host them; qu estions will be raised about the legitimacy of 
financial services liberalisation.  These are seri ous issues for reflection and the EU, due to its 
important position in the global economy, has a res ponsibility to address these concerns in a befitting 
manner.   
369. The Secretariat Report highlights the fact th at apart from its active role in the DDA 
negotiations, the EC continues to e xpand its network of PTAs with a num ber of countries.  In the past, 
we have had occasion to point out the discriminator y nature of some provisions in the PTAs being 
negotiated with developing countri es. We hope the EC will reflect on the systemic issues involved in 
such discriminatory provisions.   
370. India and the EU are the two largest democracies in the world.  The growth of bilateral 
relations between India and the Members of the EU  has evolved into an institutionalized dialogue 
with the EU itself. Our multi-faceted relationship w ith the European Union h as deepened and matured 
in the past few years since the in stitutionalization of Summit level interactions.  The importance we 
attach to our relationship with th e EU is reflected in the establishment, in 2004, of the India-EU 
Strategic Partnership.  
371. India has traditionally had a multi-dimensional re lationship with the EU, which is our largest 
trading partner. The EU is one of our biggest s ources of Foreign Direct Investment, an important 
source of technology and home to a large and influential Indian diaspora.  
372. India-EU economic relations are structur ed on the Agreement on Partnership and 
Development, which became effective in 1994. The annual bilateral trade at $85 billion is nearly a 
fifth of India's total trade and the EU is also a major source of FDI for India. An increasing number of Indian companies are now heading out to over seas destinations in a bid to access high growth 
markets, technology and knowledge, boost their pos itioning in the value chain, and attain economies 
of size and scale of operations.  The EU is also the largest recipient of Indian investment.   
373. We are currently negotiating a broad-based Tr ade and Investment Agreement with the EU, 
the conclusion of which will hopefully enable us to realise the potential of trade and investment 
between the two sides and to further strengthen th e bilateral economic and commercial partnership. 
374. We have posed questions in advance to the EC  delegation. We thank them for the responses 
provided today.  However, I would like to highlight  some key issues which we would like the EC to 
address.   
375. The issue of repeated seizure of Indian gene ric medicines in transit by an EU Member 
Country has been raised by us in other fora in the WTO and I do not wish to go into the details here.  
The seizures have raised a number of issues includi ng their impact on exporters’ choices of transit 
routes, the circumscribing of TRIPS flexibilities, an d the larger issue of access to essential drugs at 
reasonable prices, a vital requirement for ensuring pub lic health.  We have raised this issue formally 
with the EC as have a number of civil service organisations and MEPs.  But there has been no WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 52  
 
  substantive response from the EC.  We are disappointed  with the tone of stout denial adopted by the 
EC and would urge them to reflect on the implicat ions and to take effec tive and urgent corrective 
action.  
376. Trade in Services is the fastest growing sector of India’s economy and we therefore, continue 
to be disappointed with the number of restrictions in the EU which prevent our trade from realizing its 
potential.  Specifically, the restrictions on Mode 4 access, instead of being eased, are becoming more 
onerous in a number of EU countries which have placed  new restrictions on the entry of professionals.  
We consider such measures unhelpful and unnecessary  barriers in the way of Indian service providers 
and urge the EC to take up the matter with its memb er states to have them removed. We have noted 
with concern that one EU Member has recently in troduced a new visa regime which makes it tougher 
for foreign students to pursue education in that c ountry due to stringent conditionalities attached to 
travel and admission norms. 
377. A large number of our agricultural export consignm ents to the EU have been rejected by the 
Food Safety Authority in the name of testing a nd certification requirement s, and labelling norms.  
This has led to huge commercial losses for Indian  exporters.  Our exporters have highlighted a 
number of very complex and impractical requirements for product testing in the European Union.  We 
would urge the EU to review these requirements.   
378. Let me conclude, by saying that we look upon the EU as a pivotal player in the global trading 
system and this status carries with it the requirement that the EU be judged on the basis of the highest 
standards.  From this perspective, the EU has c onsiderable work to do to streamline its internal 
integration as well as its trade regi me, especially in agriculture a nd services.  We hope the EU will 
accord priority to these areas in the period before its next TPR.   
NICARAGUA 
379. Trade policy reviews are an important tran sparency mechanism in the WTO and allow 
Members to share information on the progress made in their trade policy. 
380. The EC, being a Member whose market accounts for some 17 per cent of world trade in 
goods and 70 per cent of trade in services worldwid e, Nicaragua does not underestimate the value of 
this periodic Review. 
381. One general comment upon reading this Report is that the EC's trade policy regime has barely 
changed since the preceding Review.  For Nicaragua , the complexity and lack of harmonization in 
some important areas give cause for concern.  We share the view of other delegations that have also referred to this situation and to tariff escalation, for example, specific tariffs. 
382. The Secretariat's Report shows that customs procedures have still not been fully harmonized, 
neither have internal taxation, incentives and techni cal barriers to trade, nor regulations on services, 
among other areas. 
383. The application of different regulations in Memb er States represents a further difficulty faced 
by small and medium-sized producers and supplie rs of national services when seeking access to the 
EC market. 
384. The changes which the EC could make in this  respect would offer small and medium-sized 
producers and suppliers of services better conditions so  that they could take more advantage of the 
business opportunities afforded by such  an important market as the EC.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 53 
 
 
  385. The questions we have submitted reflect some of our concerns.  They mainly relate to 
customs procedures, tariffs, prohibitions, import r estrictions or licensing, contingency measures, 
technical regulations in respect of sanitary and phytosanitary matters and government procurement, 
intellectual property-related measures,  agricultural and services policies. 
386. As the Report shows, the EC has played an activ e role in dispute settlement procedures.  We 
take this opportunity to urge the EC once again to bring its banana tariff into line with the WTO rules, 
as recommended in the resolutions adopted by th e DSB and the findings of the Appellate Body. 
GUATEMALA 
387. Relations between Guatemala and the EC come  under the framework of the 1984 San José 
Dialogue process which, through cooperation progr ammes, strengthened Central America's regional 
integration process, and granted preferential access to the European market through the GSP-drug 
scheme. 
388. These relations are even closer today.  The EC is my country's third most important trade 
partner and is also a market with  considerable potential for future growth.  The EC is an important 
source of FDI and technical assistance. 
389. As a result of these good relations, in May 2 006, the Central American region and the 
EC agreed to begin negotiations on an Asso ciation Agreement based on political dialogue, 
cooperation and free trade. 
390. Guatemala hopes that this Association Agre ement will become a tool to boost the 
diversification of trade, guarantee genuine access fo r products of interest to Guatemala (and in which 
it is highly competitive, inter alia , coffee, bananas and sugar) and st reamline and facilitate application 
of Community rules and procedures.  Naturally, we  also hope that the Association Agreement will 
reinforce and expand political relations and cooperation between  the two regions. 
391. We note that since the previous Review of its  trade policy the EC has only introduced very 
small changes.  It is a matter of satisfaction that  the extension of the Union continues to occupy a 
prominent place in the Community programme and, following the accession of Bulgaria and 
Romania, the EC is moving ahead with the nego tiations on the accession of Croatia and Turkey.  
Guatemala encourages the EC to continue promoting this initiative and to pursue efforts to build on its 
internal structural reforms, including the harmoni zation of trade procedures among its Member States.  
Guatemala also hopes that these extension processes will take into consideration the trade interests of 
Guatemala. 
392. We should also like to state that Guatemala welcomes the EC's commitment to promote the 
successful conclusion of the Doha Round negotiations and its determination to increase global trade in 
the midst of the current financial and economic crisis.  It is a matter of satisfact ion to hear that one of 
the largest trade partners in this Organization – as is the case for the EC – underlines the importance 
of the Doha Round as the best policy instrument for preventing trade protectionism. 
393. These declarations of good intent must, howev er, be accompanied by consistency between 
words and action, as well as tangible progress in the negotiations.  This is why it is essential and 
unavoidable for the EC to implement the relevant ag rarian reforms so that agricultural products cease 
to be protected by a complex tariff structure a nd tariff quotas, and to be given export subsidies. 
394. As regards the settlement of disputes, we note th at the EC still has to comply in the banana 
dispute.  We would remind Members that this dis pute, like all the banana-related issues, could have WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 54  
 
  been resolved if the EC had complied with the provisions in the Geneva Agreement on Trade in 
Bananas of 27 July 2008.  Guatemala hopes that th e EC will reconsider its position in this respect. 
395. Lastly, I should like to say that Guatemala has submitted questions in writing concerning 
certain trade measures adopted by the EC that have attracted our attention. 
PERU 
396. We have submitted some questions to the EC in view of its importance for us as a leading 
trade partner and a source of foreign investment.  At the moment, we are negotiating an Association 
Agreement with the EC in the c ourse of a process which we hope will conclude some time this year. 
397. Our delegation would also like to point out that  it submitted a list of questions to the EC, 
especially with regard to certain trade-related issu es, intellectual property and fishing subsidies, and 
we await with interest the replies to be given by  the EC to our questions.  We realize that the 
questions were not submitted within  the time-frame, but we hope that we can count on replies to our 
questions so that they can be  studied by our authorities. 
VIET NAM 
398. The EU has become one of the biggest trading partners of Viet Nam.  The annual export and 
import increase has continuously posted at about  15% and 20% from 1995 till now.  In 2008, total 
export and import value between Viet Nam and the EU reached 16.3 billion USD, in which export 
value accounting for 10.85 billion USD and impor t value accounting for 5.44 billion USD. 
399. On investment front, the EU investors are now present in most important sectors of the Viet 
Nam economy.  In 2008, the EU has registered 796 FDI projects with a total capital value of 11.82 
billion USD, of which implemented capital was 6.46 billion USD.  The trade and FDI growth in the 
past years has contributed significantly to the increase in national income, job creation, and 
introduction of some new sectors and high-tech products in Viet Nam. 
400. Viet Nam always attaches great interests in the development of the EC's economic and trade 
policies.  We have examined the reports by the EC  and the Secretariat carefully.  We are associated 
with ASEAN views and comments presented by Amb assador Erih on ASEAN behalf.  In addition, we 
also posed some comments and questions releva nt to the issues of GSP, REACH and fishery 
regulations. 
INDONESIA 
401. The EC has long been one of the Indonesia's most important trading partners.  Both 
economies have maintained a very good relation a nd cooperation in the areas of trade, investment, 
tourism and many others.  Our bilate ral trade has enjoyed substantial growth over the past five years.  
To illustrate the figure, in 2003, total trade betw een Indonesia and the EC reached US$11.990 billion.  
Four years later in 2007, the number had been doubled to US$21.024 billion.  It shows that the trend increased at an annual average rate of 14,42% during the period. 
402. Indonesia believes our trade relation could still be e nhanced in the near future.  Thanks to the 
EC's support to build Indonesia trade capacity through, among others, the EC's Trade Support 
Programme under aid for trade scheme.  In this re gard, my Government fully appreciates the strong 
commitments that have been shown by the EC to  strengthen bilateral rela tionship between the two 
countries.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 55 
 
 
  403. Nevertheless, the strong ec onomic relationship between Indonesia and the EC does not 
immune from the global crisis we are facing today.  The total trade between us in the first quarter 
2009 has decreased sharply to around 30%.  The Secretariat Report has also clearly demonstrated the magnitude of the global crisis for the EC.  The re al GDP growth fell to an estimated 1% in 2008, 
while the EC fiscal deficit, as percentage of GDP, is  estimated at 2% in 2008.  This is an alarming 
signal and we have to do our best to prevent th e situation deteriorating.  A sound, coherent and 
transparent policy is a key to navigate us out of this trouble water. 
404. The EC's role in the global economy is indispensab le.  The EC is the world's leading exporter 
and the second largest importer of goods.  The EC also  remains the world's largest trader in services 
as well as the largest recipient and supplier of foreign di rect investment.  In this respect, the rest of the 
world is expecting the EC to continue playing a pi votal and active role in cu rbing the current global 
economic slowdown. 
405. To this end, Indonesia encourages the EC to liberalize further its ag ricultural market and 
vigilant in using contingency trade remedies as well  as import restrictions on the basis of technical, 
SPS and environmental grounds.  Given the EC's enor mous fiscal capacity, economic stimulus has to 
be carefully designed as well.  While the stimulus is needed to boost aggregate demand, it must not 
negatively and unfairly affect foreign producers.  As has been mentioned earlier, a sound, coherent 
and transparent policy would be the EC's key contribution to the global economic recovery. 
406. Indonesia would also like to use this opportunity to draw the EC's attention on some policies 
that may adversely affect our trade.  Those polici es are, among others, first, the EC's regulation on 
nickel classifications as stipulated in the 30
th and 31st Adaptation to Technical Progress for Dangerous 
Substances Directives and the 1st Adaptation to Technical Progress for CLP;  and second, the EC's 
Directive on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources. 
407. Indonesia has submitted its written questions to the EC on the two aforementioned regulations 
and we are looking forward to the EC's reply. 
408. The two regulations are based on technical a nd environmental grounds respectively.  While 
Indonesia fully understands the interest of the EC to  safeguard the safety of its people and to protect 
the environment, those regulations must be  in conformity with the WTO Agreement. 
409. It is an obligation under Article 2.9 TBT Ag reement for all WTO Members to notify their 
technical regulations, including the EC to notify the 1st Adaptation to Technical Progress for CLP. 
410. It is also the interest of all human kind in protecting the environment.  Just like the noble 
objective of the EC Renewable Energy Directive, Indonesia is also fully committed to protect the 
environment.  If something wrong happen to the In donesia's tropical forest, wetland or peatland, it is 
Indonesia people that will suffer first and most.  Im posing trade restrictive measures that may involve 
discriminatory impacts is certain ly not the answer.  On the contrary, it will adversely affect 
Indonesia's ability to protect the environment. 
411. After all, the different level of development de termines the different level of responsibilities.  
As part of special and differential treatment,  support and assistance from developed partners are 
deemed more constructive than just merely put an other heavy burden to developing countries through 
trade restrictive measures. 
412. In conclusion, we find that the review process unde r this Body is very valuable especially in 
the juncture of economic slowdown.  As the worl d becomes more global, one trade policy in one 
country will easily be transmitted to other countries.  Since we are all bound by the same interest, WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 56  
 
