WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/TPR/M/248 
14 September 2011 
 (11-4412) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
6 and 8 July 2011  
 
 
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
 
EUROPEAN UNION 
 
Record of the Meeting 
 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Mario Matus (Chile) 
 
  Page 
 
I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 3 
II. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 5 
III. STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT 11 
IV. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 16 V. REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND 
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 60 
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 75 
 
 
  
Note:   Advance written questions by WTO Member s and the replies provided by the European 
Union are reproduced in document WT/TPR/M/2 48/Add.1 and will be available online at:  
http://www.wto.org/english/tr atop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm.    WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
1. The tenth Trade Policy Review of the European Union was held on 6 and 8 July 2011.  
The Chairperson H.E. Mr. Mario Matus (Chile) we lcomed the delegation of the European Union 
headed by Mr. Peter Balás, Deputy Director General of DG Trade, and the discussant, H.E. Mr. Fernando de Mateo (Mexico).   
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 the European Union was contained in document 
WT/TPR/G/248 and that of the WTO Secretariat in WT/TPR/S/248. 
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 Union:  Mexico; Japan; Brazil; 
Korea, Republic of; China; Australia;  Dominican Republic; Canada; Pakistan; Turkey; United States; 
Costa Rica; Colombia; Argentina; Singapore; Hong Kong, China; and New Zealand.   
4. The following delegations submitted written ques tions after the two-weeks deadline:  Egypt; 
Chinese Taipei; Indonesia; Philippines; Peru; Trinid ad and Tobago; Thailand; Switzerland; Ukraine; 
El Salvador; Norway; Malaysia; Chile; India;  and Ecuador. 
5. The Chairperson noted that as the European Union itself acknowledged, being one of the 
world's largest traders brings with it a special re sponsibility, both to the other WTO Members and to 
the multilateral trading system.  He was pleased to l earn from the reports for this Review that the EU 
had lived up to its responsibility in a period which co incided with the aftermath of one of the deepest 
economic crises in recent history, by showing an unwavering commitment to the core principles of this Organization and maintaining the overall openness and transparency of its trade and investment 
regime. 
6. The European Union had used the occasion of its  tenth Trade Policy Review to reaffirm the 
central role of the WTO in safeguarding the rules-b ased international trading system and in promoting 
openness and global prosperity.  Like other Members, he welcomed this statement. 
7. Today and on Friday we would have an opportu nity to consider many aspects of the EU's 
trade policies and practices from a system-wide perspective, including: 
 Institutional framework :  The changes affecting the legal and institutional 
framework of the EU's external trade and investment policy following the entry into 
force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009; 
 GSP :  The introduction of new rules of origin for GSP imports;  furthermore, a 
number of Members have mentioned the pr oposal to amend the EU GSP regime 
which is under consideration in Brussels.   Although this proposal is still at a 
preparatory stage, I believe there is inter est in this room in hearing more from the 
Commission about what is being envisaged in this area; 
 Technical regulations and standards :  The EU's use of international standards and 
other measures, such as recognition of conf ormity assessment, to ensure that the 
technical regulations and sanitary and phyt osanitary measures applied by the EU are 
not more burdensome than necessary to achie ve their objective, thereby avoiding 
creating unnecessary obstacles to trade with third countries; WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 4  
 
   Customs :  Recent changes to EU customs procedur es and their effects, in the light of 
the need to ensure an adequate balance be tween physical security at EU borders and 
trade facilitation; 
 Crisis-related support :  The extraordinary intervention by many EU Member States 
in support of domestic firms affected by the economic crisis, and progress in phasing 
out this support to prevent it from hinderi ng long-term adjustment in the targeted 
sectors; 
 Europe 2020 :  As the EU steps up efforts to boost productivity and competitiveness 
in order to achieve the economic growth  objectives defined in its Europe 2020 
strategy, many Members may wish to learn more about the extent to which further liberalization of the EU's external trade and investment regime is part of that strategy; 
 CAP :  I am sure that Members will be keen to learn about the prospects for further 
reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, particularly in the light of the 
Secretariat's conclusion that total agricultura l support is still considerable and tariffs 
affecting agricultural products remain relatively high;  and 
 Strengthening of the Single Market :  It will also be important to consider the 
implications for non-EU members of efforts to  reinforce the internal market for goods 
and services, including through work to  implement the Services Directive. 
  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 5 
 
 
  II. OPENING STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN 
UNION 
8. The monitoring role of the WTO and its transpar ency are of high importance for the European 
Union, with the Trade Policy Reviews being crucial for the good functioning of  this pillar. In this 
context, I would like to recall the importance of th e upcoming reappraisal of the Trade Policy Review 
Mechanism in which the EU will proactively particip ate to make sure that this mechanism provides 
significant value-added to all Members. In this r espect, I would like to recall the special responsibility 
of the EU as a major player in the international trade. 
9. But let me now focus on our own review. We see  this exercise as an excellent opportunity for 
ensuring a better understanding of the EU's and its Member States' trade policies and practices as well 
as hearing from other Members how these policies are perceived. The EU is the largest actor in 
international trade, representing some 17% of wo rld trade in goods and over a quarter of trade in 
services. Thus we feel a particular responsib ility for providing maximum transparency, and 
1,100 questions from over 30 Member s demonstrate keen interest of the WTO membership. During 
the last TPR, we received more than 1,400 questions . The responses to all questions submitted by the 
closing date and to most of those sent later have been distributed today in written form. Replies to 
questions received up until a week later after the deadline will be distributed on Friday; I hope Members will acknowledge the effort we have done. In this regard, it is however regrettable that 
around 35% of the questions were submitted after the deadline, with around 200 questions arriving 
from Members during the last days. This not only makes it impossible for us to present replies to 
those questions during our meeting, but also deprives other Members of the interesting insight that 
such questions could have provided to our debate. This issue could be something to be looked at 
during our upcoming reappraisal.  This being said,  we hope, of course, to be able to provide 
satisfactory replies to questions and comments we will receive during the review meeting today and 
on Friday.   
10. First, I would like to briefly look at the global environment since the last Trade Policy Review 
in April 2009.  At the time of the last EU TPR, the impact  of the economic and financial crisis was 
still strongly felt in the world economy. The EU's eco nomy was also seriously affected, with uncertain 
prospects for the future. Today we are glad to state that in 2010 the EU economy rebounded and the real output growth in the EU-27 reached 1.8%. The growth is, however, not uniform: while some Member States reached pre-crisis growth rates, othe rs are still in recession. However, the pace of the 
GDP growth is expected to remain stable overa ll in the EU according to our economic forecast. 
11. We are convinced that the resistance of the EU  to protectionist pressures played a major role 
in limiting the impact of the recession on trade. Du ring the crisis, keeping markets open, trade flowing 
and not giving in to protectionism were the princi ples the EU fought for. Unfortunately, this has not 
been the case everywhere, and the most recent moni toring reports prepared by the WTO point to an 
upward trend in the use of trade restrictive border m easures, including export restrictions, and hint at a 
possible resurgence of post-crisis protectionism.  Th is indicates that despite the world trade having 
bounced back with double-digit growth rates, pr otectionist tendencies continue to persist. 
12. In this context, the importance of transparency  and of the global action taken at the G20 level 
and in the WTO by monitoring and presenting regul ar reports on Members' trade measures cannot be 
underestimated. The EU has significantly contribute d to the successful monitoring work of the WTO 
by providing inputs in a regular and transparent fashi on. It is not by accident that these reports are rich 
in information about EU measures, as the informat ion provided reflects both the strict EU internal 
transparency rules and the complia nce with those. We do hope that this will serve as a good example 
t o  f o l l o w  b y  o t h e r  W T O  M e m b e r s .   I n  t h i s  w a y, by providing similar, full transparency and 
cooperation with the WTO in its monitoring tasks, th e future monitoring reports will be of real value-
added for all of us. As also stated in the reports for our today's meeting, we would like to emphasize WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 6  
 
  once again that despite sometimes strong protec tionist pressure, the EU has remained open and 
transparent in its trade and investment regime a nd refrained from introducing border measures, or any 
"Buy European" type of requirements in its procurement policies. 
13. In this context, I would also like refer to questions we received from some Members on the 
potential trade effects of government interventions  to support financial ins titutions and other sectors 
adversely affected by the crisis. Under the Eur opean Union's State aid rules, and the Temporary 
Framework adopted at the end of 2008, rescue measur es and other forms of state aid had to be limited 
in time and scope.  Support measures were only allowed if they complied with these strict state aid rules which acted as a safeguard against potential dist ortions to competition. Moreover, most of these 
measures were used to stabilize the financial sector  in a non trade-distorting manner. The take-up rate 
of aid – this is, the ratio of aid that was effectiv ely used by financial institutions out of the amounts 
committed by Member States - was of only 30%, even in the financial sector. In other words, 70% of 
the aid was actually not used. 
14. Even the sectoral support, like the various scrapping schemes for cars, was provided in a 
strictly non-discriminatory manner, equally stim ulating the purchase of domestic and EU products. 
And as we know, this was not the case in all WTO Members. Finally, these measures are in the 
process of being phased out as our economic recovery progresses.  
15. These stimulus programmes are qualitatively different from tariff or non-tariff border 
measures which directly and unquestionably restrict trade. The EU has introduced none of the latter. 
On the contrary, we have allowed unimpeded flows of imports and made active efforts to facilitate 
trade by stepping up official export credit and insu rance to fill the gap in trade financing left by 
private banks. This form of aid predominantly took the form of guarantees, most of which were never 
called upon and the aid element of which (the effectiv e monetary advantage) was much lower than the 
amount actually used.  
16. The global financial crisis re-confirmed the old tr uth for the EU - unity is power. Thus, as one 
of the lesson learned, the EU has recently taken several important decisions on economic governance 
in order to enhance its internal coordination. These decisions have a direct link to enhancing the EU's 
single market – a key objective of the EU for its  competitiveness agenda. A strong single market – 
which next year celebrates its 20
th anniversary – has already helped the EU to respond to the crisis and 
manage its impact, as it provides benef its to both companies and consumers. 
17. Improving our single market is a fundamental pr iority of the new economic strategy called 
"Europe 2020" - a 10-year strategy which aims to  lay solid foundations for a smart, inclusive, 
sustainable and job-creating growth. The Commission Communication, the "Single Market Act", 
issued in April 2011, sets a comprehensive two-year  plan for 2011-12. It examines how to strengthen 
the mutual links between internal and external re gulatory actions and explores how to enhance the 
synergies between them, in areas like government  regulation and international standards. 
18. A number of Members have addressed single market related issues in their questions. 
Concerning inquiries about the harmonization of such  policies as for instance taxation, we would once 
again like to recall that while the EU is the most advanced example in the world of a supra-national 
economic integration, not all policy inst ruments are harmonized at EU level. 
19. We have also seen some criticism of our regul atory policy – both in the report and in the 
questions we received. The EU's regulatory policy is guided by two basic principles; first, to protect 
the EU consumers – and this is an increasingly st rong expectation, considering e.g. the growing 
number of identified hazards for health or for the envi ronment.  Secondly, we do this in a manner that 
affects trade only as far as unavoidable. Accordingl y, our regulations do not just pursue legitimate 
objectives and are in most cases based on international standards, but are also subject to thorough  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 7 
 