  which is the economic recovery, the transparency is  paramount.  In this regard, my delegation would 
like to thank the EC for its active and cons tructive role during this review process. 
SRI LANKA 
413. I welcome this opportunity to speak on the occasion of the trade policy review of the 
European Communities. EC being a well integrat ed economy constituting of 27 countries with a 
uniform set of policies and practices in the spheres of trade, economic and finance, has an increased 
responsibility to contribute towards a balanced wo rld economy. EC is Sri Lanka’s largest trading 
partner and our relations in addition to trade in goods embrace a wider spectrum ranging from trade in 
services particularly in tourism, foreign dir ect investment and development cooperation.  
414. The bilateral trade relations between the EC a nd Sri Lanka have been long – standing.  The 
EC has in fact emerged as the main market for Sr i Lanka’s exports. In 2008, the value of Sri Lanka’s 
merchandise exports to EC stood at US$ 3billion, repr esenting 37% of our total exports to the world. 
The EC is Sri Lanka’s second largest supplier, with 11% share of our market.  In addition, the EC also 
contributes to the tourism sector, both through invest ment as well as registering the highest number of 
tourist arrivals in Sri Lanka. 
415. Sri Lanka, among other developing countries, has been a beneficiary of EC GSP scheme since 
its inception. The concessions under GSP+ scheme, which is an integr al part of the EC trade policy 
regime, has in recent years, given further impetus to  enhance Sri Lanka’s exports into the EC market. 
These preferences, seek to contribute effectively fo r the development through industrialisation and 
export diversification in the developing countries.  The GSP + Scheme in particular has helped the 
development of Sri Lanka’s key sector, the apparel industry, which has been the backbone of the Sri 
Lankan economy over the past years, and whose conti nued sustainability remains critical, particularly, 
during this time of global economic slowdown. In  addition, these preferences have provided the 
means for Sri Lanka’s industries to develop previously  low scale sectors such as the fisheries sector as 
well as more importantly helped in the diversifica tion of exports into such new areas as ceramics, 
footwear and bicycles both in scale and scope. 
416. We appreciate the very policy objective of th e GSP + Scheme, designed to provide enhanced 
market access for exports from economically vulner able, less diversified and resources deficient small 
countries like Sri Lanka, to achieve the development goals through trade creation.  On our part, Sri 
Lanka would like to convey to the EC and reiterate its willingness to cooperate closely with the EC in 
assuring this continued and most important  beneficial programme in the future. 
417. One of the major impediments, Sri Lanka enc ountering at present in the fuller utilisation of 
market access facilities provided unde r EC preferential Schemes is the complex, rigid and stringent 
Rules of Origin criteria. In this regard I wish to  refer to the paragraph 38 of Secretariat report that 
draws the attention to the draft regulation on the reform of GSP Rules of Origin published on 13 November 2008.  We understand that  this text is currently going through an internal consultation 
process in the EC. A close examination of the revised draft regulations revealed that it contains some 
enhanced flexibilities, as compared to  the existing Rules of Origin criteria.  Sri Lanka welcomes some 
of these positive elements.  For example, the introduction of cross regional cumulation is a significant step towards promoting inter-regional trade.  Ho wever, Sri Lanka as a economically vulnerable 
country wishes to express its concern over proposed R OO applying to Chapters HS 61, 62 and 63. We 
have enumerated our specific concerns in  our submission made to the Commission. 
418. The notion of vulnerable economies is accepted here in the WTO modalities. In line with 
paragraph 35 of the Doha Ministerial Declara tion, without creating a sub category, small and 
economically vulnerable countries shou ld be offered with special solu tions when they are faced with 
specific trade problems. In so far as EC trade polic y regime is concerned, EC has established its own  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 57 
 
 
  criterion for identification of vulnerable countries fo r granting GSP + benefits.  Our specific problem 
relates to the continued applica tion of double transformation requirements in respect of textile and 
clothing sector as contained in the revised draft ROO text.  The rules applying to this specific sector 
should be made more flexible and development friendly in the form of single transformation to enable 
small economies like Sri Lanka to reap tangible be nefits from GSP Scheme.  The rational for this 
request is that the challenges faced by this specifi c sector in Sri Lanka are same as those of LDCs. 
419. Sri Lanka like many LDCs, lacks fully integr ated apparel industry, capital for large scale 
investment and the state of the art technology. Ther efore, the application of Rules of Origin criteria 
across the board without giving due consideration to the size of their economies, availability of raw 
materials, and level of development of the integr ated manufacturing process would not be justifiable 
or rational. Therefore, it is our expectation that the EU will extend single transformation facilities to 
vulnerable developing countries like Sri Lanka as well in  the final version. In fact we believe that if 
this arrangement is accepted it will be  in the long run beneficial fo r LDCs as they too can enjoy the 
facility fully even after the graduation.  
420. As regards the proposed cross regional cumula tion facilities embodied in the revised ROO 
Scheme, we would like to see the flexibilities be  built into the regulations permitting member 
countries that are desirous of availing themse lves of enhanced flexibilities under cross regional 
cumulation to ensure administrative cooperation on individual country basis with the EC.  
421. We presume that these flexibilities can be c onsidered favourably by the EC, having had 
displaced willingness of both parties in many occasi ons to arrive at a convergence on many areas of 
interest to us.  One such area which we amicably reso lved last year that comes to my mind is that the 
Sanitary and phytosanitary issue relating to export of cinnamon from Sri Lanka to the EC.  We have 
amply displayed our determination to resolve such i ssues amicably in the forum of WTO.  In the same 
spirit we are confident that all other issues incl uding flexibilities brought into the Rules of Origin 
criteria can be addressed to the satisfaction of all the parties.  
422. With respect to the multilateral trading framewo rk, Sri Lanka appreciates EC’s commitments 
to the conclusion of Doha Round with its central development mandate and the active role the EC has 
played in these negotiations, and particularly to the flexibilities it has shown towards the concerns of 
small, developing countries like Sri Lanka.  In particular, we thank the EC for taking these 
considerations into account in the NAMA negotiati ons, which remains the one of the most critical 
areas for Sri Lanka, a country with  little natural resources and heavy dependence on  trade in  labour 
intensive manufacturing and fisheries products for its development.  
NIGERIA 
423. Nigeria would like, from the outset, to acknowle dge the critical position of the EC in the 
WTO, as well as its positive contributions to the multila teral trading system.  In that regard, we wish 
to commend the important role being played by Am bassador Eckart Guth and his colleagues here in 
Geneva. It is, therefore, our expectation that the EC would provide the necessary leadership to ensure 
an early agreement on modalities in Agriculture and NAMA, with a view to concluding the DDA 
negotiations as soon as possible.  Nigeria would also like to encourage all developed country 
Members of the WTO, as well as developing countries in a position to do so, to emulate the European Communities in devoting substantial resources to wards technical assistance and capacity building 
activities for the promotion of the development dimension of the DDA and the successful integration of developing countries and LDCs in to the multilateral trading system. 
424. In the context of the 9
th TPR of the EC, Nigeria notes from the Secretariat Report that real 
GDP growth in the EC was three per cent, on annual average, during 2006-2007, which fell to an estimate of one per cent in 2008, partly due to the global financial crisis that emerged in the second WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 58  
 
  half of the year. While the moderation in growth was broad-based, performance at member States 
level remained dispersed. Following an incr ease in government revenues and a decrease in 
expenditure relating to, inter alia,  the pension system reforms in several member States, the EC fiscal 
deficits as percentage of GDP declined from 1.4 percent in 2006 to 0.9 percent in 2007 but are 
estimated at two percent in 2008. Nigeria would like to know how the EC is addressing or intends to 
address these challenges, taking into account the need  to avoid taking distortive measures that would 
adversely affect the trade of Members, especially developing countries and LDCs. 
425. Regarding the EC's efforts in continuing to bui ld upon its extensive network of Preferential 
Trade Agreement (PTAs), as part of a broader polic y of promoting multilateralism, Nigeria has noted 
the significant number of ongoing negotiations betwee n the EC, on the one hand, and the Gulf States, 
Mercosur, the Mediterranean Countries, as well as  the EPAs with the various ACP countries and 
regions, on the other. Consequently, it would be interesting to hear how the EC intends to ensure that 
these ensuing arrangements do not undermine the mu ltilateral trading system. Furthermore, what 
actions are being taken by the EC to address c oncerns relating to longstanding preferences and 
preference erosion, in order to ensure that devel oping countries and LDCs are not worse off as a result 
of these new arrangements with other developing countries and regions. 
426. Nevertheless, Nigeria wishes to commend the EC for its consideration in granting MFN 
treatment to all WTO Members; and unilateral preferences through its Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) in general, and in particul ar under the Everything But Arms (EBA) initiative, 
whereby LDCs benefit from duty-free and quota-free access  to the EC market.  We are happy to note 
that DFQF for rice and sugar would be introduced in October 2009. 
427. Nigeria attaches great importance to its bilate ral trade relations with the European Union 
(EU), which have been progressively expanding over  the years through several initiatives on issues of 
mutual interest. As an important trading partner,  the EC, on average, accounts for 21.8 per cent of our 
exports while 33.2 per cent of our imports come from the EC.   
428. Nigeria, along with other countries in West A frica is presently engaged in negotiations on a 
comprehensive and inclusive EPA with the EU, in order to not only deepen the existing level of 
cooperation but also establish a mutually beneficial trading arrangement that is consistent with our 
economic interests and levels of de velopment. We, therefore, continue  to look forward to an enduring 
partnership with the EU that is geared toward s assisting Nigeria and other West African countries 
deepen their regional integration initiatives a nd successfully address the necessary development 
challenges, including the attainment of the MDGs. 
429. Our exporters have continued to  highlight concerns that some EU member States do enforce 
stricter standards than those publishe d by the Commission.  The implicati on here is that, in as much as 
Nigerian exporters try to meet the standards publishe d by the EC, they often find their products denied 
access at the national level due to failure to meet th e so called national required standards.  To ensure 
transparency and predictability, Nigeria would en courage the EC to harmonise its standards with 
member States; and publish a common single document. 
430. Lastly, it should be recalled that developmen t cooperation between Nigeria and the EU dates 
back to 1976, when Nigeria joined the ACP Group of States as a signatory to the Lome Convention. 
At the political level, we would like to, in part icular, recognise that the Africa-EU strategic 
partnership launched in Lisbon provides the vision a nd principles to deepen our political dialogue and 
engagement, which in our view, s hould greatly contribute to the implementation of the Joint Africa-
EU Strategy.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 59 
 
 
  EGYPT 
431. Egypt would like to express its support to the EC during its TPR, and wish it all the success.  
We would like to commend the EC for pursuing a trade policy that contributes to the progressive 
dismantling of restrictions on international trade and lowering of customs barriers. 
432. Furthermore, we note with satisfaction the dedica tion of the EC to the early conclusion of the 
Doha Round, which constitute in our view the best insurance to prevent trade protectionism in times 
of crisis. 
433. According to the Secretariat Report, the EC c ontinues to build upon an extensive network of 
preferential trade agreements, while respecting multilate ral rules.  Egypt is one of the EC partners in 
this regard, and has benefited from expanding trade with the bloc particularly in the last few years.  
We look forward to a continued fruitful cooperati on and deepening of trade and economic ties with 
the EC countries, in addition to a constructive colla boration to reaching a fair and balanced deal to 
conclude the Doha Round, with its  developmental component at its core, especially in light of the 
impact of the global crisis on developing countries. 
434. We would like to underscore the importance of re sisting protectionist measures, and urge the 
EC to review any measures taken as a result of the current economic downturn, including the recent 
reintroduction of export subsidies, and the resort to different trade remedy measures. 
435. Finally, we are looking forward to a continue d fruitful cooperation and partnership with the 
EC, on the bilateral, regional,  and international levels. 
HONDURAS 
436. It is always a source of satisfaction to read the Reports by the Secretariat and the EC and it is 
undoubtedly instructive to learn more about what is happening in the 27 Member States of the EC, 
which cover 4.24 million km2 and have a population of 495.1 million, with per capita income of 
€23,500. 
437. We welcome the fact that the EC's econom ic performance was generally positive over the 
period 2006-2007, even though, accordi ng to the Report, there was a significant downturn in 2008 as 
a result of higher prices for commodities and because of  the global financial crisis.  We also note with 
satisfaction that the labour market situation in th e EC-27 and in the euro area in general improved in 
2006 and 2007, following upon the economic expansion. 
438. As regards FDI, the EC does not appear to have any rival as it is the main supplier and 
recipient of FDI.  It also occupies first place in global trade in goods, the first place in exports of 
goods, the second in imports, and the first in global trade in services. 
439. The EC programme entitled i2010 appears to us to  be extremely interesting, with its objective 
of boosting the digital economy, with several  emphases, namely:  developing the broadband 
infrastructure, a high level of education, the adopt ion of on-line services, and support for innovation.  
In this connection, we should like to know the ex tent to which this programme has been implemented 
in the EC, particularly the broadband level reach ed, and whether there ar e plans to share this 
experience with other countries, notably developing countries. 
440. There are still problems with the EC's trade policy, inter alia , lack of harmonization of 
customs procedures within the EC, limited inter-o perability of customs systems in the EC, and 
technical barriers to trade.  For fisheries products , some tariff quotas are subject to a reference price 
mechanism.  The trade regime app licable to agricultural products has not been liberalized, the tariff WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 60  
 
  structure is complex, there are tariff peaks, and ther e is also the issue of subsidies.  Commitments on 
market access for agricultural products, domestic support and export subsidies made by the EC in 
order to reflect the extension from 12 Member States to 27 Member States have not yet been the subject of formal agreement in the WTO and have not been incorporated into th e EC's schedule;  there 
can be no doubt that this significantly reduces trade opportunities, hinders growth, leads to 
unpredictability for the multilateral system and does not allow other Members of this Organization to 
enjoy the benefits of participating in the multilateral trading system, so it could be said that there is no 
real promotion of global trade. 
441. The Report shows that in 2007 the Council adopt ed the EC Aid for Trade strategy.  We 
should like to know more about this and receive a copy.  The Report also indicates that to date the 
EC has not made any specific financial pledge on wi der or total Aid for Trade and as it is one of the 
largest contributors, this is a matter for concern.  Paragraph (xxii) of the Presidency conclusions of the 
meeting held in Brussels on 19 and 20 March states th at the EC will meet its Aid for Trade pledges;  
we ask how the EC is going to honour these pledge s and when?  In addition, Latin America and the 
Caribbean continues to be a region to which the EC assigns little Aid for Trade. 
442. Honduras underlines the EC's importance for its fo reign trade.  It is Honduras' third most 
important trade partner and Honduras benefits from the preferences granted by the EC under the so-called GSP+.  The GSP benefits allow Honduran  products access to the Eu ropean market through 
the preferential scheme and this has allowed trad e flows to increase.  We hope that, with the 
Economic Association Agreement currently being negotiated, trade rela tions between Central 
America and the EC will move to a higher level. 
443. In October 2007, negotiations began on a bire gional Association Agreement, including a 
free-trade zone, with Central American countries a nd Panama as an observer at the negotiations.  For 
the time being, negotiations have been suspended, but it is hoped that they can be resumed soon in 
order to achieve free movement of goods and services exported from one region to another. 
444. In the banana subsector, it would appear that the EC is making compliance with the decisions 
and recommendations emerging from European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and 
distribution of bananas  contingent upon an "early harvest" in the Doha Round.  Why does the 
EC consider that its continued n on-compliance in this case could be an  issue to be included in an 
"early harvest" in the Doha Round?  When and how will the EC bring its tariff of €176/tonne into compliance with Article II of GATT?  How and wh en will the EC bring its discriminatory tariff for 
ACP bananas into compliance with Article I of  GATT?  Indicate precisely how the Economic 
Association Agreements between the EC and the ACP countries, which give discriminatory tariff 
treatment to ACP suppliers, comply with the ob ligation still incumbent upon the EC to bring its 
banana import regime into conformity with its  obligations under GATT?  How and when does the 
EC intend to provide the compensatory adjustment s, as provided in Articl es XXIV.6 and XXVIII, still 
owed by the EC as a consequence of the impositi on of further restricti ons on access following the 
extensions of the EC in 1995, 2004 and 2007? 
JAMAICA 
445. The EC is one of Jamaica’s most important trad e and investment partners.  It is the second 
largest market for Jamaica’s exports, and our fourth largest source of imports.  The EC is also among 
the primary sources of foreign direct investment in Jamaica, and it continues to be the largest provider 
of development assistance to Jamaica in areas of crucial importance, such as poverty alleviation, 
institutional and infrastructural development, priv ate sector development, and programmes aimed at 
the diversification and competitiveness of agricultural activities.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 61 
 
 
  446. In reading the reports prepared for this meeting, one is struck both by the preponderance of 
the EC in international trade, and equally, by its commitment to the tenets of an open, rules-based 
multilateral trading system.  This commitment to openness has manifested itself through the EC’s 
efforts to strengthen the multilateral trading sy stem, and through its promotion of regional and 
bilateral trading arrangements that serve to complement the multilateral trading system.  
447. It is well known, and the reports before us pr ovide ample evidence, that the EC is a keen 
proponent of regional and bilatera l initiatives which it regards as a cornerstone of its trade policy.  
448. In my own region, Jamaica is party to  the CARIFORUM-EC Economic Partnership 
Agreement (EPA).  This agreement establishes th e basis for a new trade and economic relationship 
between Caribbean countries and the EC, moving from  one that had been based on non-reciprocal 
preferences, to one that is WTO compatible, and which provides for the phased liberalisation of trade 
in goods and services. The long term objective of  the CARIFORUM-EC EPA is the achievement of 
economic growth and development through greater efficiencies in trade and improved access to 
European markets.  The EPA also encompasses an important development com ponent that is designed 
to help Caribbean countries develop the necessary capacity to facilitate the implementation of the 
agreement, and to reap its benefits. 
449. Both reports highlight the EC’s leadership in the WTO. Like the EC, Jamaica considers that a 
successful conclusion to the Doha Round, and the impe tus this will give to the global economy, are in 
the interest of all Members.  However, the benef its to the global economy will not be fully realised 
unless the development dimension is comprehensiv ely addressed, in all areas under negotiation, in 
order to ensure a balanced outcome. This has beco me even more imperative given the current global 
economic situation. 
450. The EC’s continued commitment to integrate deve lopment concerns in its trade policy at all 
levels is laudable.  This policy has been tran slated through the provision of duty-free, quota-free 
treatment to LDCs, the EC’s commitment to the Aid fo r Trade initiative, and its pledge to continue to 
provide development assistance to developing count ries despite the current financial and economic 
crises. 
451. The EC continues to be a driving force in the global economy.  It has remained the world’s 
leading trader accounting for around 17% of world merchandise trade.  In 2007, it was the world’s 
largest exporter and second largest importer. In addition, the EC is the world’s most important and largest trader in services, maintaining large surplu ses with a number of countries.  It is also the 
world’s largest recipient and supplier of foreign direct investment and it is a net investor in the rest of 
the world.    
452. It has been forecast that the EC’s GDP will regist er negative growth this year as a result of the 
impact of the global recession.  The EC has in troduced certain initiatives, including its Economic 
Recovery Plan which falls under its Stability and Grow th Pact, to respond to the crisis.  This initiative 
will seek, inter alia , to stimulate demand and job creation, and protect small businesses. We are 
encouraged that the EC has refrained from intr oducing protective trade policy measures since the 
onset of the crisis. The maintenance of open mark ets will contribute positively to the EC economy and 
to other markets given the high level of integration be tween the EC market and the rest of the world.  
It will also be consistent with the EC’s Global Eur ope Strategy as set out in the government report and 
with the commitment undertaken by Heads of Govern ment at the G20 Summit held last week to 
refrain from protectionism.  For Jamaica, as a small, open economy heavily reliant on trade, 
predictable access to extern al markets is critical.  In this contex t, Jamaica joins others in urging the 
EC to continue to ensure that th e measures put in place to respond to the crisis have no adverse impact 
on access to its market.   WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 62  
 
  SENEGAL 
453. Senegal has had a long standing relationship of cooperation with  the European Communities.  
On the bilateral side the EC plays a very important  role in the Integrated Framework as a donor.  At 
the Interim Council of the Integrated Framework, the EC also plays a very active role providing funds 
for the Special Affectation Funds for the reinforced Intergrated Framework. 
454. Senegal notes with satisfaction that sugar and rice imports from member countries subject to 
contingent tariffs will be libera lized by October 2009.  Senegal also  applauds the adoption by the EC 
of a Joint strategy in favour of aid for trade in order to increase the assistance related to trade.   
SINGAPORE 
455. The European Union is an important trade and investment partner of Singapore.  Over the 
past decade, bilateral trade between Singapore and th e EU have grown almost two-fold.  Last year 
alone, bilateral trade grew by 7.1% to a to tal US$70 million, making the EU our second largest 
trading partner. 
456. The EU is also, by a clear margin, the bigg est source of foreign direct investment in 
Singapore.  The EU’s FDI stock in Singapore has seen very strong growth in the past decade, 
increasing from US$17 billion to US$ 97 billion between 1996 and 2006.  Almost 7,500 European 
companies, mostly belonging to the manufacturing, financial and insurance sectors, are estimated to 
have a presence in Singapore. 
457. As good friends and healthy economic partners , Singapore shares the EC’s belief in the 
multilateral trading system.  With the economic downt urn and the grim forecast that global trade will 
shrink by at least 9% this year, we encourage the EC at this crucial time to remain steadfast in 
supporting multilateral trade liberalisation and in resi sting protectionism and protectionism measures 
of all forms.  This is a rule that the EC must play  as a leader in the international trade.  Despite the 
downturn, Asia’s growth remains optimistic, and we  urge the EC to look east and expand its linkages 
with developing Asia.  In this regard, Singapore we lcomes further efforts by the EC to enhance its 
relations with ASEAN.  The two regions have al ways enjoyed strong cooperation and close economic 
ties.  The EU is the top trading and investment pa rtner for ASEAN and we hope  that this relationship 
will only grow stronger with the ASEAN-EU FTA that is currently under negotiation. 
458. We note from the Secretariat Report that the EC has many things it can be proud of.  It is the 
largest actor in international trade, and also the wo rld’s biggest investor.  The EC has always been a 
strong supporter of the multilateral trading system an d with its active participation in all areas of the 
DDA negotiations, it has continued to provide leader ship and facilitate consensus.  Singapore will 
continue to work with the EC towards an expeditious and successful Doha outcome. 
VENEZUELA 
459. We take this opportunity to reaffirm once again th at we believe in this transparency exercise, 
to which all Members are subject, as this Review of trade policies allows a regular factual, open and inclusive analysis of trade trends in our trade part ners and their impact on de velopment in relation to 
implementation of the WTO Agreemen ts and national trade policies, b earing in mind developments in 
the international economy. 
460. We see from the Secretariat's Report that, during the period under review, the first symptoms 
and effects of what today we call the economic downt urn and the financial crisis could be clearly seen 
for EC Members' economies, particularly for trade activities.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 63 
 
 
  461. As far as trade policy instruments are concer ned, we should like to emphasize that, even 
though reform of the European CAP has enhanced the market orientation and competitiveness of the 
agricultural sector, as shown in the Secretariat's Report , we can also see that much remains to be done 
in this connection and there are fewer and fewer ex pectations of what can be achieved in the Doha 
Round regarding an effective diminution of agricultural distortions. 
462. Turning to the bilateral level, we are presen t here today because, for us, the EC is an 
extremely important trade partner, not only because of the size of its economy and the potential it 
represents, but also because of the economic, trade, hi storical and even cultural links we have with 
many of its Member States.  For Venezuela, the EC is the third most important trade partner. 
463. During the period under review, trade between Ve nezuela and the EC in creased, with average 
flows of around US$13 billion annually, generati ng a slight trade surplus for Venezuela.  
Nevertheless, our exports are mainly products of  the mining and hydrocarbons sector, while processed 
and agricultural goods are not even 10 per cent of to tal exports.  At the same time, over 30 per cent of 
total imports consists of electrical equipment and over 20 per cent chemicals, in other words, highly 
processed products.  We hope that the composition of the trade balance can be modified in the future 
and, in particular, that we can diversify our expor ts so that they are not mostly raw materials. 
464. As indicated in the Secretariat's Report, duri ng the period of review, the EC continued to 
expand its vast network of preferential trade agr eements.  Since 1995, Venezuela has benefited from 
the generalized system of tariff preferences, known today as the GSP+, under which, until 2005, 
90 per cent of Venezuela's exports to Europe en tered the common market free of customs duty. 
465. The various trade preference schemes such as those applied by the European Union to 
developing and least developed countries seek to achie ve an equilibrium in the trade balances of these 
countries, which confront various types of problem, and allow them to use trade as an important tool 
to achieve sustainable development, as demande d by the scheme, in accordance with a scenario 
which, in principle, should be based on fair  and equitable trade a nd cooperation relations. 
466. Nevertheless, it is with some concern that we see that, in order to have access to preferential 
schemes, political conditions are increasingly being im posed, which affect the sovereignty of States 
and weaken the preferences scheme by making the free trade system opaque.  Such requirements 
should not be prerequisites for concluding preferen tial trade agreements as they have a negative 
impact on the promotion of fair systems of cooperation. 
HAÏTI 
467. The Secretariat's Report shows that, in ge neral, the EC's econom ic performance was 
satisfactory in 2006 and 2007, but much less so in 2008 because of the higher commodity prices 
during the first half of the year and then becau se of the impact of the global financial crisis. 
468. Growth in GDP reached 3.1 per cent in 2006 a nd 2.9 per cent in 2007 in the EC, and 2.9 per 
cent and 2.7 per cent, respectively, in  the euro area.  The decline in gr owth was general, but individual 
performance varied from one country to another. 
469. Despite the problems encountered, the EC is s till the world's largest exporter and importer, 
with 1.7 per cent of global trade in goods.  It is also the largest exporter and the largest global 
importer of services. 
470. For the majority of countries in Africa, the Cari bbean and the Pacific (ACP Group), the EC is 
the leading trade partner.  In 2007, imports of  goods from these countries amounted to €47.7 billion 
and exports to €47 billion.  Exports from ACP countri es to the EC include oil (42 per cent of total WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 64  
 
  exports), cocoa beans (5 per cent) and diamonds (5 per cent).  The EC's exports to ACP countries are 
mainly machinery (22 per cent), oil (11 per cent), ve hicles (7 per cent), ships/boats (7 per cent) and 
medicines (3 per cent).  According to the est imates by the WTO, the share of imports from 
ACP countries in the EC's total imports rose from 2.75 per cent in 2004 to 3.3 per cent in 2007. 
471. At the bilateral level, Haiti acceded to the ACP-EC Partnership Agreement in 
December 1989.  The European Commission has, how ever, been giving Haiti technical assistance for 
over two decades, as well as specific assistance fo r several projects aimed at increasing exports and 
developing Haiti's economic potential. 
472. Between 2004 and 2008, the EC  committed some €257 million to Haiti to finance projects 
and programmes covering a wide range of reha bilitation and development activities, including 
transport, education and health, c onflict prevention, electoral support and trade policy, not forgetting 
agriculture, food security and fishing.  This fi nancing came from both the European Development 
Fund (EDF) and various Community budget lines.  Ha iti has also benefited from humanitarian and 
emergency funds to help local communities to beco me better prepared for natural disasters and to 
mitigate their consequences. 
473. In October last, the EC and 13 Caribbean countries signed an EPA in Barbados.  Guyana, 
which had some reservations concer ning the abolition of export quotas for sugar, finally signed.  
Haiti, because of its special problems, had to  postpone signing the agreement because of the 
mobilization of anti-globalization organizations calli ng for "special and differential treatment".  As it 
is a least developed country (LDC), Haiti neverthele ss has free access to the European market without 
the EPA. 
474. The EPAs are negotiated by regional group with 78 countries in the African, Caribbean and 
Pacific region and are to replace the unilateral pr eferences granted under the Cotonou Agreement.  
The EPA between the EC and the Caribbean countri es was the first to be signed and includes free 
access for exports to the European market and the lib eralization of trade in the services sector.  The 
opening up of Caribbean markets will be gradual ove r 25 years with safeguard clauses for vulnerable 
sectors. 
475. To conclude, the Haitian delegation wishes to draw  attention to the highly active role played 
by the EC in the work of the WTO.  It is one of the main catalysts for the negotiations under the 
Doha Round and has submitted many proposals in a wide range of areas.  With certain of its Member 
States, it also contributes to the DDA Global Trus t Fund and has financed or co-financed specific 
activities envisaged under the DDA.  It also co-financed the WTO public forum in 2007. 
476. At the WTO's Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in December 2005, the EC pledged to 
raise its collective annual spending on trade-related assistance to €2 billion (€1 billion for the EC and 
€1 billion for Member States) by 2010. 
CUBA 
477. The EC is a leading actor in global trade, acc ounting for almost one fifth of the global market 
for goods and almost one third of global trade in ser vices.  This is why the state of its economy and 
trade and the measures it adopts to open up or close o ff its trade are of extreme importance to the rest 
of the world. 
478. Consequently, more leadership and flexibility on the part of the EC with regard to the 
specificities and special development needs and sp ecial and differential treatment for developing 
countries will be needed in orde r to conclude the Doha Round.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 65 
 