 
  impact assessments and are developed through a transpar ent process. This allows all interested parties, 
including other WTO Members, to be fully involved. 
20. Some questioned the still not fully developed EU internal market for services; indeed further 
integration is underway and would be welcome. Ho wever, the "Services Directive", while still to be 
fully implemented has been a major and decisive st ep towards a more integrated single market for 
services, as it has triggered an unprecedented process of simplification and structural reform. Its full 
effects, with enhanced implementation, are to be felt in the coming years. 
21. Although this is our tenth Trade Policy Review , it is the first one under the name "European 
Union". The change stems from the Lisbon Treaty, a major institutional development since the last 
Review, which substantially modified the functioning of  the EU in the trade field. Its effect was also 
seen in this house when, during the last Minister ial meeting, the "European Communities" flag was 
replaced by the "European Union" one. Legally, the EU succeeds and takes over all rights and 
obligations of the European Communities. 
22. Most importantly, the Lisbon Treaty modified the way decisions on trade policy are adopted 
in the EU and included foreign direct investment  in the common commercial policy. As FDI has now 
also become a subject of exclusive competen ce of the EU, discussions are under way about the 
implementation of this change – and this w ill be a gradual process, not happening overnight.   I noted 
here the interest from a number of Members, ho wever we will not be able to provide detailed 
information at this stage as legislativ e processes in this area are still ongoing. 
23. The financial crisis and the resulting global economic downturn only served to increase the 
need to ensure that our policy priorities reflect  and respond to the economic and political challenges 
we face. As mentioned before, th e EU economic reform package and the "Europe 2020 strategy" were 
initiated as long-term responses to the economic a nd financial crisis. A crucial element of the 
Europe 2020 implementation agenda is trade, and the Commission's Communication titled "Trade, 
growth and world affairs" sets the EU trade and inv estment policy priorities for the next five years. 
The main thrust of our trade policy remains broa dly along the lines set by the earlier "Global Europe" 
communication in 2006: i.e. supporting sustainable development at home and abroad, by contributing 
to an open, balanced and well-f unctioning international trade regi me. Mainstreaming sustainability 
with its social and environmental dimension in all re levant policies is also a basic requirement set out 
in the Treaty on the European Union, both as re gards internal policies and external action. 
24. Turning to specific policies, multilateralis m remains our priority:  the WTO and the 
multilateral trading system are the focus of the EU trade policy, as we strongly believe that a system 
of global rules and multilaterally bound, non-discr iminatory market access commitments provide the 
best way to keep international trade open, ensu ring that prosperity can be widely shared. Our 
commitment to the Doha Round has been clearly demonstrated by the EU's overall attitude during 
these negotiations: we have played a constructive a nd active role and offered significant contributions 
in all areas of the negotiations with a view to reaching an ambitious, balanced and comprehensive 
agreement. Even quite recently we  took initiatives to help finding compromises, like our proposal on 
NAMA sectorals. Without attempting to analyse in de tail the present state of play, I would like to 
reiterate the EU's full and unwavering commitment to work towards a conclusion of the Doha Round 
in line with the mandate, in both its market access and rule making dimension.  
25. The non-negotiating agenda of the WTO is of  course also important: I think about the 
everyday Committee work and the di spute settlement mechanism. (Let me recall here that in 2009 we 
finally resolved the longest ever WTO trade dispute,  the one related to trade in bananas.) Moreover, 
the EU will continue to deploy resources to s upport further WTO accessions, including those of 
LDCs, and we call on other Members to do the same.  WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 8  
 
  26. However, prioritising the multilateral approach is  not incompatible with an active bilateral 
agenda, even if it must be considered as a second-be st option.  And that's why, in parallel with our 
dynamic participation in and firm commitment to the multilateral system, the EU has pursued complementary trade liberalization at both regional a nd bilateral level. We ha ve consistently defined 
our FTAs in ways that ensure these complement  the multilateral trading system, making them a 
stepping stone rather than a stumbling block fo r further multilateral trade opening. We pursue FTAs 
which are - in line with the letter and the spirit of  the WTO Agreements - comprehensive in scope and 
deep in terms of level of commitment. In fact, while cutting tariffs on indus trial and agricultural goods 
remains important, the challenge for these FTAs lies elsewhere. The EU focuses more on market 
access for services and improving conditions for inv estment, opening public procurement markets, 
better enforcement of protection of IPR, unrestri cted supply of raw materials and energy, and 
overcoming regulatory barriers, including via the prom otion of international standards. The FTA with 
Korea which just started to be provisionally applie d as of 1 July 2011 is the best example of our 
ambitious bilateral free trade agenda.  
27. We also pay systematic attention to the cohe rence between trade policy and development. In 
this regard, it is important to under line (even if this is not covered by the report) that the EU and its 
Member States are by far the largest trade re lated assistance (TRA) donors. In 2009, our TRA 
commitments kept increasing to reach almost €3 billion:   thus we delivered we ll over and in advance 
on our Hong Kong's pledge to provi de €2 billion in such assistance.  The EU is also the largest 
provider worldwide of Aid for Trade, providing €10. 5 billion (€3.35 by the Commission and €7.15 by 
Member States) in 2009. It is a remarkable in crease compared to 2006, when the EU provided 
€7.5 billion. 
28. Commitment to development has been the guidi ng principle also in our Economic Partnership 
Agreements with partners in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific.  The primary objective of EPAs is 
to foster development by providing our partner count ries with preferential acces s to the EU market, in 
compliance with WTO rules, and by improvi ng economic governance and supporting regional 
integration. 
29. In addition, our trade policy is providing unilateral trade preferences to the poorest 
economies, helping them to boost their exports and to  integrate into world markets. An example here 
is the EU's Generalized System of Preferences (G SP), which has been offering preferential market 
access with reduced or no duties over the last deca des. I would like to recall that 1 January 2011 
marks an important development in this area, as ne w, relaxed and simplified rules of origin entered 
into force, with particular emphasis on the LDCs. A nother step in the same direction, i.e. facilitating 
access to the EU market from the most needy Member s - has recently been la unched.  As the current 
scheme will expire at the end of 2013, the Comm ission has put forward a proposal for a new GSP 
system. The proposed changes create better opportun ities for those developing countries that are most 
in need according to the letter and the spirit of the Enabling Clause. I took good note of the questions 
on this proposal; but we remain fully convinced that  this proposal is not just fully WTO-consistent, 
but also reflects the current realities in world trad e.  We want our trade preferences to truly support 
development, by addressing the need of the most vul nerable. In the proposal we also maintain the 
special scheme for sustainable development (the GSP+ regime) rendering it more attractive for new participants and making it more operati onal.  But let me again recall that at the stage this is "just" a 
Commission's proposal which will have to underg o the usual legislative process in the coming 
months. 
30. 
Besides trade preferences, we have other instru ments which facilitate market access to the EU 
for all of our trade partners, and particularly to developing countries exporters: for example a free 
online service - the Export Helpdesk – is available si nce 2004. On this website, exporters interested in 
supplying the EU markets can find relevant inform ation such as, inter alia, import requirements, 
import tariffs, customs documents etc.   WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 9 
 
 
  31. Let me also touch upon some sector-specific po licy issues that have been the subject of a 
good number of questions from Members.  In the ag ricultural sector, the recent reforms have further 
modernized, streamlined and simplified the Common Agricultural Policy.  Most aid to farmers is 
granted in the form of non-trade distorting decoupl ed income support whereby there is no obligation 
to produce and farmers are free to follow market in centives, while for certain sectors a limited safety 
net is provided. In parallel, the ro le of the rural development policy has been further strengthened. We 
note a substantial interest of Members in the future  reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. It is 
too early to discuss the details as the legislativ e proposals for the policy to be applied from 2014, 
which are expected to be presented in the autumn of  this year. However, the broad policy options are 
outlined in the Commission Communication titled "T he CAP towards 2020: meeting the food, natural 
resources and territorial challenges of the fu ture" which was published in November 2010. 
32. Some Members have expressed criticism towards th e EU agricultural tariff structure. In this 
context, let me recall that the EU is the largest im porter of agricultural products in the world, with 
imports exceeding €80 billion in 2010 which is to th e benefit of all third country producers.  Thanks 
to its far-reaching agricultural policy reforms, under the DDA the EU could accept a steep reduction 
in the ceiling on its trade-distorting subsidies, the elimination of its export subsidies and a significant 
reduction of its border protection. This must be pa rt, of course, of the Single Undertaking, including 
such TRIPS issues as the GI register and GI extension.  
33. The manufacturing sector remains an integral part of the EU economy and an engine for 
growth. In parallel with efforts on the external fro nt to open up international markets, the current 
priority areas of the EU enterprise and industrial  policy on the internal front include: promoting 
entrepreneurship, flexible regulatory framework  that facilitates access to the single market, 
simplification of the regulatory and administrativ e environment; promoting competitive performance, 
innovation and improving skills. Increasing attention also  goes into fostering consistency with energy 
and environmental policies. The EU  tariffs for industrial products are among the lowest in the world. 
The EU average level of customs duty protecti on amounts to around 3.9% on industrial goods, 2.4% 
in trade-weighted terms, due to the numerous MFN rates. 
34. Taking into account the importance of high-t echnology and high-quality products for the 
economic development and exports of the EU, we have  to make sure that the level of protection for 
the Intellectual Property involved is corresponding ly high. Thus, the EU actively promotes the 
implementation of effective standards for IP protec tion and enforcement world-wide. We continue to 
pursuit the full implementation of the standards set by the TRIPs Agreement. In parallel, the EU 
negotiates and implements bilateral agreements wi th partner countries that include substantial IP 
provisions, also on border measures. We also provide  technical cooperation to a significant number of 
developing countries in this field. A deal was recently agreed among a number of developed and 
emerging countries on an anti-counterfeiting trade ag reement (ACTA), which wi ll help to tighten up 
enforcement by participating members, limiting th e market for counterfeit goods and strengthening 
protection for copyright and trademarked goods  and products with ge ographical indications. 
35. Despite the effects of the financial and economic  crisis, the EU firmly holds the position of 
the world's leading exporter and importer of commercial services and this reflects the degree of openness of our trade regime in this area. The EU  and its Member States have undertaken major 
commitments under the GATS in practically all major ser vice categories. As also noted in the reports, 
much progress has been made over the past fe w years, particularly in the financial, 
telecommunications and postal services areas since the last review.  WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 10  
 
  36. Before concluding, I would like to come back to  our main priority in trade – multilateralism. 
Notwithstanding the difficulties that the WTO Members now encounter in moving forward the DDA, the EU remains convinced that concluding the Doha  round must be the priority on the WTO agenda. 
In this regard, the EU will continue to play a l eadership role in promoting a realistic and balanced 
package for the December ministerial that would de liver a down payment in the interest of the poorest 
Members and would help us to move towards a succ essful conclusion of the Single Undertaking.   WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 11 
 