 
  479. As regards bilateral trade rela tions, Europe is an important trade partner for Cuba, accounting 
for 22 per cent of Cuba's total trade, with the EU countries' share represen ting 20.3 per cent of total 
trade, i.e. one fifth.  Some 88 per cent of Cuba's tr ade with Europe is with EU countries.  Within the 
EU, Cuba's main partners are Spain, Italy, Germ any, the Netherlands and France, which account for 
86.2 per cent of total trade with the EU.  Some of these countries are also la rge investors and sources 
of tourism for Cuba. 
480. Our major exports to the EU are agricultural products, whereas our main imports are 
essentially industrial goods and, to a lesser extent , some agricultural products, basically foodstuffs. 
481. Recently, the European Union's Commissione r for Cooperation and Humanitarian Aid, 
Mr Louis Michel, paid his third visit to Cuba in a year, when a bilateral cooperation meeting was held 
with the aim of boosting the process of normalizing bilateral relations begun almost one year ago by 
identifying sectoral priorities and strategi es in order to define specific activities. 
482. During meetings with Cuban leaders, includi ng the President, there was agreement on the 
positive progress of the recently renewed bilateral cooperation between the EC  and Cuba and views 
were exchanged on bilateral relations, based on the in ternational principles of respect for sovereignty 
and non-interference, self-determinati on and cooperation without conditions. 
483. It was noted that there was a potential for jo int cooperation between the EC and Cuba and 
other Latin American, Caribbean, Asian and African  countries and that, by working together, we 
could make a greater contribution in a situation of  international economic crisis which threatens to 
make developing countries even more vulnerable and unstable. 
484. Support from the European Union after the hurrica nes that devastated Cuba last year rose 
from the €2 million originally offered to a to tal of €40 million, including programmes already 
implemented and those planned for 2009, to be used, inter alia , for food security programmes, 
cultural and educational development, combating c limate change and rehabilitating the areas in Cuba 
affected by the three severe hurricanes in 2008. 
485. At the latest meeting of the TBT Committee, 49 specific trade concerns were raised, including 
23 that had already been expressed previously.  Th e EC occupies first place as regards the measures 
that have been most frequently addressed by this Committee, with a total of  49 measures considered, 
almost one quarter. 
486. Of the 212 specific concerns raised in the TBT Committee since 1995, the REACH regulation 
holds the dismal record of having been raised at 18 meetings with 30 Members having expressed and 
renewed their concerns.  The next concern raised  by the largest number of delegations is the 
31st Adaptation to Technical Progress (ATP 31) on da ngerous chemical substances, which despite 
having been discussed at a meeting in 2008 was the subject of concern expressed by 21 delegations, 
including two groups such as the ACP and the GRULAC, which brought together several dozen 
Members and meant that over half the Members of the WTO had expressed concerns or drawn attention to problems in respect of this regulati on without the EC having given any convincing replies 
or amending the measure in the light of the legitimate concerns of Members. 
487. In this connection, my delegation would like to put some questions: 
488. Has the EC taken any measure to cease violating the provisions of Article 12 of the 
TBT Agreement on special and differential treatment , whose paragraph 3 provides that Members shall 
take account of the special development, financia l and trade needs of developing country Members, 
when preparing and applying technical regulations  in order to ensure that they do not create 
unnecessary obstacles to exports from these Members? WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 66  
 
  489. How do the European authorities intend to impl ement special and differential treatment for 
developing countries so that their trade is not affected by the regulations in effect? 
490. How does the EC respond to the questions raised last year by many delegations from both 
developing and developed countries at meetings of the TBT Committee with a view to ensuring that 
there is full interaction with Members concer ning ATP 31, including the examination of and 
comprehensive reply to the comments on proposals for classification of nickel? 
491. Is the EC in a position to provide reliable sci entifically-based data, and widely accepted and 
proven specific criteria, concerning the water solub ility of nickel compounds as classified according 
to ATP 31?  Could it provide information on th e economic impact for developing countries of 
applying the "scientific" methodology in this Directive in order to reclassify nickel compounds? 
492. Has the EC considered the possibility of applyi ng differential duties for the registration of 
products manufactured in developing countries or imported from those countries, in implementation 
of the REACH regulation, as a provision which giv es effect to special and differential treatment? 
493. Does the EC plan to give any type of technical or financial assistance in order to offset the 
negative impact of this Directive and, in genera l, the implementation of the REACH regulation with 
its serious financial and technological implicati ons for exports from developing countries, as provided 
in Article 11 of the TBT Agreement? 
494. Regarding the dispute on Section 211 of the United States Omnibus Appropriations Act of 
1998, in February last seven years had gone by since the DSB ratified the report of the Appellate 
Body regarding the EC's complaint and this month seven years will also have gone by since the first 
of the several reasonable periods of time for implementation of the DSB's recommendations and 
resolutions by the defendant.  In July next, four years will have elapsed since the EC's Understanding 
with the United States under which the EC undertook not to request the DSB for authorization to 
suspend concessions to the United States until at so me future date the EC decided to request 
authorization to suspend such concessions. 
495. Consequently, can the EC indicate what action it envisages to adopt the "negotiated 
settlement" referred to in paragraph 42 of its  Report for long-standing cases in which it is a 
complainant at the DSB, as is the case for Section 211? 
EL SALVADOR 
496. El Salvador congratulates the EC on this exerci se, which once again shows the marked impact 
this Member has on the global economy and, as a resu lt, its important role in the multilateral trading 
system as the leading exporter and the sec ond largest importer of goods in the world. 
497. The Report submitted by the Secretariat shows that real growth in per capita income in the 
EC fell from an annual average of 3 per cent over the period 2006-2007 to 1 per cent in 2008, partly because of the international financial crisis that ar ose in the second half of the year and which is 
affecting all countries worldwide. 
498. My delegation, therefore, recognizes the efforts being made by the EC and the leadership 
shown at the recent G-20 Summit in order to deal with  this alarming situation, which requires tangible 
measures, particularly taking into account the negative impact already being felt in the most vulnerable countries in particular, including my own.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 67 
 
 
  499. We also welcome the fact that, in this financ ial crisis and the subse quent economic downturn, 
the EC has renewed its pledge to phase out export subsidies, as agreed by Members in the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration. 
500. Bearing in mind that the EC imports around 17 per cent of total goods at the global level, we 
note with concern that its tariff structure is still co mplex.  Likewise, the agricultural sector, which is 
of considerable interest to my delegation and conti nues to be protected by a complex tariff structure, 
tariff quotas, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and, moreover, export subsidies are granted, 
measures which in many cases restrict access. 
501. For El Salvador, the EC is one of its leading trade partners both as re gards trade in goods and 
in services;  even though the trade balance is in favour of the EC, the annual rate of growth in 
Salvadorian exports to this mark et is positive.  Salvadorian companies benefit greatly from the 
preferential access given by the EC for our products, despite the restrictions they face, mainly in the 
form of technical barriers to trade and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. 
502. The EC is still the major supplier and recipi ent of FDI in the world and accounts for around 
40 per cent of the global volume of FDI inflows an d over 50 per cent of foreign investment abroad, 
making it a net investor in the rest of the world.  El Salvador has benefited from this investment in a 
wide range of sectors in the national economy, helping to create a large number of direct and indirect 
jobs. 
503. We note that since the previous Review in 2 007, the services sector has continued to be the 
cornerstone of the EC's economy with a share of some 70 per cent of gross value added and 
employment.  Because of its importance, we view with concern the fact that, despite the efforts made, 
much remains to be done to achieve a single market  in this sector;  nevertheless, we recognize that 
measures have been adopted since the previous Review in the telecommunications sector and on postal services, financial services and transport strategies. 
504. Currently, El Salvador, together with other Central American countries, is negotiating an 
Association and Cooperation Agreement with the EC and we are convinced that this will help to 
strengthen trade flows and cooperation, providing  new opportunities for countries in the region and 
improving living conditions for our people, and we therefore hope th at the negotiations will soon be 
concluded successfully. 
505. At the multilateral level, we hope that the EC w ill continue to show leadership in the current 
round of negotiations, ensuring that the developmen t dimension is taken into account in the final 
outcome;  we therefore welcome the flexibility show n by the EC regarding the measures planned in 
various areas for small and vulnerable economies. 
506. In this connection, the EC's role as one of the major sponsors of trade-related technical 
assistance provided under the Aid for Trade framework should be highlighted. 
507. In addition, at the bilateral level, the coopera tion links between the EC and El Salvador and 
the Central American region date back over 20 year s.  Through this cooperation, large-scale projects 
focused on strengthening the Central American Cu stoms Union, food security, local and municipal 
development in border zones, inter alia , have been implemented.  We welcome the future 
strengthening of these links through the inclusion of  new priorities such as access to international 
markets for Central American exports and regiona l security, matters of fundamental importance for 
El Salvador. 
 WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 68  
 
  V. REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND 
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 
508. Let me first of all express my gratitude for th e many comments and questions directed to the 
EC on Monday, which I will try to respond to this  morning. We will focus primarily on the more 
systemic or recurring questions, given that we have  sought, ahead of the meeting, to provide written 
answers to the vast bulk of the specific questions th at had been addressed to us. Today a further batch 
of replies to the very recent questions will be distributed. We hope that Members will acknowledge 
our efforts in doing this.  
509. In line with my initial statement on Monday, we also  expect that the Secretariat will, in future, 
subject other Members that will be reviewed to the same level of scrutiny and – critically – level of 
policy recommendations that we find in our report. I would recall that actually this had been one of 
our proposals in the context of the 3
rd reappraisal of the TPRM last year. We stand by it – provided, of 
course, that this is done consistently across the whole membership. Therefore, we were reassured by 
the assurance given in this respect by the WTO Secretariat. 
EC reaction to the crisis and fight against protectionism 
510. Many of you, starting with Amb. Grey, referred to the danger of increasing protectionist 
pressures worldwide, including in the EU. I would like to reaffirm you that, in line with our 
commitment at the G20 summit, we remain fully co mmitted to resisting such pressures. We are aware 
of our special responsibility in this regard, commens urate to our weight in the world trading system. 
511. Some Members referred to the complexity of the EU's decision making process, which 
allegedly has become more apparent in the light of the economic crisis. The Discussant stressed that if 
planned institutional reforms had been complete d, and further progress had been achieved in the 
completion of the Single Market, the EC would ha ve more easily tackled the economic crisis. 
512. We would like to reassure Members about our commitment and ability to provide quick, 
coherent policy responses in the face of the crisis. Th is applies also to what we are not doing. We are 
not responding to the situation with measures of a tr ade restrictive nature. The federalised nature of 
trade policy in the EC is rooted in our original Tr eaties; this is in no way challenged by the current 
economic difficulties that we are confronting today. 
513. By the same token, I would like to dispel a misunderstanding expressed in a number of 
comments. Our system is unique in the way it comb ines federalism with subsidiarity. Certain areas of 
policy are not and will not be fede ralised. Thus, concerns about the lack of harmonisation of, e.g. 
internal taxation or excise duties are misplaced. These  are not needed to ensure the proper functioning 
of our internal market, benefiting very directly also our trading partners. Members should calibrate 
their expectations to our, and in many cases, to thei r own, institutional realities. [This is particularly 
the case for Members who themselves operate in a Federal structure. EU is and remains to be made up of 27 sovereign states.] 
TRADE POLICY OBJECTIVES - Multilateral 
514. In my opening statement I already elaborated  on the importance of, and the EC’s support to, 
of early conclusion of the DDA. As G20 leaders recognised in London, a DDA outcome would boost 
the global economy by at least $150 billion per annum. Pleased to note that Members have acknowledged the EC’s strong support to the Multila teral Trading System. And that this has been 
particularly crucial in the current difficult  economic times we are all going through.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 69 
 