 
  III. STATEMENT BY THE DISCUSSANT (H.E. MR. FERNANDO DE MATEO 
(MEXICO)) 
37. As the European Union (EU) is the world's la rgest economy and leading trader, the impact of 
the crisis that began in 2008 was profound.  B ecause member States have very different economic 
structures, it was only natural that some were more affected than others.  Although I am sure that both 
the EU and its 27 member States did what was need ed to overcome the crisis, namely, substantially 
increase public spending and bail out the financial sector, each member State's starting point was a 
different economic situation and some of the me asures taken may have been excessive, so obviously 
the outcome was not the same for all of them either. 
38. Although there are no precise figures on government aid to deal with the crisis, it is estimated 
that in 2009 alone it amounted to more than 3.5%  of the EU's GDP.  The figure for support to the 
financial sector is much higher, amounting to 40% of the EU's GDP (even though everything appears 
to indicate that the support actually used represented around 10% of GDP).  Most of this support was in the form of guarantees.  In a couple of in stances, the guarantees covered all bank debt, which 
significantly intensified the economic crisis in at least one member State. 
39. There can be little doubt that both government sp ending and the support gi ven to the financial 
sector limited the damage to the EU's economy and, inasmuch as it accounts for almost 30% of global 
GDP and close to one fifth of total trade in goods and services, made a decisive contribution to preventing a repetition of the Great Depression of  the 1930s.  The EU and its member States 
nevertheless also granted subsidies to specific sector s.  These are the least effective type of subsidy 
and, what is more, are the most trade-distorting. 
40. The result of the increase in government sp ending, allied to the slowdown in economic 
activity during the crisis, was deterioration of the fi scal deficits which, in some member States, are 
substantial.  The fiscal consolidation required h as led to an excessive increase in the levels of 
unemployment, which rose by around 10% during the first quarter of 2011.  For member States in the Eurozone, which are now facing serious difficulties, the solution to their debt problems, low growth 
and unemployment does not lie in abandoning the euro .  Even if such a decision were not to have 
serious repercussions in internati onal financial and stock markets, de valuation would not be of much 
help because the EU's production structure is not  geared to exports of goods and services.  
Far-reaching structural reforms are needed  to boost productivity and competitiveness. 
41. In this connection, the courage shown by the Greek Government in promoting such reforms 
should be welcomed, and they were approved by Pa rliament last week.  They will not only enable 
Greece to receive financial support from the EU and the IMF, but will also, in essence, substantially 
raise productivity in an economy now marked by m onopolistic structures in several economic sectors.  
However, these reforms need to be undertaken not only by member States with deficits, which are 
already heavily engaged in the process of internal ad justment, even though the political cost is high.  
They also need to be undertaken by countries with surpluses so as to boost domestic demand and 
lessen the current imbalances. 
42. Without such reforms, the EU's economy have difficulty recovering in the long term and, 
more particularly, some of its member States wi ll continue to record low rates of growth and 
high levels of unemployment for some time yet.  Impor tant decisions also have to be weighed in the 
short term.  For example, one might questio n what appears will be the decision of the 
European Central Bank to raise interest rates agai n at a time when economic growth is still sluggish 
(despite the 3% rise in GDP in the first quart er of 2011 and important exceptions among member 
States), particularly when unemployment rates continue to be high and underlying inflation appears to be under control. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 12  
 
  43. It has to be recognized that, despite the daunti ng challenges it faces, the EU has been able to 
keep a tight rein on protectionist pressures.  Of course, mistakes have been made (and at the sectoral 
level these mistakes may be serious), for exampl e, the sectoral subsidies mentioned above, the 
reinstatement of subsidies for exports of milk, and renewal of the prior surv eillance scheme for steel 
imports. 
44. The EU is one of the WTO Members with the largest number of free trade agreements, both 
regional and bilateral.  It has signed agreements  with some 60 countries, and others are being 
negotiated.  The Chair of this Body and I have so me differences of opinion regarding this topic but, 
because of its systemic importance, I shall raise it anyway.  The EU exemplif ies the fact that the 
"spaghetti bowl" is not as serious as depicted, at least in the terms in which it has been defined so far.  
In fact, the EU, with all its trade agreements around the world, imports 80% of goods on an MFN 
basis (some estimates place the figure at 85%).  Only  15 to 20% of tariffs are in the famous bowl and 
they only appear to be significant for agricultural pr oducts and industrial products with tariff peaks. 
45. In the area of services as well there does not appear  to be any significant discrimination by the 
EU between those countries with which it has free tr ade agreements and other Members of the WTO.  
Exceptions to the foregoing are the civil aviation agreements (including, but not limited to, the 
European Common Aviation Area), the bilateral ma ritime and road transport agreements, and 
reinsurance agreements. 
46. There is also a spaghetti bowl as far as the EU's bilateral investment agreements are 
concerned.  As indicated by the Secretariat and the EU in their respective Reports, some 
1,200 bilateral agreements between EU member  States and non-member States are in effect.  
The Commission has issued draft regulations in an effo rt to put some order into this vast number of 
agreements, but the point is that each one is differe nt and involves commitments that may not be the 
same.  For example, some only cover national treat ment prior to establishment whereas others also 
cover national treatment after establishment. 
47. Mutual recognition agreements, whether or not included in free trade agreements, on 
conformity assessment and sanitary and phytosanitary measures in effect in the EU and those being 
negotiated, are further examples of this, as are b ilateral agreements on geogr aphical indications and 
intellectual property. 
48. I am not accusing the EU of any illegal act that violates the WTO, far from it.  It seemed to 
me that its model, with so many trade and other ag reements in force, can th row some light for us on 
our traditional concepts of regional trade agreements  and the size and nature of the spaghetti bowl.  
It may be time for us to start to review the way in which we define and me asure the famous spaghetti 
bowl. 
49. With regard to uniform application of cust oms procedures, although national customs laws 
may be consistent with EU customs legislation, in  practice there are still variations in implementation 
and this is why there has been recourse to disput e settlement procedures.  Furthermore, as to review 
by national courts of a decision taken by the customs administration of a particular member State, it is 
essential for the purpose of legal certainty, and in a situation in which cross-border operations 
predominate, that decisions are binding on all member States.  Otherwise, the utility of recourse will be limited and not very effective, to  the prejudice of commercial operators. 
50. In addition, the efforts being made by the EU for the effective implementation of trade 
facilitation measures that are of the utmost importa nce has to be recognized, for example, the single 
window for foreign trade transactions and the expanding and growing mutual recognition of 
authorized economic operators' schemes.  This is wh y it is important to respond to Members' requests 
for information on these programmes.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 13 
 
 
  51. As the EU's tariffs have been lowered, non-tariff barriers have become increasingly important 
for effective market access.  The Secretariat's Re port highlights the sizeable increase in the number of 
technical regulations in the EU, and the latter explai ns that this increase is the result of technical 
progress and the identification of new risks.  Between October 2008 and January 2011, the EU 
notified 146 technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures to the WTO.  To these must 
be added the 140 regulations notified by member States. 
52. Normally, a period of 60 days is given for se nding in comments on regulations notified by the 
EU.  For around one fifth of the notifications s ubmitted by member States, however, the time allowed 
was less than 60 days, making it difficult for WT O Members that do not have the institutional 
capacity to send in comments in time and in due form .  Furthermore, in certain cases draft regulations 
are notified to the WTO when discussions among EU me mber States are too far advanced to allow the 
views of WTO Members to be taken into account su fficiently.  Although the progress made by the EU 
in terms of transparency is to be welcomed, the effort s made in this area appear to be insufficient to 
assuage many of the concerns expressed by Members. 
53. The EU is the WTO Member that has been the subject of the largest number of concerns 
expressed by other Members with regard to the application of technical regulations, with 27 specific 
trade concerns raised during the period under revi ew.  Several Members have requested the EU to 
update various regulations that have been the subj ect of trade concerns.  They draw attention in 
particular to the regulations on chemicals (REACH ) and on the classification, labelling and packaging 
of substances and mixtures (ACPs and CLP), inter alia . 
54. Since the Lisbon Treaty came into force, th ere has been a new legal framework for the 
adoption of technical regulations and conformity  assessment procedures.  Some Members have 
expressed their concern, in particular, at the new common accreditation framework applied by the EU 
since January 2010 because of its possible negative im pact.  The EU should explain the consistency of 
Regulation No. 765/2008 with the agreements of relevant internationa l standardization and 
accreditation bodies. 
55. Lastly, the Report indicates that, within the framework of European Cooperation for 
Accreditation, the EU has signed a conformity assessment agreement on pharmaceuticals with Israel 
and is preparing or holding negotiations with sev eral countries in the "European neighbourhood".  
The EU should not limit these negotiations to neigh bouring countries and should, as far as possible, 
extend non-discriminatory treatment to countries that  are not part of the European neighbourhood. 
56. The Secretariat's Report provides an excellent picture of the development and practice of 
intellectual property in the EU, whose creative industr ies contribute 3.3% of the GDP and 3% of total 
employment.  With the intellectual property provi sions in the Lisbon Treaty, the EU has taken an 
important step towards an EU-wide IPR regime.  The Report highlights very positively the reduction 
in the cost of registering trademarks and in the processing time for straightforward Community 
trademarks.  It also highlights efforts to achieve better coordination for the enforcement of intellectual 
property rights.  The work undertaken to reform the copyright and patent regimes is praiseworthy, but 
considerable challenges remain.  In this connection, we regret that the EU has still not been able to 
introduce a single patent and a single patent tri bunal because this would undoubtedly be highly 
beneficial for trade. 
57. With the "health check" of the Common Agricultu ral Policy (CAP) at the end of 2008, the EU 
pursued the reform process to give the CAP a less im portant role in the market.  Since 2003, efforts 
have been made to alter the support structure,  moving away from price- and production-coupled 
programmes, which has meant that green box programme s have shown a substan tial increase and, in 
many cases, are the main form of domestic support given by the EU.  Despite the changes in the WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 14  
 
  support structure, price support measures still play an important role.  In 2009, according to OECD 
figures, the total level of support represented nearly  one third of the total value of production. 
58. The EU still gives considerable protection to agriculture, with an average applied tariff of 
15.2% in 2011.  This makes it 90
th among the Members and other countries listed in the WTO's World 
Tariff Profiles 2010 .  There is also a wide variation in agricultural tariffs, ranging from 0 to 200%.  
Although the average applied tariff has decreased in comparison with other years, this was not the 
result of reform but rather of the impact of high global prices for certain agricultural products on the 
level of protection afforded by non- ad valorem  tariffs. 
59. The Community tariff structure in this sect or is highly complex.  In addition to 
non-ad valorem tariffs, the EU has seasonal, mixed, compound and matrix tariffs, which make 
predictability more problematic for commercial operators.  In this connection, the famous 
Meursing table for processed products is the ba ne of many exporters and importers because, 
depending on the content of the product, there may be 27,720 possible tariff combinations. 
60. The agreement on improving market access for bananas should be welcomed because it 
brings to an end one of the longest-running disputes in the history of the GATT/WTO. 
61. We hope that the next Review of the EU will pr ovide us with an opportunity to confirm that 
the Commission's intention to ensure  that the 2013 CAP will be more environmentally-friendly, more 
equitable, more efficient and more effective will c ontinue to be the guiding principle for the reform 
process.  With the decrease in export subsidies a nd in intervention, nominal agricultural protection, 
i.e. the difference between international and domestic  prices, has lessened.  Tariffs remain very high, 
however.  The 2013 CAP must tackle this problem and,  of course, the most direct route would be to 
conclude the Doha Round. 
62. The services sector accounts for around 70% of the GDP and jobs in the EU.  Trade in 
services also felt the impact of the global economic crisis, falling by 16% between the third quarter of 
2008 and the first quarter of 2009.  As a result of th e global economy's recovery, in the third quarter 
of 2010 the value of exports and imports of services had already reached pre-crisis levels. 
63. The EU's efforts to make its service suppliers more competitive and productive have been put 
into effect through implementation of the Services Directive of December 2006, which applies to all 
services except for a few such as sanitary services and, it will come as no surprise, audiovisual and 
broadcasting services, and some legal services.   Liberalization of the financial sector, 
telecommunications and transport has been  regulated through other instruments. 
64. It is in the services sector that the EU needs to  make greater efforts to achieve full integration 
of its member States' economies and still boost ec onomic growth.  The measu res taken and under way 
in the financial sector should be acknowledged, especia lly after the deep-rooted crisis experienced by 
the sector from the end of 2008 onwards. 
65. Despite the reforms undertaken to liberali ze the telecommunications sector, which have 
indubitably intensified competition and lowered pri ces, redoubtable challenges remain.  The measures 
adopted to improve consumer protec tion and users' rights are welcome, together with those to enhance 
competition and the independence of national regulator y authorities.  There are, however, differences 
in the supply of telecommunications services am ong member States and few propose pan-European 
services. 
66. As regards postal services, the EU is in the vanguard of liberalization.  At the end of 2010, the 
latest legislative measures to eliminate the existi ng restrictions were introduced, enabling 16 member 
States to abolish all postal service monopolies still re maining, and the rest will do the same in 2012.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 15 
 
 
  67. Lastly, I cannot miss the opportunity of mentioning that, although it already participates 
actively in the Doha Round negotiations, it is ex tremely important for the EU to show more 
leadership. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 16  
 
  IV. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 
JAPAN 
 
68. I would like to express our appreciation to the EU for its contribution to the work of this 
Organisation including its efforts to resist to th e protectionist temptations as well as to advance the 
DDA.  While welcoming the rebound of the growth in the EU as a whole the situation of the financial 
market in the EU remains to be one of th e biggest concerns for the world economy.  
69. With general trade and investment policy, Jap an welcomes that the Lisbon Treaty clarified 
and broadened the scope of its trade policy. We al so welcome that the EU's common external policy 
now clearly encompasses foreign direct investment.  We expect that under the Lisbon Treaty, the EU 
will further develop and implement an integrated  and coherent common external trade policy.  
70. Having said that, I will make several comments on specific trade and investment policies. 
Firstly, on the subject of rules and regulations  within the EU, Japan expects their further 
simplification and transparency, as well as consistent a pplications in order to ensure the integrity of a 
single market. Among other things, we have specif ic concerns over procedures for intra-corporate 
transferees in some of the Member States. Also we  are concerned with delays in the establishment of 
a unified EU patent system and a patent court. We expect the EU to further develop common policies, 
to simplify regulations and EU Member States to implement them effectively which will bring about 
further improvement of its business environment.  
71. Secondly, with regard to tariffs, I would like to express our continuing concern over the 
classification of IT products. As a participant in the ITA, the EU is obliged to eliminate those tariffs 
on IT products covered by the Ag reement.  We have noticed several cases in which multifunctional or 
high performance IT products have been re-classifi ed as products under different categories that are 
not covered by the ITA and therefore loaded with tariffs. We will continue to monitor such cases and 
take any necessary action when and if appropriate.  
72. Thirdly, I would like to comment on governme nt procurement. The EU has a two-layer 
system in government procurement, namely EU dir ectives and the national legislation. For Japan, this 
constitutes a large and complicated set of legislatio ns.  Furthermore, there are some provisions in 
these directives which leave some ambiguity as to th eir interpretations and a pplications. So we hope 
to be able to understand its system better through this TPR.  
73. Finally, I would like to express our sincere hope  that the EU will continue to engage in 
maintaining and enhancing the multilateral trade system , as well as to further our bilateral relationship 
based on our recent summit, and will further promote the liberalization of its trade and investment 
regime and the harmonization of  its rules and regulations.  
BRAZIL 
74. Taken together, the 27 Members countries of the EU continue to be Brazil's largest trading 
partner, accounting for approximately 22% of our fo reign trade in 2010.  After the economic crisis, 
trade between Brazil and the EU dropped considerably  in 2009, but recovered in 2010 to €64 billion, 
slightly above the 2008 level. 
75. As regards investments, available data indicate th at in 2009, the stock of Brazilian investment 
in the EU totaled €56 billion, making Brazil the sixth la rgest foreign investor in the bloc.  Brazil, in 
turn, ranks as the fourth largest foreign recipien t of EU investment (after the United States, 
Switzerland and Canada) with €1 32 billion in stock in 2009.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 17 
 
 
  76. The EU has responsibilities with relation to  the multilateral trading system that are 
commensurate to its position as the world's largest economy and trader.  And Brazil appreciates the 
fact that the EU acknowledges this responsibility in it s report. We therefore hope that, in this Review, 
we might help with the identification of certain ar eas where we believe that existing trade barriers and 
distortions might be tackled in a way that could be beneficial to both the EU and its trading partners. 
77. In recent years, the Common Agricultural Po licy has been moving towards more market-
oriented measures, but at an extremely slow p ace.  European producers have systematically and 
unfairly in our view competed with farmers of the developing world, inducing and aggravating food 
dependency in the poorest countries.  The more recent manifestations of food crisis find their roots in 
deep distortions introduced decades ago. 
78. We therefore welcome the steps in agricultura l reform undertaken by the EU since 2003.  
Coupled payments are being discontinued and the Single Farm Payments progressively account for a 
larger share of domestic support.  Nonetheless, in  some commodities, the accumulation of different 
types of support raises doubts as to the final orie ntation and effect of these simultaneous support 
policies.  Likewise, market price support schemes  still burden consumers with large and unnecessary 
transfers of resources to producers. 
79. Only an operational and equitable market-orien ted system could equip producers with the 
necessary efficiency and responsiveness to meet th e challenges of global growing demand for food, 
effectively addressing problems like food security an d high price volatility for agricultural products. 
80. In addition, agricultural export subsidies re main a concern despite recent declines in 
disbursements that reflect, partly the effects of the CAP reform, partly the quite favorable prices of 
commodities today.  In fact, we found it worrisome that , in the first instance of declining prices, in 
2009, the EU hasted to reinstate export refunds for the dairy sector.  This sends a bad signal and casts 
a shadow on the EU's commitment to the Hong Kong mandate. 
81. Market access to the EU's highly regulated agricu ltural market is still a formidable challenge.  
First, the levels of border protection remain quite high, with an average MFN tariff of 15.2%, almost 
four times higher than that prevailing for non-agricultu ral products.  Second, exports to the EU must 
overcome either constantly changing  regulations that often constitute virtual bans on trade, or face 
lengthy renegotiations of tariff concessions under Article XXVIII. 
82. During the review period, EU regulations in ar eas such as chemicals, nickel and poultry meat 
have raised considerable concern.  With respect  to the EU regulation on registration, evaluation, 
authorization and restriction of chemicals (the so- called REACH regulation), our main concerns relate 
to highly complex registration requirements and appa rent violations of national treatment.  Regarding 
the regulation on the classification of nickel compounds (known as 1st ATP to the CLP Regulation), 
Brazil is concerned with the lack of scientific data  and the rush to regulate.  On the regulation on 
marketing standards for poultry meat, we regret that the EU did not incorporate, in the final regulation on 2009, our suggestions related to defrosted to poultry meat.  This would have been less restrictive 
for foreign producers and might have avoided violations of WTO disciplines. 
83. As regards market access for industrial goods, the Secretariat Report shows that the highest 
tariffs for industrial goods in the EU are concentrat ed on sectors of priority interest for developing 
countries, like fish and its products, for which the tariff peaks are around 26%. 
84. The Secretariat Report also notes the considerable  intervention by many EU Member States in 
support of domestic firms affected by the economic crisis.  State aid that was supposed to buttress the 
crisis-struck financial system, was also directed at many other sectors such as automobiles, 
construction, and tourism.  Moreover, despite th e international economic recovery, measures that WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 18  
 
  were to be temporary have not yet been discontinue d.  Brazil would urge the EU to phase out crisis-
related targeted measures in order to ensure d esirable and much-needed long-term adjustment and 
restructuring in inefficient sectors. 
85. My delegation notes the efforts the EU intends to undertake so as to "mitigate and adapt to 
climate change with complementary trade policies" .  Brazil agrees that the challenges arising from 
climate change require a wide range of actions and congratulates the EU on its "carbon emission 
reduction targets" under the Emission Trading System as states in the Report. 
86. We must never lose sight, however, that the UNFCCC Agreement stipulates that "measures 
taken to combat climate change, including unilatera l ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary 
or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restric tion on international trade".   In that context, 
Brazil has been closely following the recent adop tion of Directive 2009/28/EC, "on the use of energy 
from renewable sources", especially the ongoing debat es on sustainability criteria for biofuels.  Brazil 
reiterates that environmental standards and labelin g schemes for environmental purposes must always 
be implemented with transparency and based on th e best available scientific data.  Avoiding the 
proliferation of multiple private standards will also  help ensuring that these schemes are in line with 
the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development. 
87. Brazil also welcomes the EU's statements favouring the liberalization of trade in services.  
However, in our view, the EU could do more in th is area to achieve full compliance with the GATS.  
For instance, as pointed out by the Secretariat's Re port, the EU has not notified, under Article III:3 of 
the GATS, any new or any changes to existing laws a nd regulations related to trade in services.  This 
is regrettable from our perspective, given that other Members, many of them with less human and 
technical resources, have been able to make such notif ications.  This situation is  particularly serious in 
light of several measures of government support fo r the financial sector taken by the EU Member 
States in response to the financial crisis. 
88. The calls for liberalization in services could also be furthered by addressing certain features 
of the EU's own schedules of specific commitments.  Brazil has always under lined shortcomings and 
effective "carve outs" in areas such as "public utilities"  and in the concept of "continuous link with the 
economy of Member States".  These failings cont radict the basic principles of clarity and 
predictability expected from scheduled commitments. 
89. Furthermore, on the implementation of commit ments pursuant to Article XXI of the GATS, 
due to the expansion of the EU, the delay in th e ratification process of the EU-25 certified schedule 
constitutes a matter of great concern to us, especia lly because of its systemic implications.  Brazil 
would, therefore, encourage the EU to intensify effo rts with a view to definitively solving this issue. 
90. On intellectual property rights, Brazil has been  following closely the process of review of 
Council Regulation 1383/2003, which provided the le gal basis for the seizures of legal generic 
medicines while they were in transit in the EU.  Need less to say, we are of the view that the seizure of 
generic medicines due to alleged patent infringement s in the country of tran sit is not only a clear 
violation of WTO disciplines;  it also has damaging effects on the public health system of developing 
and least developed countries, and is against the spirit of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS 
Agreement and Public Health. 
91. Brazil has taken particular note of the publication, on May 24, of a draft proposal for a new 
regulation in the context of the EU overall Intellectua l Property Strategy.  We have also noted that the 
EU stated in a press release that this new propo sal was intended "to improve the situation of 
legitimate medicines in transit".  We urge the European Commission, as well as the European Council 
and European Parliament, which are expected to comment on the proposal, to find a solution that not  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 19 
 