 
  515. Most Members, as well as the Secretariat’ s report have also recognised EC’s active 
participation in specific areas of DDA negotiations, our ke y role in taking these forward. This is very 
important for us. We reconfirm our commitment to an early outcome based on substantial contributions from the EC, as foreseen in the last m odalities’ text, and we wait other Members to offer 
commensurate commitments. 
516. In this respect, let me give a first genera l reaction to all the comments made about our 
agricultural policies: aspects of tariff protection, domestic support measures, the possibility to use 
export subsidies. All these would be addressed in one  go, by completing the DDA. So, let’s do it.  
517. Concerning the G20 standstill commitment: Just to  reiterate that the EC has not increased 
tariffs (as report notes average applied MFN tariff h as decreased); tariffs have been adapted to new  
nomenclature. As to cereals, reacting to an issue raised by at least 2 delegations, the EC would like to 
remind that this was just re-introduction of tariffs  after suspension, deadline of which was October 
2008. After that they raised to their original leve l. It was also before G20 standstill commitment and 
could not possibly be applied retroactively. While on this subject, let me re iterate our support for the 
important role of the WTO to monitor protectionist measures.  
RTAs 
518. Pleased to note that many Members shared our view: the EC’s RTAs constitute building 
blocks to MTS. Indeed, Members have not confirme d the remarks of the Secretariat that we objected 
to on Monday, about the “discriminatory elements ” of our FTAs. Our RTAs are based on the WTO 
disciplines, and in their effects they create, not divert, trade.  
519. In fact, a good number of our FTA partners-to-be on Monday referred to the ongoing 
preferential negotiations with the EC, and the mutu al benefits they are expecting. We can only 
confirm these expectations of Korea, India, members of the ASEAN and a number of Latin American countries; and we share the objective to complete  negotiations as soon as possible and respecting the 
principles of article XXIV of GATT and article V of GATS.  
520. Some words on EPAs.  Our EPAs are the most noteworthy examples of development-driven 
FTAs. The EC greatly welcomes our EPA partners’ numerous comments recognising the major 
developmental benefits of EPAs.  We cannot but agree on those observations that acknowledge the 
realities and rationale behind tho se agreements. Really, the EPAs are WTO-conform, wide-ranging 
agreements, which at the same time take fully on board developmental aspects of our partners, thus 
foreseeing asymmetrical liberalization commitments. All full regional EPAs will include development 
cooperation provisions tailored to the needs of the region. Combined with the trade rules of the 
agreement, these have been designed to prom ote development and re gional integration.  
521. In this respect, let me also respond to some  remarks made about the MFN clauses in EPAs. 
The reason is the greatly asymmetric character of these agreements: the EC from the start fully opens 
its market to ACP partners, while accepting that our  ACP partners in numerous sensitive areas do not 
liberalise (areas of exclusion). If in the future they  decide to open up those areas towards other major 
trading partners, presumably because those products are no longer sensitive, we simply ask as a matter 
of fairness and to avoid discrimination among FTA part ners that these benefits be extended to the EC. 
522. In response to questions, a detailed overview of current state of EPAs negotiations will be 
provided in written replies. Let me refer, however , to the information the EC has already provided 
even on the interim agreements in WTO bodies. On ce interim agreements are signed, these will be 
notified to the WTO. The consideration process of  the notified EPAs has already started in the CRTA 
and each EPA will be subject to the same process.  WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 70  
 
  Unilateral preferences 
523. GSP : As noted on Monday, our General System of Preferences, which entered into a new 
three-year cycle on 1 January 2009, is the most comprehensive of all deve loped-country autonomous 
preference regimes, with 176 beneficiaries and wi de product coverage. The new Regulation will offer 
additional preferences to developing countries of an  approximate net value of at least €160 million, 
largely as the result of the operation of the graduation mechanism.  
524. Under the new Regulation, the GSP+ regime offe rs additional, more generous preferences for 
countries (considered as "vulnerable") if they ratif y and implement interna tional standards in the 
fields of human rights, core labour standards, sustainable development and good governance. These 
are not “political” conditions in the sense used by one of the delegations. Under the recent mid-term 
review the number of beneficiaries of the GSP+ system has increased. This shows that further 
countries found it possible to fulfil these criteria,  so these are not impossible onerous, and now they 
can also enjoy the benefits of the scheme.  
525. In terms of comments about transparency and rela ted GSP statistics, we would like to refer to 
the recent notification of our GSP scheme in  March in WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.4. Abundant 
information has been provided, including on G SP trade statistics about each preferential regime. 
Furthermore, we are of the view that this benchm ark of transparency should be extended to all PTAs, 
not least those involving emerging economies. Tran sparency is essential and a positive feature in all 
areas of trade, not to be applied just selectively.  
526. We were pleased to hear the numerous positiv e comments by DCs about our Aid for Trade 
programme. This is a clear sign that our coope ration programmes deliver tangible benefits, as 
recognised by the recipients themselves. We can reas sure all concerned, that in spite of the economic 
crisis, we are committed to continuing  this form of support to developing countries. It’s part of the 
EC’s overall approach that we are not only focusing  on our own recovery, but we also take action to 
support developing countries in the current global economic downturn. 
527. Let me now turn to import and export measures  
528. Numerous Members referred to the EU’s comp lex tariff structure that would be largely 
addressed by the DDA outcomes on tariff simplification. Similarly, the DDA can be the answer to complaints about tariff escalation and tariff peaks. We would remind that both in agricultural and 
industrial goods negotiations there ar e formulas dealing with this elem ent. In fact, the representative 
of Brazil made a link between these issues and th e EC’s position on export taxes. We much welcome 
this linking and we would actually want to see parallel progress in dealing with tariff escalation and 
export taxes during the talks. 
529. Several members raised issue of the certification of our enlargement schedule on domestic 
support and subsidies. Let me recall that we ha ve proactively engaged with the Members most 
concerned. In fact, we had a meeting last week (27 March) with the US, Canada, Australia and New 
Zealand. The EC is looking forward to fu rther progress in resolving this issue. 
530. We took note of comments raised with regard to  the tariff classification of mobile phones, and 
other high-tech products. We regret that in spite of the EC’s repeated proposals, the very Members 
who raised this issue were the ones that rejected to  launch negotiations to broaden the scope of ITA in 
a comprehensive way. Instead, they preferred that this issue to be handled in the context of DS 
consultations. Thus, further comments and clarificat ion should take place in that forum. EC would 
like to confirm again that the EC is still read y to engage in further development of ITA.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 71 
 
 
  531. We take note of Member’s comments, in partic ular by Norway and Canada, on on-going EC 
regulations regarding trade in seal products. We’ll convey these concerns to those involved in the on-
going work about the respective regulation.   
532. Some Members pointed to the lack of harmoni zation in customs procedures across EU. These 
are misplaced concerns, as the EU, as a custom s union, has fully harmonized customs procedures. 
Furthermore, we don’t think that the number of issu es with practical implementation are higher than 
those for other large WTO members; But anyway we  remain ready to look at specific concerns. 
533. Many comments were made concerning regulatory issues.   First, some words about our 
overall approach.  
534. In spite of claims that our regulatory regime  means unnecessary and unjustifiable obstacles to 
trade, we can only reiterate its legitimate purposes  and characteristics. First, these regulations are 
aimed at protecting health, be it of humans, animals or plants, as well as serve the protection of environment. They are also aimed at safety, at th e protection of consumers. Secondly, be it technical 
regulations or SPS provisions, these are clearly non-discriminatory measures that are equally applied to both local products and to imports. EU producers also  have to comply with the same standards, so 
we can’t share the claims about these measure having trade protection considerations.  
535. That being said, however, we do not question that the number of such requirements in some 
areas increase or that in some respects the standard s are getting higher. This, however, is due to the 
advances of science, to the identifications of new ri sks, so that substances or processes that were in 
the past considered safe, might be demonstr ated to involve earlier unknown hazards. The EC 
occasionally follows the precautionary principle, i.e. if there are well-founded indications of risks, of 
negative effects, steps are taken to deal with tho se, while in parallel the scientific research continues 
towards deeper and more detailed understanding of  their nature and their exact mechanism.  
536. Furthermore, the vast majority of EC regulati ons is based on international standards that are 
by their nature tend to represent middle-way soluti ons or standards. Such reliance on international 
standards is, by the way, not th e case for several other major WTO Members, complaining about our 
regime in this forum. As a matter of fact, our institutional set-up, which requires finding a balance 
between 27 Member states’ often widely differing in terests, capacities and capabilities leads us even 
in case of lack of international standards in a give n area towards practical, realistic outcomes that are 
acceptable for countries in different situation. This fact also ensures that meeting these requirements 
can’t be unduly difficult, or even  less likely to pose insuperable problems for other members of the 
WTO to fulfil. 
537. That being said, we do not deny that meeti ng these standards can be a challenge on the one 
hand for SMEs, and on the other hand, especially  for poorer, smaller developing countries. 
Concerning the first aspect, as our own SMEs also ha ve to meet the same requirements, our regulatory 
regime takes into account also sm aller companies’ ability to adjust by providing for sufficient early 
warning and lead time, often transitional periods in  the introduction phase. In order to help DCs to 
meet these requirements, we also provide signif icant technical assistance to these countries. On 
Monday we were pleased to hear a number of co mments from DCs about the efficacy and usefulness 
of such technical assistance and capacity buildi ng measures.  This is an ongoing process and we are 
committed to continue the assistance in the future.  
538. Several speakers pointed to the lack of c onsultation process during th e preparation of our 
regulations and standards, claiming that the EC does not factor in the potential impact of those 
regulations on 3
rd countries. In reality, this is not the case. The EC applies a comprehensive and 
extensive consultation process when drafting its own regulations, and this applies to third country 
stakeholders. Besides, due to the sheer complex ity of our decision-making process referred to by WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 72  
 
  many, the time needed for arriving at final outcomes even in regulatory issues is very long, typically 
taking several years, thereby providing ample possibi lity to indicate concerns, to initiate and conduct 
consultations and finally to be prepared  for implementation of new regulations.  
539. After the general points, some comments on TBT-related issues: 
540. TBT related measure have been extensively a ddressed during oral interventions and in the 
advance written questions. 
541. This has been the case for the REACH regulation;  a measure that a good number of Members 
mentioned on Monday, and which has been discusse d at the TBT Committee over the last 3 years. 
The EC has made a vast effort to make available fr ee of charge to any operator worldwide guidance, 
tools and other materials to better understand REACH; this information is available at the website of 
the European Chemicals Agency. A REACH helpd esk has been set up to respond specific queries 
about REACH.  Furthermore, the EC has also provided (and continues to provide) technical assistance on REACH to developing countries upon request. This  illustrates that the EC has taken very good 
note of Members’ concerns at the TBT Committee and has spent significant resources in technical 
assistance also to third countries, in respon se to requests made at the TBT committee.  
542. The WTO Secretariat report has confirmed that REACH equally applies to locally 
manufactured and imported products and throughout th e EU. As repeatedly stressed at meetings of the 
TBT Committee, REACH does not apply outside the te rritory of the EU; it applies to substances that 
are manufactured or imported in the territory of th e EU and there is no discrimination regarding the 
origin of the substances. 
543. Some Members also noted the difficulties in applying REACH regulation in the case of 
SMEs. REACH Regulation foresaw those difficulties and indeed, the treatment of SMEs was a key 
concern during the legislative process of the `REA CH Regulation.  In this regard, the amount of 
information that is required from SMEs in the cont ext of registration is lower.  Additionally, very 
significant reductions, up to 90%, have been for eseen by the Regulation on the fees related to 
REACH. 
544. Concerning the specific issue of nickel subs tances - the process concerning classification of 
nickel substances has been going on since 2003. It has been discussed repeatedly in TBT Committee 
and addressed at the expert meeting devoted to this  issue before Committee. Many of the concerns 
have been addressed and explanations provided on the methodology applied and the use of the 
scientific data for the classification of nickel co mpounds. At present the classification of a substance 
as dangerous means that these substances need to be properly labelled and packaged to prevent 
danger. Information on the dangers of the substance and the precautions  to be taken are transmitted by 
means of warning labels containing standard sy mbols and phrases. The classification of a substance 
does not imply any restriction on their use nor th at exports of such substances are restricted. 
545. The EC has introduced SPS legislation with  the legitimate objectives of ensuring the 
protection of human health and th e prevention of deceptive practices, and we are of the opinion that 
these measures are not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil these legitimate objectives. The 
SPS standards concerning imports are substantia lly harmonised at EC level (99%). Import 
requirements for nearly all agriculture products are harmonised for all major product groups like 
dairy, meat, fisheries, etc, and the work is pr oceeding apace also on the remaining areas of maximum 
residue limits, as recognized by a number of speakers.  
546. Some delegations have mentioned our SPS st andards as being an obstacle to trade, 
particularly for developing countries, including LDCs. On this point, I would again like to refer to the 
huge technical assistance and capacity building effort s, the numerous cooperation programs with DCs  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 73 
 
 
  in this area. Furthermore and more importantly, trade figures speak for themselves: the EC is the 
world’s largest importer of agricultural products, a nd more specifically, the biggest importer of such 
products from developing countries, and the major mark et for LDCs. In fact, the EC imports more of 
LDC products than the rest of the world put to gether. If SPS measures were to be such an 
insurmountable obstacle as claimed by some, all this trade couldn’t have been realized.  
547. Some words on specific issues: 
548. As well-known, EC legislation bans the use of  growth-promoting hormones in beef, whether 
produced in the EU or imported. After the earlier decision of the DSB, the hormones directive has 
been modified to reflect the additional scientific pr oof underpinning its provisions. As this has not led 
to the solution of the debate with the WTO me mbers concerned, the Appellate Body last year 
requested us to start compliance proceedings to demonstrate the WTO-cons istency of our hormones 
directive. We have requested cons ultations with the US and Canada  and look forward to settling this 
long-lasting dispute shortly.  
549. GMOs:  I would like to reiterate that EC’s regulatory system for authorizing GMOs is in line 
with the WTO rules, as confirmed by the DSU case.  Some Members commented that the authorisation 
procedures for individual GMOs are slow. I will have  to recall that authorisation of GMOs proceeds 
according to timetables established in the EC legisl ation, and delays are often due to the lack of 
complete information from the appli cant. In any event, th e European Food Safety  Agency is working 
with applicants to improve applications so as to a void any delays in the processing of applications. 21 
authorisations have been granted since 2004. 
550. Some Members also referred to certain EC MS s’ continued national pr ohibitions of specific 
GMOs. Just to clarify: EC legislation allows MS  to adopt safeguard measures where it is justified 
from a scientific point of view. When this is not the case, the Commission acts in line with the 
relevant legal provisions. 
551. Some Members have noted the, in their view “excessive” use of contingency measures. I have 
to disagree with those comments. First, I refer huge size of the EC as an importer, so absolute figures 
have to be looked at in the context: as also noted  in the Secretariat’s report, "contingency measures 
applied only to 0.73% of EC imports in 2007". This figure shows that the trade coverage of 
contingency measures is not outstandi ng in international comparison.  
552. Furthermore, looking at recent trends, there are a number of major players, among them 
emerging economies, that have recently initiated a la rger number of AD investigations than was the 
case for the EU. As reflected in the second monito ring report of the TPRB, the number of AD 
initiations in our case has not been affected by  the crisis, the number remains the same.  
553. Finally, I would like to stress that even wh en the EC initiates AD processes, our practice  
includes more liberal elements than other Members’ practices: such as the application of the lesser 
duty rule or the public interest test,  and  we do not  apply zeroing. Thus initiations often do not lead to 
AD duties even in case of proven dumping, or the rat es are lower than would be otherwise without the 
use of these instruments. We do hope that DDA ou tcomes will result in a broader use of liberal 
practices similar to ours. 
554. Some Members have stated that compliance with  EC state aid rules is not enough to ensure 
WTO compliance. This shows lack of knowledge of th e fact: in reality, the EC’s rules are, due to the 
demands of the fully liberalized internal market, much  more stringent than those of the WTO. This is 
also proven by the fact that there is no preced ent that a measure approved by the Commission was 
found incompatible with EC obligations under the SCM Agreement. Here the EC would invite other 
WTO Members to provide similar transparency on their own measures.  WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 74  
 