 
  only improves but also in fact prevents, definitiv ely, the possibility of new seizures of legitimate 
medicines in transit in the ports of the EU. 
KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 
92. The EU is one of the principle engines of global economic growth.  As such it is safe to say 
that a healthy and vibrant EU is a "must" for conti nued growth of the global economy.  In this context, 
we would like to congratulate the EU on its su ccessful introduction of the necessary legal and 
institutional arrangements, which are designed to c ope with the new challenges brought in by the 
Lisbon Treaty in an appropriate and timely manner.   We should like to particularly welcome the 
expansion of its exclusive competence to cover ser vices and foreign direct investment.  We expect 
that the EU will further enhance its leadership  and contribution as it proactively engages in 
international trade with such broadened competence. 
93. Last year, Korea was the fourth largest non-Eur opean trading partner for the EU while the EU 
was Korea's third largest trading partner with th e bilateral trade volume reaching US$92 billion.  A 
steady increase in the bilateral trade in the first five months 2011 reveals that the EU is expected to 
regain its long-held status as Korea's second largest trading partner.  What is equally encouraging is 
that the EU and Korea very much set their si ghts on the forward-looking partnership as the EU 
remains Korea's largest source of FDI. 
94. The defining moment in our bilateral economic  relationship has recently come.  We expect 
that, this year, bilateral trade will record more th an US$100 billion for the first time ever, thanks to 
the Korea-EU FTA which took effect 1 July, just five days ago.  As you are probably aware, the Korea-EU FTA is a comprehensive and ambitious one , aimed at achieving the highest possible degree 
of trade liberalization in various areas.  From the pe rspective of Korea, this demonstrates that the EU 
and Korea have made genuine efforts to further liber alize trade and investment even in the face of the 
financial and economic crisis, instead  of resorting to protectionist measures, which should be a major 
plus for the WTO. 
95. Let me turn to some areas of particular inter est and concern to us in respect of the economic 
and trade policies of the EU.  I would like to make three comments in this regard.  First, the sovereign 
debt crisis still lingering in the Euro zone a nd its potential negative impact on the world economy 
remain a great concern to us and to the entire WT O membership.  We sincerely hope that the EU and 
its Member States, in close coopera tion with relevant international in stitutions, will address this crisis 
in a timely and effective manner.  We also subscribe to the EU's assessment that structural reforms are 
needed not only to correct  this situation but also to fulfil the economic growth objectives defined in its 
Europe 2020 Strategy, as mentioned in the Secretariat Report. 
96. Second, the European Commission submitted its first annual Trade and Investment Barriers 
Report to the European Council in March 2011.  We hope that this Report will contribute to 
preventing protectionist measures and tackling barrier s to trade and investment as indicated in the 
Report by the European Union.  At the same ti me, we would like to encourage the Commission to 
provide the countries concerned with an opportunity , in advance of the submission of its future 
reports, to offer their opinions on relevant informati on so that they can be properly reflected in its 
future version of the Report.  This will help prev ent wrong information and in correct facts from being 
fed into the report, thereby minimizing any unnecessary  adverse effects on the credibility of the EU as 
well as on the countries concerned. 
97. Third, with the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, FDI now falls under the exclusive 
competence of the EU.  Accordingly, we understa nd that the Commission is now in the process of 
preparing a comprehensive investment policy as well as transitional measures regarding existing bilateral agreements between EU Members States and third countries.  Korea has been following the WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 20  
 
  developments with great interest since Korea h as bilateral investment agreements with 20 EU 
Member States.  This new landscape in the area of the EU's investment policies will have enormous 
implications for the countries concerned, particularly  their businesses.  In this connection, we would 
appreciate it if the EU could provide us with a de tailed explanation of the ongoing process with regard 
to its new investment policy. 
98. Last but not least, we very much appreciate the efforts made by the EU for an early 
conclusion of the DDA negotiations by arranging high level gatherings and tabling useful proposals 
with a view to trying and finding a possibl e middle ground, such as the recent one on NAMA 
sectorals.  We hope that the EU will continue to  make contributions towards advancing the DDA 
negotiations.  In this regard, I can assure you, that Korea will also do its due part to help move the 
stalled negotiations forward in cooperati on with the EU and other Members.    
CHINA 
99. As the world's largest economy, the EU presen ts a mixed macroeconomic picture across EU-
27 during the review period. At the time of the prev ious review, the EU was in the midst of a severe 
and widespread economic recession. Supported by the considerable fiscal and financial policy 
stimulus, the EU economy rebounded in 2010 with real  output growth reaching 1.8%.  It is expected 
to rise by a further 1.8% in 2011. According to th e Secretariat Report, this economic recovery is 
moderate, compared to the pre-crisis growth of 3% , and uneven. The soverei gn debt crisis in some 
euro-area countries is still clouding the path to gr owth. High unemployment and inflation risks further 
add to the uncertainty of the economic outlook an d the difficulties of the authorities to weigh in. 
Given the importance of the EU and its Member Stat es globally, it is in the interest of the world 
economy that the EU decision make rs manage the situation well. 
100. Yet, despite the above challenges which certain ly have intensifying effects on protectionist 
pressures, the EU deserves applause for having largely resisted trade protectionism. On the contrary, it 
has taken a leading role in promoting internationa l cooperation in response to the crisis, at the WTO 
as well as in the G20. It needs to point out, thou gh, that the reintroduction of export subsidies on dairy 
products has been rather disappointing. 
101. This naturally leads me to some comments on EU's trade policy. China appreciates the EU's 
commitment to the multilateral trading system and its leadership role in the Doha Round. My 
delegation enjoys a very good wo rking relationship with Ambassador  Pangratis and his team in 
Geneva. China and the EU, together with many other Members, have a shared vision that an early 
harvest focusing on LDCs' concerns at MC8 would e nhance the credibility of the WTO and lay a solid 
foundation for the conclusion of the single-undertak ing in the future. China also commends the EU 
and its Member States for being the leading provider of aid for trade. 
102. That being said, the Secretariat Report has noted  that some long-standing barriers to market 
access and other measures distorting international co mpetition remain in place. I would like to list a 
few of them which have been brought to our close atte ntion.  First of all, the EU remains an important 
user of anti-dumping measures. Almost 45% of its measures in force are applied to a single WTO 
Member, which is China. China is firmly opposed  to the abuse of trade remedy measures and the 
practice to convert them into a form of handy trad e protectionist tool. To be more case-specific, China 
finds it hard to understand the rati onale behind EU's decision in June this year to extend for one more 
time the anti-dumping duty on Chinese bicycles 17 years after this "non-sun-setting" remedy measure 
was initiated in 1993. 
103. Secondly, TBT and SPS are persistent cause of concern. During the last review, many 
Members complained about the EU's TBT regime  for creating unnecessary obstacles to trade. This 
situation has not been improved. The same could be  said for its SPS measures. Some of its Member  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 21 
 
 
  States fail to notify TBT/SPS measures at the national level in line with WTO rules. Specifically, 
China would like to call upon the EU to expedite it s work so as to normalize our bilateral trade in 
poultry products. 
104. Thirdly, China takes note of the continuing  reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. 
However, the agriculture sector still enjoys high protection through high tari ffs and considerable 
export subsidies and domestic support. 
105. Fourthly, the EU's tariff structure remain s complex. Around 11% of tariff lines are non-
ad valorem . Close to 9% of all tariff lines have MFN rates exceeding 15%. 
106. A new area of concern relates to the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which integrates 
foreign direct investment into EU external trad e policy, thus attributing to the EU exclusive 
competence in this area.  As a result, EU Memb er States are no longer competent to negotiate 
international agreements on foreign direct invest ment with third countries unless empowered to do so 
by the EU.  China is concerned about the impact th at this new regime will have on the existing BITs 
concluded by its member states and third parties. 
107. I would like to turn to the b ilateral front. China and the EU have been two major forces in 
advocating free trade, multilateralism and peace in the world. During the visit of President Van 
Rompuy to Beijing in May this year, President Hu Jintao highlighted that "an economically stable and prosperous Europe is good for both the world and Ch ina". President Hu's words had been reflected in 
China's quick action to help maintain stability in the Euro zone and promote economic recovery in 
Europe. China and the EU's strengthened cooperation in this regard bears significant and far-reaching 
influence to the safeguarding of common interest s of both sides and paves the way for expanded 
mutually beneficial cooperation in the future. 
108. China and the EU are important trading partne rs to each other. Our cooperative partnership 
faces huge potential in trade, investment and other growth areas, such as the new energy. The EU is 
now China's largest trading partner while China is the EU's second largest trading partner and second 
largest export market. While the EU remains one of the top FDI investors of China, China's 
investment across the 27 Member Stat es has also been gaining momentum  in recent years. In addition, 
the simultaneous launch of China's 12
th Five-Year Plan (2011-2015) and the Europe 2020 Strategy 
will undoubtedly create huge potential for China-EU cooperation.  
109. Before conclusion, I would like to share with you an old Chinese saying: Good medicine is 
bitter to the taste; good comments are harsh to the ear! I look forward, at the next TPR of the EU, to 
even closer ties between China and the EU and mu ch greater progress in various aspects of the EU 
trade and economic regime. 
AUSTRALIA 
110. Taken as a single entity, the EU is the world's la rgest trader, and is Australia's second largest 
trading partner.  Australia's exports to the EU, both goods and services, represent 9.5% of our total 
exports.  Imports from the EU represent 19% of our to tal imports.  The EU is also Australia's largest 
source of foreign investment, and the largest foreign destination for Australian investors. 
111. Australia is pleased to have a close bilateral relationship with the EU.  We both support a 
strong, open and rules-based multilateral trading sy stem.  We welcome the EU's efforts, led by 
Commissioner De Gucht, to progress the Doha Round.   We agree that concluding the Round is our 
best insurance against protectionism and would al so provide a much-needed boost to global economic 
confidence.  We urge the EU to stay on track for further reform and to resi st internal pressures to 
resort to protectionist measures in the wake of the current financial difficulties. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 22  
 
  112. Services are a central part of the EU economy.  Australia works cooperatively with the EU on 
services issues in the WTO.  We are pleased that services remain a priority for the EU and encourage 
it to continue efforts to create a genuine intern al market through the removal of regulatory and 
administrative barriers to trade in services between Member States, for example in professional services, in particular accounting, legal, and architectural services. 
113. The EU's regulatory environment is another ke y area of interest to other Members.  We 
recognise there are legitimate public policy concer ns relating to issues such as food safety and 
environmental protection, and acknow ledge the generally transparent way in which the EU develops 
and adopts measures affecting trade.  But there is no one size fits all approach, and individual WTO 
Members should have flexibility to address public po licy concerns in whatever way they see fit as 
long as they meet their international obligations.  Given the important principle for Australia and is 
one we would encourage the EU to take note in  its regulatory and standards setting processes. 
114. Sometimes problems do arise in the EU regulat ory environment.  As we have seen with 
REACH Directive and the reclassification of nickel compounds, a decision once made can be very difficult to reverse – even after it has become clea r that the reasons for the decision have not been 
sound. 
115. On procurement matters, we are concerned that the EU is considering discriminating against 
the goods, services and suppliers of all WTO Me mbers who are not parties to the Government 
Procurement Agreement, or do not have bilateral agreements with the EU.  This includes Members 
like Australia, who have non-discriminatory open government procurement markets. 
116. We are also concerned that the EU will extend its emission trading system to include aviation 
emissions from 1 January 2012.  Australia reiterate s that it favours a multilaterally endorsed global 
framework to address aviations emissions , rather than unilateral measures. 
117. As one of the biggest players in the international trading system, the EU plays a central role in 
agricultural trade issues, both in terms of trade po licy and in the Doha Round.  Agriculture remains 
the most heavily distorted sector of international tr ade, and the EU remains one of the world's leading 
subsidisers of agriculture.  The EU is an important  market for Australian exporters, for many of our 
fellow Cairns Group members and for developing countries. 
118. The EU is one of the key players in the Doha negotiations, needs to demonstrate leadership on 
trade reform if we are to secure progress this year.  This kind of lead ership could again be 
demonstrated in the context of the December Ministerial meeting by the EU taking a decision to implement its commitment to eliminate the use of export subsidies by 2013, as part of a broader 
outcome on export competition issues.  By translating words into real action, the EU would send a 
positive signal about the reform agenda beyond Dece mber and it would also deliver real benefits, 
including to agricultural producers in many developing countries. 
119. Many Members share Australia's interest in  the ongoing reform of the EU's Common 
Agricultural Policy.  In particular we look forwar d to further reform as the EU designs the post-2013 
CAP and sets a new CAP budget.  While Australia  welcomes the movement towards less trade-
distorting forms of support through direct paym ents, overall levels of CAP payments have not 
decreased, and the CAP is still the largest single ite m in the EU budget (accounting for around 40% of 
expenditure).  Also, the absence of reductions in  simultaneous market access barriers means that 
competitive exporters still find it very difficult to access the EU market. 
120. The EU has pursued regional trade agreements and other preferential trading arrangements.  
Australia in one of only nine WTO Members subject to the MFN tariffs.  We urge the EU to pursue 
such agreements in a way that supports the multilateral trading system by seeking the maximum  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 23 
 
 
  possible coverage of trade in such arrangements.  As we have already said, we appreciate the EU's 
efforts to support the multilateral syst em in the Doha Round negotiations.  
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 
121. With regard to the macroeconomic situation, we note with satisfaction that, despite suffering 
the effects of the global financial crisis, the EU has kept its trade and investment regime open and 
transparent, which has had a stabilizing effect  on the multilateral trading system.  The recent 
symposium of the Trade Policy Review Body on the economic and financial cris is and the WTO's role 
underlined the transparency with which the EU app lied trade-related measures.   Nevertheless, it is 
important to emphasize that the effects of trade are very different in the various member States owing 
to the uneven progress made in terms of productiv ity and competitiveness within the euro zone, 
according to the Secretariat's Report, so we agree wi th the EU, which considers that structural reforms 
are needed to remedy this situation and to ach ieve the economic growth objectives defined in its 
Europe 2020 Strategy. 
122. We note with interest the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, since when 
the EU's foreign trade and investment policy has b een conducted within a radically changed legal and 
institutional framework.  The European Parliame nt now has the same rights as the Council for the 
adoption of trade legislation, and must give its consent before the Council can ratify international 
trade agreements. 
123. The EU is the Dominican Republic's second most important trading partner and is the first in 
terms of bilateral assistance for development and fo reign investment.  Our trade relations are currently 
conducted through the Economic Partnership Agre ement between the EU and CARIFORUM, which 
covers almost all trade between both groups of countr ies, 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 financ ial cooperation programmes, making it a true example of a tool for 
development. 
124. As regards trade policy instruments at the multilate ral level, we note that the EU has made no 
changes since the previous Review in 2009 and that the average applied tariff fell to 6.4% in 2011, 
with that in the agricultural se ctor falling from 17.9% in 2008 to 15.2% in 2011.  We also note with 
satisfaction that the EU has intr oduced changes to customs procedur es, implementing trade facilitation 
measures such as the establishment of single wi ndow services and the introduction of a customs 
registration number recognized throughout the EU , measures which will help to lower transaction 
costs. 
125. We also view positively the fact that reform of the CAP has focused on reducing export 
subsidies and domestic support, which distort trade, and has reduced still further the CAP's role in the 
market, expanding systems of  support decoupled from agricu ltural prices or production. 
126. We should emphasize, however, that we remain  concerned by the large number of non-tariff 
measures notified by the EU, 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, especially for developing countri es.  It is suggested, and we agree with this 
suggestion, that it is important for the EU to c onsider carefully the potential trade impact of its 
regulatory environment, including its high regulatory standards as regards food and product safety, so 
as to ensure that its technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures do not create unnecessary barriers to trade. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 24  
 
  CANADA 
127. Canada and the EU have long had mutually be neficial economic relations.  As a unified 
group, the EU is Canada's second largest partner for trade and investment.  In  2009, Canada's exports 
of goods and services to the EU amounted to $49. 1 billion, while imports from the EU reached 
$55.2 billion.  The same year, known direct inv estment by the EU in Canada amounted to 
$146.9 billion, corresponding to 26% of the total stock of foreign investment in Canada.  Known 
direct investment by Canada in the EU amounted to $145.2 billion, or 23.5% of Canadian foreign 
direct investment (FDI).  The EU is also a leadin g partner in science and tech nology and for Canada is 
an importance source of innovative technology. 
128. Bilateral relations between Cana da and the EU have become cl oser since negotiations were 
initiated in May 2009 on a comprehe nsive economic and trade agreement.   This is the most important 
bilateral initiative launched by Canada since the North American Free Trade Agreement and Canada 
notes with satisfaction that the negotiators have ad opted a sustained pace in order to conclude the 
negotiations by the end of 2012.  Ambitious re sults will have a strong catalytic effect on our 
economies in terms of competition, innovation a nd growth.  The negotiations on a Canada-EU 
comprehensive economic and trade agreement unde rline Canada's commitment to the multilateral 
trading system and to a fruitful outcome to the Doha Round. 
129. During the review period, the entry into force of the Liston Treaty has expanded the scope of 
the EU's common commercial policy by confirmi ng the EU's exclusive competency over services, 
FDI and the trade aspects of IP.  It also clarified the roles of the EU institutions, notably by extending 
an important decision-making role to the European Pa rliament in adopting EU trade legislation and in 
approving international trade agreements.  We hope  that these changes will enhance policy coherence 
and result in even stronger EU support for the multilateral trading system. 
130. Like many of our economies, the EU was hard-h it by the global financial crisis and some of 
its Member States' public finances are now in a precar ious situation.  These are often testing times for 
one's commitment to free trade and open markets.  In  this context, Canada commends the EU for its 
continued international leadership, including at th e G20, in fighting protectionism.  Canada would 
also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge  the EU's efforts to achieve an ambitious and 
successful outcome to the Doha Round negotiations. 
131. While disagreements affect only a small frac tion of Canada-EU trade and investment, we 
nonetheless remain concerned with the growing nu mber of regulatory barriers which hinder or 
threaten to hinder access to the European ma rket for Canadian businesses.  While the uneven 
harmonisation of regulations across the EU and the lack of timely and complete transposition of EU 
directive by Member States is a continued source of preoccupation, there are a number of specific issues which Canada would like to highlight in this TPR.  
132. Canada and the EU share the legitimate objectiv es of protecting human, animal, plant health 
and the environment.  While recognizing that th ere are different approaches to reaching these 
objectives, we have the highest expectations that the EU will ensure that any measures it takes are 
science-based, no more trade-restrictive than necessary and reflect the realities of global trade today.  
Unfortunately, in too many cases the EU has not lived up to these expectations. 
133. For instance, Canada reiterates its deep disappoi ntment that the EU has chosen to place severe 
restrictions on the trade of seal products, despite th e facts that the Canadian seal harvest is lawful, 
sustainable, humane, strictly regulated and m onitored and guided by rigorous animal welfare 
principles.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 25 
 
 
  134. Canada has serious concerns about the lack of scientific basis or rigour for a range of 
measures proposed or adopted in the EU.  The pr oposed treatment of Canadian oil sands products 
under the EU Fuel Quality Directive's implementin g measures is one example.  The measures under 
consideration are not based on science and have th e potential to unjustifiably and arbitrarily 
discriminate against Canadian oil sands.  The EU 's classification of most nickel substances as 
carcinogenic on the basis of water solubility only is  another example.  Other measures that lack a 
scientific basis and that are of concern to Canada  include the EU's policies and decisions regarding 
genetically modified organisms, as well as its ba n on ractopamine, and the associated efforts to 
introduce regional issues that are not considered legitimate into the context of  Codex decision-
making. 
135. Canada is also concerned that labelling or traceability requirements beyond what is necessary 
for consumer information can place a disproportiona te burden on imports given the complexities of 
manufacturing processes and global value-chains.  For example the EU's Illegal Timber Regulation has traceability requirements that could provide an unfair competitive advantage to manufacturers of 
forest products in the EU compared to their international competitors. 
136. Canada continues to urge the EU to develop and implement policies in a manner that does not 
place in jeopardy the market access that has been a fforded to WTO Members and that does not create 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade.  Canada and the EU have much to gain from a free and 
uninterrupted flow of trade. 
PAKISTAN 
137. Taken as a single entity, the EU is the world's la rgest trader.  The impact of global financial 
crisis was felt severely by the EU Member States when the global trade declined by over 12% in 
2009.  The recovery from recession in 2011 is still frag ile in the West.  The current challenge for the 
EU is the burden of debt carried by some EU Member States which is not sustainable over the 
medium term.  The European Council delivered a co mprehensive package of crisis response in March 
2011 to address this situation.  I would request th e EU Delegation to provide some details about these 
new initiatives. 
138. It is important to note with appreciation that in  spite of grave global financial crisis, the EU 
generally refrained from adopting protectionist polici es since the end of 2008.  This restrained the 
effort, in fact gave a breathing space to the global economy and helped a process of recovery from the 
depression. 
139. During the period under review, the EU's simp le average applied MFN tariffs were 6.4%, 
slightly less than in 2008.  Though EU's industrial tariffs are amongst the lowest in the world, its 
agricultural tariffs are still higher and complex.  Many products attract non- ad valorem  tariffs, which 
result in providing higher protection to the farmers.  Though issues relating to trade distorting policies 
in agriculture cannot be resolved in bilateral, su ccessful balance and equitable conclusion of the Doha 
Round is essential in the era of rising prices of food , the EU may like to take unilateral steps to 
address these concerns. 
140. The multilateral trading system is the focus for the EU's Trade Policy, in spite of the slow 
progress in completing the Doha Round.  We agree to  the EU's view that "the potential benefits are 
simply too important to be lost".  The recent in itiative of the EU to break the logjam in the NAMA 
sectoral was an important step forward but we c ould not achieve any consensus.  In these difficult 
times of the Round, we are sure that the EU would c ontinue to play its leadership role for consensus 
in various areas to conclude the Round. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 26  
 