  555. The EC does not consider the recovery measures taken in the context of the crisis to be 
protectionist in nature, and has together with our  Member States sought to use the most transparent 
and the least trade distortive policy options. Indeed, the second TPRB monitoring report notes that most of the measures by the EC and its Member States are not to be considered excessively trade distortive. For instance, the report clearly indicates th at the EU competition rules play a useful role in 
ensuring that the provision of public financial support does not distort markets. 
556. Concerning intellectual property protection, two main issues were addressed: 
557. Generic medicines:  Concerning the detainment of  some transit supplies of medicines. First, 
let me point out that national Customs authorities ar e fully entitled, also under international law, to 
inspect goods in transit suspected to infringe IP rights. If need be, they can stop the traffic of 
potentially dangerous products, such as the case of fake  medicines, even when shipments are destined 
for any country. Many dangerous goods, such as counterfeit medicines, are shipped to developing countries, often via European ports and airports. Although the control by the customs is sometimes 
difficult due to the complexity of the products, we think that their role is crucial to prevent the flow of 
fake medicines in transit from reaching the populations of developing countries. 
558. In 2007, out the 76 million counterfeit and pi rated goods intercepted by the European 
customs, 40% were intercepted in transit. EU cu stoms statistics for 2007 have revealed a significant 
increase (compared to 2006) in trade of fake medicines (+51%).  
559. The EU customs legislation is fully in line w ith the WTO and TRIPS requirements, in terms 
of scope and coverage of customs inte rvention. The TRIPS Agreement sets out inter alia  the 
minimum requirements for customs border enforc ement of the importation of goods suspected to 
infringe certain intellectual property rights. Article 51 TRIPS and footnote 13 clearly allow WTO 
Member to apply border measures to goods under othe r customs situations, including in transit, which 
are suspected to infringe other intellectua l property rights, including patents.  
560. Here we speak about a very small number, less than a handful a cases in a situation when 
hundreds of thousands of consignments are insp ected. The cases are now each looked at separately 
according to their merits. In some cases the inves tigations have been completed, in some cases the 
consignments have been already released, a couple of cases are still being processed.  EC continues to 
be a major supporter of ensuring trade of generic medicines in developing countries.  
Sectoral policies 
AGRICULTURE 
561. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been  in a process of ongoing reform since the 
early 1990s. A decisive step came in the 2003/2004  CAP reform with the decoupling of direct aids 
from production and a realignment of the CAP with consumer concerns. Decoupled payments are in 
conformity with para 6 of Annex 2 of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, as measures 
with no, or at most minimal trade distorting effects, and as such are notified under the Green Box. This direction of reforms was further strengthened w ith the recent Health Check of the CAP. After the 
Health Check, we estimate that more than 90% of EC  direct payments to farmers will be decoupled.  
562. I would briefly like to refer to the comment made by Ambassador Grey at the start of the first 
day of this TPR meeting. He highlighted the stat ement included in the WTO Secretariat report saying 
that "support tied to production s till represents about 40-50 per cent of producer revenues for sugar 
and most meats". I cannot subscribe to these numbers . They appear to come from the OECD policy 
report, however, the EC is using the classificati on of the WTO and different method to calculate 
support, in accordance with the Agreement on Agriculture. According to our estimates, coupled  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 75 
 
 
  support represents about 6 per cent of producer revenu es in the meat sector. As for sugar, the coupled 
support has been phased out in the fra mework of the sugar reform.   
563. Many delegations have spoken about high agricultural tariffs of the EC. The ongoing DDA 
negotiations give an excellent opportunity to deal with this issue. The EC is ready to accept the 
provisions of the Rev 4 of draft modalities on the tiered formula for tariff cuts that would lead to the 
highest cuts in case of the highest tariffs , bringing about substa ntial harmonisation. 
564. As far as the AVEs quoted in the report are concerned, we found it very confusing that the 
WTO Secretariat, instead of using the AVEs as calculated in the DDA context by the same 
Secretariat, now calculated new AVEs for the purpo se of the TPR report. The EC has informed the 
WTO Secretariat that we do not agree with AVEs calcu lated in the final TPR report. In fact the AVE 
of 604.3% quoted for the isoglucose tariff line s hould be 22,43% for the EU 27, according to our 
calculations (Comext 2007 import num bers). We have concerns as to the methodology used by the 
WTO Secretariat in the AVE calculations and remain ready to discuss this further.  
565. Many delegations have referred to the EC agricu ltural tariff structure as being complex. In 
this context, we would remind that more than half of EC tariffs are expressed in ad valorem  terms, 
and some 30% of our agricultural tariffs are expres sed in simple specific terms. Less than 10% of 
agricultural tariff lines are subject to more complex types of duties. Here again, we note that tariff 
simplification is under negotiation within the DD A framework, where the EC remains ready to 
contribute to a balanced outcome. 
Export subsidies 
566. We do not agree with the criticism that the u se of EC export subsidies is high, especially 
compared to the earlier period. Today the total amount  of export subsidies used is less than 5 per cent 
of the CAP budget and less than 2% of agricultura l exports value. In practice, the only main 
commodities where refunds are currently applied are da iry, some meats and eggs. This is despite the 
various export subsidisation pr actices which continue to be used by our trading partners. 
567. The re-introduction of EC export refunds for da iry products is a response to a dramatic 60% 
decrease in world market prices over the recent mo nths. It goes without saying that the amounts in 
question remain much lower than the levels allowed under our WTO commitments. The EC has 
always respected both the quantitativ e and budgetary limits imposed by the WTO and will continue to 
do so in the future.  
568. We certainly maintain our commitment to phase out export refunds as part of the DDA 
outcomes, on condition of a parallel elimination of all forms of e xport subsidisation used by our 
partners.  
569. A few delegations raised the issue of bananas. We  would like to stress that the EC is ready to 
conclude a comprehensive agreemen t on bananas that would put an e nd to this longstanding issue, and 
we have had several meetings with MFN banana supp liers to look for solutions. The EC believes that 
any such solution on bananas must be comprehens ive, including not only the settlement of ongoing 
disputes but also the EC's market access commitm ents on bananas in the framework of the Doha 
Round. In our view, negotiations are moving at a good pace, and we hope to resolve this long-
standing dispute shortly.  
570. FISHERIES: The Common Fisheries Policy was re formed in 2002 to improve the sustainable 
harvesting of living aquatic resources. It aims at protecting aquatic resources and minimising the 
impact of fishing activities on marine eco-syste ms, and includes measures to monitor catches and 
landings. In 2008, the Commission has launched a re view of the CFP which will be based on WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 76  
 
  an analysis of the achievements and shortcomings of the current policy, and will look at experiences 
from other fisheries management systems to id entify potential avenues for future action.  
SERVICES 
571. Many members as well as the discussant raised the issue of the level of harmonisation of the 
European market in services. As it has already been pointed out, the European integration is 
progressive and important achievements have already been reached in many sectors such as postal and 
courier services, financial services, transport or telecommunications services. The services directive will moreover add on the existing legislation and further facilitate the free movement of services 
within the EU.  
572. However, the EU is a market of 27 Memb er States and differences between national 
legislation exist and some of them will remain, as it is the case for many other WTO members where 
discrepancies in the regulatory frameworks ex ist between regions, states or provinces.  
573. It must be underlined that the integration of the European services market is taking place in a 
non-discriminatory way and WTO members can immedi ately take advantage of any step in the 
harmonisation process. For example, as far as ser vices delivered through commercial presence are 
concerned, the foreign services providers establis hed according to the conditions set out by the 
European law will benefit of the advantages of the European market like any other European services 
providers.  
574. I tried to address most of your concerns, and in fact, most of those issues were already 
responded in written questions. We will try to fill any gaps outstanding on specific questions in the 
timeline foreseen for this exercise.  
DISCUSSANT 
575. I think that the strong support that has been give n to and recognition of the EC’s role in the 
Doha Round will be welcome in Brussel s.  To be fair, I also think that some of the issues put forward 
to the EU like stimulus packages would have been raised quite legitimately by Members to any other 
developed country being up for review at this point in time.  One area I forgot to mention in my first 
intervention was the EU’s very positive role in term s of Aid for Trade issues which was highlighted 
by a range of recipients of those particular policies. 
576. Two areas of major concern relate to agricu lture and regulatory issues. The balance has 
probably changed over the years and regulatory issues are probably much more prominent than 
agriculture.  On agriculture there was wide spr ead recognition that CAP is moving in the right 
direction and substantial reforms have been undertak en and, as some Members noted, this is not the 
case for all other Members including from developed countries.  There is also some discussion and 
dispute about the extent of that change.  I used  the OECD figure in terms of the remaining support-
tied production. 
577. Developing countries and smaller countries were concerned about the high agriculture tariffs 
and particularly the complexity of the EU's tariff structure.  That is an important issue and it’s been 
address in the context of the Doha Round but clearly it is a practical problem. 
578. Export subsidies were raised and here I have to say  that I am not quite sure that the EC really 
got the point of all the interventions as I understood them.  There were two or three issues raised.  I 
didn’t get the sense that Members were concerned about the overall level of EC exports subsidies at 
this point in time.  I think that there is a realiza tion that EC’s export subsidies were no longer in place 
to the same extent as they have been in the past.  There was another category of concerns which I  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 77 
 
 
  don’t think has been addressed, in fact it’s been ampl ified by the EC’s statement.  I refer particularly 
to the second paragraph under export subsidies about the criteria set by the EC for the reintroduction 
of export refunds for dairy products.  According to the EC, it is justified because of a dramatic change 
in market circumstances, and secondly it is acceptabl e because it is done within WTO limits.  I just 
wonder what sort of signal that gives.  Presumably if those criteria apply for dairy they also apply for 
motor vehicles and industrial machinery.  Is the EC really saying that export subsidies are fine as long 
as you can show or believe that there has been a dramatic change in market situation?, because I 
suspect in the current environment there is hardly a product which wouldn’t fall into that category.  
And secondly, as long as you do it within your bound WTO commitments, the EC is perfectly relaxed 
about that.  In fact they are quite compassionate and understanding when it comes to that.  I found that 
somehow strange because presumably that means that the EU would go along if a developing country 
just hypothetically was to raise its tariffs on moto r vehicles and industrial machinery from the applied 
rate to the bound rate may be by increasing 20 or 30 percentage points, but  being WTO consistent. 
That seems to be a very strange message and hopefully a message which if I am correct most 
Members clearly will not be following. 
579. The area of regulatory issues took a lot of time and it is difficult to get to the heart of issues 
except by looking at them in some detail.  On REACH I thought the EC comment is legally correct 
but again sort of misses the point.  REACH is a cl assic case of the export of a regulatory structure. 
Having been myself in Brussels at the time when  REACH was first being voted, there were some 
proponents that actually saw as a desirable goal for the rest of the world to adopt REACH as a regulatory structure. 
580. On the SPS and TBT issues again there is not ve ry much I can say as a discussant.  Some 
concerns were expressed and they have been discussed at the SPS and TBT Committees and I guess 
that they always will. 
ARGENTINA 
581. On this occasion we find ourselves obliged to ta ke up the gauntlet thro wn down by Mr Peter 
Balas when he asked what Argentin a was doing to fulfil its pledge in relation to the G-20 Declaration. 
582. Although the measures adopted by Argentina ar e recent, they are not new because they 
concern measures already applied before the cris is.  This has been shown in the recent report 
submitted by Director-General Lamy on 20 March la st, which compiled the replies and clarifications 
given by Argentina to the questions put by the TPRB.  These recent measures do not affect 
competition and do not have any undesirable effects on other countries. 
583. We should like to make a clarification that may be self-evident, Argentina does not apply 
export subsidies.  Argentina gives minimum dom estic support focusing on one production sector, 
namely, tobacco.  All our tariffs are ad valorem  at 35 per cent, in other words, any protectionist-type 
measures that Argentina might apply have little im pact as we do not possess the same tools as the EU. 
584. This clarification is important, just as it is important to clarify the following:  we respect the 
pledge made at the G-20 in the same way as the EC  has done and as all Members which took part in 
the Summit have done, that is to say in good fa ith, and our questions and our concerns should be 
understood in that sense.  We are not seeking to show  how the EU is not fulfilling its pledge in this 
case, but on the contrary we are trying to see how th e EU is fulfilling its pledge, which Argentina is 
ready to fulfil in good faith.  But we would lik e to underline the following:  even though the 
commitment is identical in nature, the responsibilit y is obviously different.  In this respect, the EU, 
like other developed countries, is a leader and we expect it to respond as a leader.  We, the smaller 
countries, are ready to follow it and to fulfil the pledge made at the G-20 in good faith. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 78  
 