  141. RTAs are also an important pillar of the EU's Trade Policy.  Free trade deal between the 
European Union and South Korea, which took effect  a few days ago, was the most ambitious trade 
deal ever concluded by the EU.  It would be "a ga me changer" for EU's trad e relations with Asia.  
Bilateral deals are no substitute for multilateral rule -based system.  Countries that were left out of 
these initiatives, face stiff tariff barriers and are likel y to experience difficulties in trade with the EU. 
142. The EU Generalized System of Preferences is the central elemental of the EU's strategy 
towards developing and least developed countries for sustainable development, which incorporates 
trade as an essential element to facilitate economic and social development.  The current GSP scheme 
put in place in 2006 has been extended before its expiry up to 31 December 2011, which is 
appreciable as there would be no break in the market access for developing countries.  A draft new 
scheme was presented to the EU Parliament to create  transparency for the potential beneficiaries of 
the scheme.  It would help them to try to comply with the conditionalities to avail the benefits of the 
proposed scheme. 
143. The EU has remained Pakistan's largest trading partner.  Since the past few years, the trade 
balance is the EU's favour.  Pakistan's exports co mprise of a narrow band of goods and textile is the 
main stay, which accounts for over 60% on the total exports to the EU.  We are endeavouring to 
diversify our exports in the recent time.  Pakistan  started exporting ethyl alcohol and PET products to 
the EU market under the GSP scheme.  Subsequent ly, the EU removed industrial alcohol from the 
GSP covered products and imposed  countervailing duty on PET produc ts.  This resulted in sudden 
drop of exports to these diversified products to the EU.  In fact, ex port of PET products to the EU has 
almost stopped.  We would urge the EU to address th ese issues and give a helping hand to Pakistan in 
its efforts to diversify the export basket. 
144. The impact of financial crisis on the econom y of Pakistan was acute.  We are still under 
pressure as the GDP growth is barely around 2%.  The economic problems were further aggravated 
due to national calamities including the wide spread  floods in 2010.  The damage caused by these 
floods was unprecedented.  We appreciate help extende d by the EU when it was needed the most.  In 
November 2010, the EU lodged a waiver request in the WTO, to give further autonomous preference 
to import a limited number of Pakistani products as a part of the EU's response to the devastated 
floods.  The request for waiver had a wide suppor t but it is still stuck in the CTG for want of 
consensus.  We would request the EU to contin ue to remain engaged with Members to forge 
consensus.  I am positive that implementation of  this well thought out package of unilateral 
concessions would assist Pakistan in its trade led growth strategy. 
145. We hope to witness further strengthening of bilate ral ties and also look forward to the EU to 
continue to play stronger pro-active role at th e multilateral level for the conclusion of the Doha 
Development Round. 
TURKEY 
146. Today, we will have the opportunity to examine the biggest economy and trader of the world 
at a time following one of the deepest economic cris is the world has witnessed .  This also coincides 
with a number of structural and comprehensive changes the EU has introdu ced into its governance 
system and economic and trade policies since the last review. 
147. The most immediate challenge the EU was facing in the last TPR was the economic crisis and 
stimulus packages were initiated by the EU as a solu tion.  Partly as a result of  such packages, as the 
Secretariat's Report rightly points out, the economic recovery in Europe in underway and there is 
rapid export growth in some Member States.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 27 
 
 
  148. No doubt that these packages help ed overcome the economic crisis in Europe.  Nevertheless, 
we also share the Secretariat's assessment that once the economic recovery is on hold, gradual phasing 
out such stimulus packages is important to avoid an y trade distorting effects, particularly in sectors 
like tourism and construction. 
149. In the same vein, we commend the EU for not taking any major protectionist measure during 
the crisis.  We certainly hope that the EU will conti nue in this path and not resort to any protectionist 
measure in face of the current challenges.  For the future, clearly the sharp deterioration in the public 
finances seems to be the next immediate challenge .  By being in proximity of the EU, on top of 
certain other factors, we feel the pressure of  the rising exchange rates due to the economic 
uncertainties in the EU.  In this sense, we welcom e the "European Semester" initiative to synchronize 
the budget procedures in the EU. 
150. We enjoy very strong trade and economic relati ons with the EU as a result of the Customs 
Union established in 1996.  Trade re lations have increased tremendously over the last decade.  Today, 
the EU is our largest export market and the bigge st supplier of imports with a merchandise trade 
turnover of US$124 billion in 2010. 
151. The EU Members occupy the first four places among our main export markets.  At present, 
according to the Secretariat's Report, Turkey is among the top three countries where the EU has recoded highest export growth for goods.  Trade in  services also forms considerable part of our 
commercial relations.  The total trade turnover in  services was around US$18 billion in 2009.  Today, 
about 70% of all foreign direct investments in Turk ey have originated from the EU Members.  More 
than 14,000 companies have invested over US$ 65 billion in various sectors from retail trade to 
manufacturing. 
152. We noted that the decision making process has changed in the EU as a result of the Lisbon 
Treaty.  In this respect, we have very much appreciated the scheme provided in the Secretariat's Report concerning the new comitology rules.  We understand that the Commission has a bigger political responsibility with the new rules.  We are yet to see the full impact of the new comitology 
rules which entered into force in March 2011.  In th is respect, we will very much appreciate if the EU 
Delegation could share with us their assessment in th e course of this review, how the new set of rules 
will affect the opportunities for consultations process with the pub lic and their trade partners. 
153. The EU has always been a committed suppor ter of the multilateral and bilateral trade 
liberalization.  It has played a critical and construc tive role in the Doha negotiations with a number of 
proposals.  As well as being a staunch supporter of the DDA, the EU has also been pursuing very 
actively a number of free trade agreements. 
154. We believe this corresponds with the open wo rld markets objective of the Europe 2020 
Strategy. As there is no progress in the DDA, it seem s that the EU is moving forward very rapidly 
with a number of regional trade agreements.  The most recent one was the EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement which entered into force provisionally  on Monday.  It also aims to conclude other 
bilateral agreements with other major players like India.  It remains to be seen how far such 
agreements will be complementary to the WTO and multilateral rules.  While such bilateral 
arrangements may currently account for about 15% of the EU's trade, we certainly hope that the EU 
will continue to give priority to the WTO and the DDA. 
155. As stated in the new Europe 2020 Strategy, we  share the EU's objec tive to address the non-
tariff barriers in the world, and we believe that one  possible way to do is to move towards a common 
set of rules in parallel with the established international standards, whenever possible. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 28  
 
  156. It is also encouraging that th e EU aims to undergo structural reforms as very well outlined in 
the Government Report.  Among them, the ongoi ng process of common agricultural policy after 2013 
is of interest to Turkey as well as to other Members. 
157. We are very much encouraged with the impl ementation of the Services Directive and the 
efforts to integrate intra EU services sectors.  We always welcome the initiatives concerning the 
reinforcement of the single market.  In this respec t, we noted the wide differences in the customs 
clearance process among the Member States. 
158. We hope that the EU Commission will address these through the ongoing work on improving 
the customs and single window.  In a similar vein, we hope that the EU will address the amount of goods not subject to harmonizing technical regulations.  In this respect, we consider the initiatives for 
the EU wide conformity assessment procedures and a common accreditation framework as positive 
steps to further facilitate tr ade for the EU's partners. 
159. We noted that as a result of the Liston Treaty, the foreign direct investments have become 
part of the external trade policy of the EU, whic h, as mentioned in the Secretariat's Report, will 
provide the opportunity "to define an EU investment policy ...". 
160. We understand that the EU is now looking at bot h investment protection and liberalization of 
the FDI as part of the new generation of the bilate ral investment agreements.  In this context, we 
wonder if the EU is planning to address the review and notification requirements for FDI applicable in 
several Members States. 
161. As also noted in the Secretariat's Report, the EU is the world's leading trader.  It offers 
remarkable market opportunities for all WTO Member s.  In this respect, we commend the EU's 
decision to adopt simplified and relaxed rules of or igins for the LDCs at the end of 2010.  We will 
appreciate if the EU could share with the Members th e initial results of this change in the rules of 
origin. 
162. In the face of intensive interactions in ever y field of trade and economic relations, several 
bilateral mechanisms have been in  place for some time.  Therefore, I will not go into details of such 
bilateral issues.  Nevertheless, we must point out that currently the quantitative restrictions on the 
transit road permits, the issuance of the business men visas by some EU Members and the Dangerous 
Substances Directive of the EU are currently important issues in our agenda.    
UNITED STATES 
163. We think it is appropriate to begin this Trad e Policy Review (TPR) by noting both the value 
of our trade relationship with the EU and the impor tant role that the EU plays in the multilateral 
trading system.  Like many other WTO Members,  the United States has benefitted greatly from its 
commercial relationship with the EU.  Every day,  a remarkable $2 billion in goods and services 
produced on one side of the Atlantic are delivered to the other side.  U.S. and European companies 
have directly invested more than $1.5 trillion in each other's economies – investment that supports millions of jobs on  both sides.  The prosperity and inn ovation spurred by these large trade and 
investment flows have helped the United States a nd Europe become major export markets for many 
countries around the world. 
164. The United States and other WTO Members have also benefitted from the EU's strong 
support, over many decades, for a rules-based multila teral trading system and for the steady reduction 
of barriers in successive rounds of multilateral trade ne gotiations.  Finally, we are pleased to note that 
the vast majority of our bilateral trade with the EU proceeds without conflict, and that the  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 29 
 
 
  disagreements that we sometimes have on certain bila teral or multilateral issues do not interfere with 
our extensive cooperation on other issues. 
165. Because the EU plays such an important role  both in international commerce and in the 
setting of global trade policy, we have an obligati on to conduct a thorough and constructive review of 
its trade policies.  The Secretariat's analysis and the EU's description of its trade regime provide 
essential input for this review.  These documents – as  well as the knowledge of EU trade policies that 
we have acquired through our engagement over ma ny years – have prompted us to raise some 
questions about the consistency of certain EU policies with the EU's  stated commitment to open and 
transparent trade and WTO obligations.   
166. Regrettably, we have concerns with EU trade and investment policies in several areas.  I 
would like, briefly, to highlight several of these concerns.  With respect to agriculture, tariff 
protection continues to be high in the EU.  Food and animal feed products that have been safely consumed in the United States for decades, and th at the United States exports to dozens of other 
Members, continue to be excluded from the EU mark et by SPS measures that appear to lack sufficient 
scientific justification.  For example, the EU h as restricted the import and marketing of certain 
products of agricultural biotechnology, and forbid den the use on food of certain pathogen reduction 
treatments, that the EU's own scientists have conclu ded pose no risk to human, animal, and plant life 
or health.  Because of SPS and other barriers, U.S. ag ricultural exporters have been unable to take full 
advantage of the market access the EU offered in the Uruguay Round. 
167. In the area of technical barriers to trade, WTO Members will recall from our TBT Committee 
interventions that we continue to have broad c oncerns about the EU's policies and procedures to 
develop and to implement technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment, as well as 
concerns about specific measures that affect a wi de range of U.S. exporters in selected sectors 
including chemicals and wine.   
168. With respect to the EU's overarching policies and procedures, we have found that by the time 
the EU issues public notices on regulatory proposal s – some with enormous trade implications – 
internal deliberations among EU Member States have progressed too far to allow for meaningful 
consideration of the views of trading partners.  As we  have for several years, we continue to urge the 
EU to offer WTO Members and their private sect or stakeholders meaningful opportunities to 
comment on regulatory proposals, and assurances that those comments will be taken into 
consideration before final regulations  are promulgated and enforced.   
169. We have noted our concerns with the EU's new common framework on accreditation, set out 
in Regulation 765/2008.  We hope that in its res ponses, the EU will adequately address the issue of 
the consistency of its additional requirements in its framework on competition among accreditation 
bodies with the terms laid out in the ILAC and IF A mutual recognition arrangements.  We also hope 
to learn more about how the EU will ensure c onsistent application across EU Member States of 
criteria established under the Regulation to ensure continued acceptance of the results of conformity 
assessment from bodies accredited by ILAC and IAF signatories.   
170. With respect to trade concerns in specific sectors, we have asked  the EU to provide an update 
on outstanding issues in its response to our questio ns.  In the chemical sector, we share the EU's 
interest in protecting human health and the environm ent, but note that our trade-related concerns with 
implementation of REACH, such as the Only Re presentative and the monomers in polymers issues, 
have not been addressed.  Similarly, we continue to voice trade concerns about the EU's agenda to 
limit the use of so-called "traditional terms" such as ta wny, ruby, classic, and chateau on wine labels.    
171.
 Inconsistent implementation of internal market rules continues to constrain trade for EU and 
foreign producers alike.  We applaud the Europe an Commission's efforts to eliminate lingering WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 30  
 