  585. I wish to take this opportunity to explain th is important commitment not only to the EU but 
also to other Members, together with Argentina's readiness to comply with the review process.  We 
hope to be able to talk at more length with the EU in this respect and to work together to this end. 
CUBA 
586. First of all, we should like to associate our selves with the considerations expressed by the 
panellist and also to echo those by Argentina.  In  this connection, and responding frankly, we can say 
that the statement by the EC reminds me of a saying in  my country that "the misfortune of many is but 
a fool's consolation". 
587. Once again, the representative of the EC has referred to its trad e policy in certain sectors such 
as agriculture, specifically mentioning the recent re instatement of export s ubsidies on dairy products 
and, in the interests of parallelism of Doha-re lated commitments, has called on other Members to 
follow such a bad example.  It is not right to fo llow bad examples or to call on anyone to follow bad 
examples, particularly in this case.  I find the word s of Argentina very valid in this respect to the 
effect that there must obviously be leadership.  A large majority of the statements made on Monday 
recognized this, not only in relation to agriculture , but also to services and industrial goods, and we 
definitely agree and call on the EU to respond to this leadership. 
588. Apart from this, we wish to focus essentially on  one issue to which a response was given to 
the delegation of the Dominican Republic, which had ra ised concerns very similar to those raised in 
the TBT Committee and by our delegation, namely ATP 31 referring to nickel. 
589. Along the same lines, we should like to express our concerns regarding the 
REACH regulation, which despite the EU's statement,  is maintained.  In this connection, we should 
like to emphasize that, from the substantive standpoint in this case, it has been determined that anyone 
introducing a particular regulation - and of course,  as mentioned by several delegations, we respect 
the right to protect plant, animal and human health  and also the environment - must substantiate the 
regulation with demonstrable scientific proof.  It is not the third countries affected that have to 
provide the scientific proof or, as the EU has stated  in this case and on several other occasions, that 
have to submit impact studies.  I must briefly em phasize here that many delegations, in particular 
developing countries, have expressed concern regarding ATP 31 and the REACH regulation. 
590. Although this TPR has given rise to a record number of questions, in the TBT Committee as 
well there have been a record number of c oncerns and statements on the ATP 31 and the 
REACH regulation, but no satisfactory response to  these concerns has been received.  In this 
connection and being extrem ely frank, we do not consider that a period of time or technical assistance 
or capacity building are responses to sums of millions of dollars in the case of Cuba, which 
furthermore make an important contribution to our GDP.  We are ready to have a dialogue with the EU in a very constructive spirit, as we have done in the TBT Committee, and we are trying to resolve 
the issue and have a dialogue because the REACH issu e and the APT 31 issue have been a dialogue of 
the deaf.  The third parties affected raised their concerns and the simple a nd straightforward response 
has been the enforcement of this regulation.  Good  faith exists in this case but responses need to be 
realistic and concrete. 
591. We also draw attention to one of the concer ns raised within the Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures.  We have  been witness to and have echoed the concerns relating to private 
standards with respect to new foodstuffs, concerns that have been raised on many occasions and have 
not been properly heeded.  The distinguished delegate  of the EC said that they had been examined at 
expert level and have definitely been taken into account.  I should lik e to state unequivocally in this 
forum that, unfortunately, we do not consider that our concerns have been taken into account and we 
hope that in future this situation can be reversed.  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 79 
 
 
  592. Finally, the question of the Doha Round has been raised on several occasions and its 
premature ending or its ending at an early date menti oned.  However, we should like to stress that, as 
emphasized by several experts in specialized publicati ons, this early closure must definitely take into 
account the special and specific situations of develo ping countries.  I should like once again to support 
what was mentioned by Mr Grey to the effect that it would appear confusing or at least rare for the 
EU to continue to maintain support programmes a nd make use of WTO-permitted instruments while it 
criticizes tariff increases, import licensing, restricti ons applied by developing countries, which in the 
end only have such instruments with which to confr ont the crisis.  I think this is definitely an 
unbalanced scenario and in view of the good intent ions and practices of the EU regarding Aid for 
Trade, preference schemes, etc., which have been re ferred to by many delegations, it should also show 
understanding and support for devel oping countries in this regard. 
BRAZIL 
593. As a general comment and judging by the rema rks by the EC just now about agriculture, 
market access, complexity of its tariff structure, ta riff escalation, export taxes, export subsidies, etc. 
and their linkage to the successful completion of th e DDA one could think that the EC is indeed in 
more need of it than any developing country in this house.  Now, two or three specific issues that were 
touched upon by the EC.  
594. The first one concerning the MFN clauses in the EPAs signed by the EC with developing 
countries.  The reasoning that these clauses are necessary for a question of fairness during the 
implementation period would prompt the question wh ether these clauses will be faced out once the 
transitional period is over.  But in a second t hought, this reasoning does not seem to be entirely 
waterproof in the sense that some products could be considered sensitive towards the trade with 
developed countries.  But that would not necessarily be the case towards the trade of our developing 
countries.  This is the spirit of the enabling clause that Brazil understands is being bridged with this 
kind of clauses.   
595. For the non-reciprocal trade prevention sch emes we very much welcome the recent 
notification of the revised EC GSP scheme and we ta ke note of the improvements in the provision of 
information trade statistics transparency overall.  Bu t at the same time, we regret that the EC has not 
gone further in their endeavours providing sufficient in formation particularly in what concerns trade 
in sub schemes such as the GSP+ and AVE separately a nd in a disaggregated manner.  This is rather a 
discouraging sign in the context of the negotia tion of a PTA transparency mechanism and we 
sincerely hope that the EC reflects on this and do their most to improve the capacity of their statistical 
services and increasing the transparency overall. 
596. The third specific issue I wish to touch upon was the reference to IP R and the seizure of 
goods in transit by the EC and national customs aut horities.  I just wanted to make clear that the 
products that were referred to by Brazil were generic medicines that are legitimate and necessary 
products in particular for developing countries.  And that we were in no instance referring to 
counterfeit of fake goods.  Of course we recognize th at all the necessary and appropriate procedures in 
customs and in transit can and should be follo wed but no procedure should hinder the trade of 
legitimate and necessary goods in any way.   
JAPAN 
597. On the first day, Ambassador Kitajima touched upon five areas, namely, (1) regulations and 
standard setting, (2) innovation, (3) agricultural pol icy, (4) counter protectionism and the promotion 
of the DDA and (5) bilateral economic relationship between Japan and the EC. Japan would like to 
continue to follow up the EU trade policies in th ese areas. Also, Japan would like to cooperate with 
the EC, on a bilateral basis as well as on a multilateral basis, to solve specific issues. WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 80  
 
  598. Regarding the agricultural policy, I take note of the positive or “right” direction of CAP 
reforms, as pointed out by the Ambassador Grey on the first day and today. Since Japan, as mentioned 
by Mr. Balas, is also faced with many challeng es in the field of agricultural reform, it will be 
appreciated if the EC further shares its experience with Japan. In this resp ect, Japan would like to 
submit three follow-up questions for our reference. Written reply in due course would be appreciated, 
since these questions are technical. 
599. Finally, I would like to point out that given the current economic and financial crisis, it is 
even more important for the EU, as well as other members of this Organization including Japan, to continue to be committed to open and transparent economic and trade policies. I hope that this 9
th 
Trade Policy Review of the European Communiti es has helped the EU pursue such policies. 
CHINA 
600. The active participation and interventions at th is session prove that the TPR continues to be 
an effective way for members to seek better unde rstanding of each other’s trade and investment 
related policies and practices, hence helps to improve  transparency. This is particularly the case for 
the EC in view of the very complex structure of its  trade policies, the difficu lties associated with the 
internal coordination among its 27 member states, and the constantly emerging problems associated 
with the process of enlargement. 
601. Back to the questions, while appreciating the EC  for having replied to most of our questions, 
we remain strongly concerned with one issue of gr eat importance to China. In its reply regarding 
China’s request for consultation on TRQ for po ultry meat, the EC asserted that China had no 
substantial trade interest therefore no negotiating ri ght. This to us is ungrounded and ignores the fact 
that EC has shut its door to China, one of the worl d largest exporters of poultry meat for years. This 
has been a very juggie issue and demands an early  and satisfactory soluti on. In the meantime we 
reserve the right to take further actions at the WTO. 
602. At this moment of economic downturn, there is a unanimous voice from members calling for 
liberalized trade flows. To fight against protectionism, actions count. In examining the EC’s recent 
practices, however, it is worrisome to find that there is seemingly a trend going the other direction. 
Market barriers are increasing. One sign is the increasingly frequent and discriminatory use of antidumping measures by the EC. And most of the re cent cases have been initia ted towards or relating 
to Chinese exports. We have incorporated our obser vations and comments in the questions submitted. 
Another sign is, as other delegations have also  pointed out, the increasing use of TBT and SPS 
measures beyond the necessary extent. Many of the num erous standards will definitely hinder the 
exports of developing members, including China. The EC argued just now that it is the largest 
importing market of agricultural products for developing countries, especially the LDcs. In our view, this does not give persuasive grounds to say that the EC’s SPS standards are at reasonable levels and 
have no restrictive effects on trade. We strongly ur ge EC to consider the potential significant adverse 
impact of these standards on exports and to take  into account the economic cost and technical 
feasibility when adopting standards, as required by WTO agreements.  
603. In addition, in the area of SPS, one issue th at we would like to bring up here is the new 
Duality of organic EU-imports as put up in the EC Regulation of No. 834/2007. The new Duality 
discriminates against suppliers with “ Equivalence Cer tification”. This is of particular concern to the 
great number of suppliers from developing countries,  and has largely increased the barrier for their 
products to get into the EU market. We hope the EC  will abide by the Equivalency principle of the 
WTO SPS Agreement and revise its certifica tion requirements on organic products. 
604. Speaking of market access, we have to me ntion services. The EC enjoys significant 
competitive advantage in most service sectors, su ch as telecommunications, financial and business  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 81 
 
 
  services. While the EC presses hard for the fu rther opening of these service sectors in WTO 
negotiations and in bilateral cont exts, most of EC’s service sectors of export interest to developing 
countries are yet to be opened meaningfully, such as professional services, construction and 
movement of natural persons. We encourage the EC  to reduce or eliminate the burdensome residence 
requirements, territorial requirements,  and complicated domestic regulations. 
605. We have heard on the first day about the record number of 1,400 questions. Due to the strong 
interest of our domestic industries, I am pleased to announce that we are about to make contributions 
by adding a further 24 to that record. A written copy  has been prepared and submitted. We would very 
much appreciate it if these questions could be accommodated by the EC Delegation in their final responses to be submitted in about a month time , and our comments could be forwarded to the 
relevant authorities back home. 
UNITED STATES 
606. We have a number of follow up questions whic h we will provide in writing but we would like 
to raise five here today in the meeting. 
607. The first one relates to our original questi on No. 19 relating to the EC’s formulation and 
adoption of technical regulations.  In the additional response receive d this morning, the Commission 
stated that when a legislator’s proposal is finali zed it is notified to WTO Members.  Could the EC 
please clarify the point in the internal process at which the proposal is finalized?  If this point is after 
approval of the technical regulation by EC Member States or other community institutions, is there a 
mechanism under which comments offered by WTO Me mbers can be taken into account considering 
that the proposed regulation already has been approved in the lengthy internal EC process? 
608. The second question relates to our original question No. 31.  Under the rubric of sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures, and in the context of the Commission’s approach to food safety, the 
Commission includes a discussion of such issues as animal welfare and consumer information.  Could the Commission explain the relevance of animal we lfare and non-health based consumer information 
to sanitary and phytosanitary measures?  To the animal welfare and consumer information issues 
extend beyond the issue of food safety, or are they only relevant under EC legislation to the extent 
that they affect food safety. 
609. The third question relates to our question No. 39.  Here the U.S. would like to ask again 
whether the EC plans to notify the changes in its procurement measures that are described in para. 96 
of the Secretariat Report. 
610. Regarding our question No. 41, we had asked the EC when would notify a modification to its 
GPA entities list Annex I.  The EC’s response suggested  that we are confusing the current list with the 
EC’s revised offer in the market access negotiations.  The U.S. is not seeking a notification of the new 
entities that the EC has included in its revised offer.   Rather the U.S. is requesting a notification of 
any changes that have occurred with respect to the entities that are currently listed in the EC’s 
Annex I.  Are relevant entities that are listed in Annex I conducting their proc urements in accordance 
with the GPA, have any of these entities listed in  Annex I being dissolved, replaced or otherwise 
modified?  Is the EC planning to notify the changes to its current list of Annex I entities? 
611. Lastly, regarding our question No. 47, the EC indi cates in the answer to this question that the 
relevant provision in Regulation No . 753/2002 refers to the use of a trade mark, but neither to the 
registration nor the invalidation of a trade mark.  We know that article 15 of EC Regulation No. 40/94 
the EC trade mark Regulation provides for grounds of  reapplication of a trade mark registration on the 
basis of five years non-use of the mark in the terr itory of the Community.  Thus this prohibition on 
use contained in Regulation No. 753/2002 appears to l ead to the revocation of the registration and the WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 82  
 
  exclusive right to use the mark in the Community territory.  This provision is similar to many EC 
Member States trade mark laws as we ll.  With this in mind, the U.S. remains very interest to know 
how the EC can justify the prohibitions on use of tr ade marks which appear to lead to the revocation 
or invalidation of such marks on the basis of Regul ation No. 753/2002.  We find it curious that while 
certain trade marks may not meet the definitions for the traditional terms, set forth in Regulation 
No. 753/2002, these marks have been used on the EC market for many years and were registered by 
trade mark officers charged with registering marks th at are not deceptive to the consumer.  Moreover, 
we are interested in knowing how the EC determined the consumers or and have been misled by these 
marks.  So we ask if the EC could pre-share with the U.S. the research or the consumer service which 
has found that the EC consumer is misled by the u se of Chateau or surely on U.S. wines in the EC 
market.  We greatly appreciate any additional in formation you can provide on these questions we 
raised here today but again we will be submitting th e fullest of the additional forward questions in 
writing. 
CANADA 
612. We would like to submit two follow up questions related to IP issues specifically question 97 
where the EC says that the previous years of a trad e mark is immaterial in regards a possible conflict 
or confusion over registered geogr aphic indication.  Could the EC please elaborate on what would 
happen if the evidence shows that the trade mark was used before the registration of the GI and it is 
found to be well known in the EC as stipulated in article 6 bis of the Convention. 
613. The second question pertains as a follow up question to question 98.  The EC concludes that, 
and I quote "... Whether or not an SPC can be granted, and its durati on will depend on the date of this 
first marketing authorisation and the filing date of  the patent application".  Could the EC please 
elaborate on this sentence as it is not clear what is m eant.  Further we would like to have some more 
details how is decided, whether or not an SPC w ould be granted and how the time frame is to be 
established. 
INDIA 
614. We have received the responses to our first set  of questions and we are looking at them and 
we will come back to the EC.  On specific issues , on a number of occasions it was mentioned that the 
Members have complained and I think that the dele gation should not take the raising of issues as 
complains by the Members.  On the SPS and the REACH standards the response was that these are 
based on scientific evidence, the consultation process states this, they are notified for substantial 
significant huge technical assistance and capacity building is provided to developing countries and 
LDCs.  Why do enter into the cycle of a vicious denial of the market access to the exports of 
developing countries and LDCs in the first place.   
615. Another area which has impressed me is how a ll the exports from the developing countries 
and LDCs to the EU market.  I think that if the ma rket opening takes place I am sure that those figures 
will only go up and not down. 
PERU 
616. Peru has still not received any reply to its ques tions and we should like to draw attention to 
some of particular interest to our country, which c ould receive a response in writing in the near future. 
617. The EC Reports show that its policies promote th e sustainable use of biodiversity, above all in 
developing countries, taking into account also social issues such as poverty and the drugs trade.  How 
can such policies be reconciled with the implementa tion of the regulation on new foodstuffs applied to 
products derived from biodiversity that are traditi onally used and consumed in these countries?   WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 83 
 
 
  Products derived from biodiversity have been used since pre-Inca times and there is no evidence 
whatsoever that they have caused problems for human health.  They are produced by small and 
medium farmers in depressed areas or as an alterna tive to the production of illegal crops.  This is an 
issue of extreme importance for us and we hope to be able to receive a reply subsequently. 
618. With regard to the fisheries sector, in Chapte r III on trade policies and practices by measure, 
it can be seen that economic subsidies and support for fishing and aquaculture are still given for 
rebuilding fishing fleets, aquaculture, processing faciliti es, compensation to the tuna fishing industry.  
These measures affect the competitiveness and transp arency of international trade in fisheries 
products and affect the sustainable development of fisheries resources.  Likewise, Chapter IV on the 
fishery management regime shows that, despite th e 2002 reforms, the EC estimates that 88 per cent of 
fish stocks are at risk because of over-fishing and total catches have b een set above scientists' 
recommendations.  As the European Court of Audito rs has stated that the control system for the 
common fisheries policy is ineffective and catch data  are unreliable for determining total catch quotas, 
could the EC explain why it continues to apply financial support programmes for aquaculture and 
fishing in inland waters, marketing and fishery port  infrastructure?  Could the EC indicate whether it 
has evaluated the results of its fisher ies reform and what these results are? 
619. Regarding dumping and subsidies, although the S ecretariat's Report contains information for 
the period 2007, the Peruvian authorities consider th at there is still a problem of updating with regard 
to the subsidies policies adopted.  Paragraph 128 of the document mentions the Single Payment 
Scheme, an income support scheme for farmers, stati ng that it would not apply to olive oil and olives.  
This is based on Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003.  Ho wever, this Regulation has been repealed and 
replaced by Regulation (EC) 1234/2007.  According to  its provisions, since January 2006, olive oil 
and olives have been included in the Single Paymen t Scheme.  Taking this into account, as Spain, 
France, Italy, Greece and Portugal dissociated th e support granted for olive oil from actual production 
and associated it with the traditional area cultivat ed in 2000 and 2002, could the EC explain what 
percentage of this traditional ar ea was used for cultivation and subsequently for the production of 
olive oil during the period 2006-2008? 
620. Paragraph 39 of the Secretariat's Report stat es that import prohibitions and surveillance are 
maintained on, inter alia , security, technical, sanitary, phytosanitary and environmental grounds.  
Could the EC explain what import prohibitions  and surveillance are applied on security and 
environmental grounds?  To which products do they apply? 
621. Subsequently, paragraph 110 indicates that expor t restrictions are allowed on grounds of 
public morality, the protection of health and life of  humans, animals and plants, and national cultural 
treasures.  Could the EC explain how it is determ ined that there are grounds of public morality, on 
what criteria, which authority is respons ible for making such a determination? 
622. Lastly, in paragraphs 197 to 204 of the Secr etariat's Report on enforcement of industrial 
property rights, there appears the EC's undertaking to fight counterfeiting and piracy.  It is also 
indicated that the EC is a major participant in the negotiations on a plurilateral Anti-Counterfeiting 
Trade Agreement.  Within the framework of Euro pean policy against piracy, could it explain what 
measures have been adopted against biopiracy, what is the definition, the scope and importance given 
to this problem, which mainly affects countries w ith a wealth of biological diversity such as Peru? 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
623. Let me start by thanking the discussant and to other Members concerning the multilateral 
issues about the EC's positive role in the DDA which I would say that  it was also almost universally 
recognised.  I would just note that Cuba was the only delegation which has said that the EC should show flexibility as a large player in the DDA negotia tions.  We think that we showed high level of WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 84  
 
  flexibility, but the Doha Round is certainly no t a completely unilateral exercise from developed 
countries providing exclusively contributions. 
624. About regulatory issues, specially the situation of developing countries.  I took note of the 
interesting qualification of India where he said th at the EC and other developed countries denied 
market access to developing countries by using various technical and sanitary requirements.  
Development as we have said is a major consideration in the EC's trade policy and we certainly do our 
best to show it in practical terms.  However, wh en it comes to health considerations for instance, 
development can certainly play a role in the assist ance on the implementation of health regulations.  
Regarding the costs, on the transition period, but I do not think that it would be realistic to raise that 
just because a product comes from a developing country which is subject to foot-and-mouth disease or 
which contains hazardous chemicals, it should not m eet the same substantive requirements for being 
put in the EU as any other product.  It is not a r eason that Article 20 allows even discrimination under 
such consideration although this is not at all either  our objective nor our practice.  But there might be 
situations as there are specially in the veterinary  or phytosanitary area but there are illnesses or certain 
problems in one region and there are none in others.   
625. The fact that a substance was traditionally used even for a long time it is not an automatic 
exemption from scrutiny of its effects or it does not automatically mean that it is harmless be it a 
chemical substance or be it a food item.   
626. For nickel and nickel compounds we have a si milar situation.  Nickel compounds were not 
considered as dangerous for human for a very long  time but not it turned down according to the EU's 
research that under certain conditions water soluble compounds of nickel can be toxic and might have 
effects on health.  The EC and its Members States si mply fulfil their basic obligations to protect the 
health of the European citizens and the European consumers by introducing new measures even on 
such a product or compounds which have not been subject to limitations before.  We did provide 
scientific evidence for these harmful effects but we di d not receive scientific evidence that would have 
shown that this is totally harmless and that the EU's concerns are misplaced. 
627. Brazil noted that the EC needs more the Doha Round than developing countries.  I would just 
put a simple question and leave up to you the answer .  Who needs more Brazilian products at the EU 
market, the EU or Brazil?  If we have a DDA out come it will automatically resolve many of these 
issues.  Unfortunately if we do not have this out come we shall certainly continue those reform 
measures for instance in the agriculture  which have been rather far going. 
628. We noted Brazil's interest about the transparency question and concerning GSP and we shall 
look at the notification provided to what extent this meet these questions.   
629. Unfortunately neither he nor Argentina came back  to the question of export taxes.  Argentina 
complained about the EU's use of export subsidies and we are committed to their phase out by 2013.  
We have not heard any commitment not even binding for the time being for export taxes which is the 
other side of the same equation, and we hope that the negotiations in this respect in the further part of 
the Doha Round will be more fruitful  than has been the case so far. 
630. Brazil raised the question of the seizure of certain generic medicines.  I can confirm that it is 
the EU's policy not just to raise obstacles but even to  help the flow of generic medicines.  In this 
particular, due to certain indications or requests by  the right holders the customs authorities of a new 
Member State had to assert first rather these are re ally legitimate product, and as soon as they were 
asserted the medicines were released. 
631. Anti-dumping measures were raised specially by China.  Anti-dumping measures are 
discriminatory if they are applied on a MFN basis.  Anti-dumping can be used in respect to imports  WT/TPR/M/214 
 Page 85 
 
 
  from specific companies and if it is found that all three pre-conditions for measures are met.  If it 
happens that recently there were more initiations or  that a high percentage of initiations related to 
imports from China this is beyond the control of the Commission.  We have our base on the WTO rules if the conditions of initiations are met.  I woul d just note as one of my duties is to look after the 
anti-dumping procedures that in our experience the level of cooperation from Chinese companies is 
not extremely high.  So if Chinese companies show the higher level of cooperation during the anti-
dumping investigation possible it might have the e ffect of being a better clarity about the real 
conditions of production and having lower or possibly not anti-dumping duties. 
632. Services were raised also by Ch ina and India.  I can confirm that we are ready and we have 
clearly showed readiness during the Conference last  July, that the EC would be offer to provide 
market access even in areas which were mentioned rela ted to labour services or related to the flow of 
natural persons.  We have found however that fo r a large number of our partners specially from 
emerging economies, the additional offers which were  put forward did not even provide binding of 
the existing market access not to mention giving new market access.  In the case of the EU, on top of the quite liberal approach to services movement in this area which politically is a sensitive area, but 
we would be ready for additional market access and we would like to see comparables of new market 
access possibilities offered not to mention about the possibility of binding the existing market access. 
633. The U.S. and Canada had some highly specific questions.  I will just note as a general point 
that we note this keen interest of the U.S. in the access conditions for government procurement to the 
EU market.  In this respect, as we are aware the EU  does not think that necessarily the practical facts 
are the same for both countries as the EU does not apply by European provisions, and the EU in a 
non-discriminatory manner provides access to prac tically to all its government procurement 
procedures and tenders whether countries have committed under the GP.   
CHINA 
634. The implementation of Article 9.5 of the b asic anti-dumping regulations brings excessive 
burden for Chinese enterprises to defend their in terests and also brings uncertainty and 
unpredictability in adoption of Chin ese enterprises in the export price.  And also it is noted that the 
EC keeps the practice of not disclosing sufficient information to analogue countries which makes it 
difficult for Chinese enterprises or even impossible for them to figure out how dumping margins are 
calculated.  Therefore their defending rights are de prived accordingly.  We also find in many cases 
that the EC adopted double standards towards Ch inese enterprises, for example, the EU invested 
companies in China and many of the cases that these EU invested companies are not excluded from 
the complains which are not qualified for the investigations.   
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
635. We were not able to find all the answers to these highly technical questions so we would 
provide the answers in a written form.   WT/TPR/M/214 
Page 86  
 
  VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
636. The ninth Trade Policy Review of the European Communities has given us all a better 
understanding of its trade and rela ted policies and their developments  since its previous Review in 
2007.  Our dialogue has been thorough and comp rehensive, stimulated by the full and open 
participation of Deputy Director General of DG Trade,  Mr. Peter Balas, and his delegation.  We have 
also greatly benefited from the perceptive remarks by our discussant, Ambassador Peter Grey, and the 
active engagement of many Members.   
637. Members commended the EC on its positive ec onomic performance in recent years supported 
by the continuation of its trade reform.  Member s appreciated the EC's strong commitment to the 
multilateral trading system, including the DDA nego tiations where the EC was recognized as having 
played a leadership role in pressing for an ambiti ous conclusion.  The EC was also praised for its 
technical assistance efforts and for its non-reciprocal  preferences to developing countries.      
638. The EC's tariff structure has remained largely unchanged since its last Review, with the 
average applied MFN tariff rate having decreased s lightly from 6.9% in 2006 to 6.7% in 2008.  
Members commended the EC for maintaining generally low tariff protection for non-agricultural 
products.  With regard to agriculture, Members welc omed the fact that the EC was implementing the 
2003 Common Agricultural Policy centred on the m ove towards the Single Payment Scheme.  
However, Members observed that agriculture remain s protected by a complex tariff structure, with 
high rates and tariff quotas, and benefits from hi gh levels of domestic suppor t and export subsidies, 
including the recent reintroduction of export refunds  on dairy products which some Members said had 
sent out a discouraging signal at a time of economic crisis and contraction of world trade.  They 
encouraged the EC to consider the benefits of a more open agriculture sector for consumers and food 
processors, as well as for exporters, especially fro m developing countries.  The EC referred to its 
agricultural offer under the DDA, the implementati on of which would provide solution to these 
concerns. 
639. Some delegations raised concerns about the EC's regime on technical barriers to trade in 
products such as chemicals (REACH), and SPS measures; its state aid and export incentive programmes; and about the lack of harmonization within the EC in are as, such as customs procedures 
and internal tax rates.  It was noted that the EC  remains an important user of contingency trade 
remedies.  Other issues of interest to Members in cluded economic prospects and planned reforms in 
the light of the global economic crisis; competition regime; protection of intellectual property rights; 
the dismantling of the remaining trade barriers in services at the intra-EC level and further liberalisation vis-à-vis  third countries; and the EC regime on, inter alia , fisheries, energy, financial 
services, telecommunications and postal services, and transport. 
640. Some delegations noted that the EC has c ontinued to build upon its wide network of 
preferential trade agreements (PTAs); the EC was exhorted to ensure that its PTAs were 
complementary to the multilateral trading system.  
641. Members appreciated the comprehensive responses provided by the EC delegation, and 
looked forward to receiving written replies to any unanswered questions within one month. 
642. In conclusion, the wide interest shown by Me mbers, through the depth of the interventions 
and the large number of advance written questions, are commensurate to the role played by the EC in 
the multilateral trading system.  Members recogn ized the EC's liberal trade regime for non-
agricultural products, and stressed that further re forms, in particular greater liberalization of 
agriculture, would help it to better allocate resources.  Furthermore, Members urged the EC to 
continue to resist protectionist pressures in this c ontext of the global economic  downturn.  I invite all 
Members to abide by this principle. 
__________