  internal barriers to the free flow of goods, and look forward to hearing how th e EU intends to address 
remaining barriers – including those that are not scientifically justified – to the free flow of goods at the EU and member state levels.  
172. A recently issued study to the European Par liament entitled, "EU Subsidies for Polluting and 
Unsustainable Practices" contains a chapter devoted to  fisheries subsidies.  We welcome the efforts by 
the EU to reduce harmful subsidies to the sector, wh ile also recognizing that more can and should be 
done. This study recommends curbing or phasing ou t potentially harmful subsidies, including those 
for operating costs, processing activities and price support; decreasing aid for individual fishing operations and vessel modification; and phasing out of fuel subsidies.  We would be interested in 
hearing from the EU about the status of its refo rm of the Common Fisheries Policy and European 
Fisheries Fund, and the policy changes that are likely to develop for the post-2013 period.  We hope 
that these reforms will include the further reduction an d elimination of harmful fisheries subsidies and 
lead toward finding solutions to overfishing and overcapacity, including through the EU's active and 
constructive participation in our negotiations to ach ieve an ambitious discipline on fisheries subsidies 
at the WTO. 
173. We appreciate the EU's strong co mmitment to the WTO and the Doha Round.  We note that 
the EU states in its Report that "completing th e Doha Round remains the EU's top priority. The 
potential benefits are simply too important to be lost," inasmuch as Doha represents "a potentially 
sizable boost to the world economy."  The United St ates welcomes the EU's commitment to the 
Round, a commitment that we share. We  agree with the EU statement, in  its Report, that it is essential 
that all major players make a major contribution to the conclusion of the Round.  We also appreciate 
the EU's active participation in our collective ch allenge of assessing next steps in the Round, and 
trying to determine what is achievable in the short term. 
174. We would like to thank the EU for providing an swers to our written questions.  We plan to 
review the responses carefully, provide substantive comments, and request clarifications as necessary 
during the course of this TPR. I would like to note that the United States, as we have done for other 
TPRs, has refrained from asking excessive questions in multiple tranches during the course of the two 
week timeframe allowed for questi ons.  We have, instead, asked the EU to address only matters that 
we consider particularly important and for which we are unable to obtain answers independently.  We 
hope that others will consider following the same approach in the future for all Members' TPRs. 
COSTA RICA 
175. The EU is our second largest trading partner;  it took 17.8% of our exports and supplied 8% 
of our imports.  In relative terms, bilateral trade h as grown at an average rate of 5.25% annually over 
the past 10 years, from US$1.858 billion in 2000  to US$2.755 billion in 2010, giving a cumulative 
increase of 48% over the period.  These figures under line the importance of the EU market for Costa 
Rica. 
176. In this connection, we are pleased to note the successful conclusion of the Association 
Agreement between the EU and Central American c ountries, including Costa Rica, and we hope that 
all the requirements for its signing and subseque nt ratification will be completed very soon. 
177. Likewise, we express our great satisfaction at the conclusion of the Geneva Agreement on 
Trade in Bananas and its ratification by the EU.  On 17 June last, Costa Rica notified the 
Director-General that it had completed the intern al procedures for the en try into force of the 
Agreement.  We hope that the signatories to the Ag reement that have not yet already done so will 
submit their respective notifications to this effect.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 31 
 
 
  178. Costa Rica also shares the EU's  interest in a successful conclusion of the Doha Round and we 
appreciate the EU's work and leadership on various  themes where we share common positions such as 
trade facilitation, NAMA, and the examination of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, as well as 
the efforts made and the progress reached in other areas such as tropical products.  We welcome the 
statement in paragraph 127 of the EU's Report and fully agree with th e need to conclude an ambitious, 
balanced and comprehensive agreement to which a ll major players make contributions, including the 
large emerging economies. 
179. The Secretariat's Report highlights some important points and, although they have been 
mentioned by other delegations, my delegation would like to underline th em.  Firstly, in our view it is 
important to recognize the global opening and transp arency of its trade and investment regime, 
together with its efforts not to give in to protec tionism in response to the crisis.  Nevertheless, as 
others have already stated, we are concerned at the trade impact of its technical regulations, as well as the continued importance of the CAP, hence our interest in the steps taken to reform it. 
COLOMBIA 
180. The Secretariat's Report shows us that, in the midst of the crisis, the EU resisted protectionist 
pressures, and continues to do so.  This is despite  the current complex situation, marked by modest 
and uneven rates of growth in the 27 countries be longing to the EU;  high unemployment rates in 
many member countries;  and the soverei gn debt crisis affecting the euro zone. 
181. During the period under review, the EU improved many aspects of its trade policy that were 
of concern to Members during the previous Review.  We should like to draw attention in particular to 
the following improvements and progress:  the settlement of the difficult and lengthy banana dispute 
at the WTO;  the introduction of more flexible rul es of origin simplifying the regulations on access to 
the GSP;  the inclusion of a new regional grouping  for cumulating origin consisting of Argentina, 
Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay;  the introduction of a self-certification scheme from January 2017 onwards;  the elimination of tariff quotas on impor ts of rice and sugar under the "Everything But 
Arms" initiative;  the slight reduction in the simple  average MFN tariff applied down to 6.4 per cent.  
The applied MFN rate for agricultural products fell from 17.9% in 2008 to 15.2% in 2011;  the 
decrease in the number of trade remedies applie d, fewer anti-dumping measures and no safeguards 
applied;  the continuation of the three components of the GSP:  the standard GSP, GSP+, and the 
"Everything But Arms" component, which gives easier  access for LDCs;  the EU's commitment to the 
multilateral trading system and the priority given to  the negotiations to conclude the Doha Round;  
and the increase in Aid for Trade, which reach ed the unprecedented figure of €10.4 billion in 2008, 
making the EU one of the leading donors.  In the Third Global Review, the EU was the donor most 
cited in the case studies, being mentioned 59 times. 
182. Nevertheless, despite this impressive progress, so me areas are still of concern to us:  (1) The 
excessive protection given to agriculture because of th e complex tariff structure, which makes a tariff 
exceeding 15% applicable to over 9% of the tariff universe, with some tariffs above 100 per cent, 
together with the high level of domestic suppor t going to this sector.  (2) The sanitary and 
phytosanitary restrictions:  during the period unde r review, the EU notified 56 regular SPS measures 
and three emergency measures.  In this connection, Colombia reiterates its concern that the process of 
amending Regulation No. 258/97 on new foods, which r estricts trade in so-called exotic and tropical 
products has not been completed, although this is  an area of undoubted interest for developing 
countries such as ours.  (3) Several cases (over 17) submitted to the Committee on Technical Barriers 
to Trade during the period under review concerning  measures proposed or adopted by the EU and its 
member States.  (4) Certain of the EU's regulatory practices, technical regulations and conformity assessment procedures, which create unnecessary barriers  to trade.  (5) Failure to harmonize customs 
procedures. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 32  
 
  183. It should also be noted that the GSP, a programme that has many merits and of which my 
country is a beneficiary through GSP+, only applies to  5% of the EU's total imports, while 86% come 
under the MFN regime.  The scheme should be evaluate d to ascertain the reasons why it is not being 
fully utilized. 
184. At the bilateral level, in March 2010, Colomb ia concluded negotiations on a trade agreement 
with the EU.  This agreement intensifies our  relations, going beyond the phase of unilateral 
preferences, which provide uncertain and tempor ary benefits, and builds a permanent and stable 
relationship with the world's largest e xporter and importer of goods and services. 
185. The Economic Partnership Agreement between Co lombia and the EU has to go before the 
European Parliament during the second half of this year.  We hope that the procedure will not be as 
long and stressful as those experienced with other important trading partners.  The Agreement has a 
trade capacity building chapter, which will make it more advantageous.  The EU has earmarked 
€12 million for cooperation projects to build Colomb ia's trading capacity, preparing Colombia's 
businessmen and government sector to reap the benefits of the Agreement.  This project is one of the 
case studies submitted by Colombia in the Third Gl obal Review of Aid for Trade.  The present 
Review provides an opportunity to express our gratitude for this aid. 
186. The EU is our second largest trading partner and the second most important investor in 
Colombia.  It takes 12.5% of our products (almos t US$5 billion), even though the trade balance shows 
a deficit of US$632 million.  Moreover, European firms from different sectors and countries are present in Colombia or are increasing their investment , a commitment that we value highly.  In 2010, 
217,000 tourists from the EU visited Colombia, 14.7% of  the total, and we hope that many more will 
come to be captivated by the magic of our country. 
187. Lastly, the EU is an interesting and unique case.  At the outset of integration, the aim was to 
eliminate the spectre of war;  today, it is to give its population more economic and social 
development.  Twenty-seven different countries, w ith 23 different languages, with different cultural 
and historical traditions, can join together, negotiate  and produce results that benefit a whole region.  
The Europe of iron and steel, the Europe of six, the Europe of 15, the Europe of 27, and soon the 
Europe of 28, are proof of tenacity , understanding, unity and, above all,  a clear demonstration that it is 
possible to set aside national interests in favour of gr eater ideals.  This is a valuable lesson that we 
need to take on board in orde r to conclude the Doha Round. 
ARGENTINA 
188. On this occasion, given the fragile internationa l economic and financial situation, which has a 
negative impact on the growth of trade in developi ng countries, this Trade Review is of particular 
importance, especially in the case of one of the most important trading Members such as the EU. 
189. In the Government Report, the EU emphasizes that  it showed leadership in its response to the 
global economic and financial crisis by shaping its po licies guided by "the principle that a sustainable 
recovery needs to remain rooted in open markets and international rules".  In this connection, it is a 
matter of concern that, for a large number of products , the EU continues in practice to have a trading 
system administered on the basis of specific rest rictions through tariff mechanisms such as excessive 
tariffs and special safeguards.  There are still non-ta riff mechanisms, complex administration of tariff 
quotas and the presence of private standards which disrupt trade flows. 
190. To these must be added the current high level of  export subsidies in the EU.  Such practices 
seriously distort markets and mainly affect competiti ve suppliers that are not subsidized, particularly 
when the Member applying such measures is th e foremost exporter and second largest importer of  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 33 
 
 
  goods worldwide.  Export subsidies are one of th e measures that should be abolished immediately, 
unilaterally, as a contribution to overcoming the current economic and financial crisis. 
191. We should also like to refer to the EU's recent proposal on reforming the GSP, which will 
mean excluding a large number of developing countri es from its benefits (it is estimated that the 
number of beneficiaries will fall from 176 to 85) when it comes into force (at the latest by 
1 January 2014).  It should be noted that this proposed reform lays down eligibility criteria for 
beneficiary countries that do not take into account many  of the variables that define the extent of a 
country's development.  Moreover, the application of  generic criteria does not take into account either 
that the sectors that will be the most affected are not necessarily those that are most competitive, so 
exclusion from the GSP will have a disproportionate impact on those sectors that have invested and 
specialized in order to be able  to sell on the Community market. 
192. I should like to refer briefly to economic relations  with the EU, which plays an important role 
for our country, being its second largest trading pa rtner with approximately 17% of trade and the 
largest foreign investor in Argentina.  Bilatera l trade amounts to some US$25 billion.  In 2010, 
Argentina's exports were around US$13 billion, wh ile imports from the EU increased by 48%, to 
reach US$11.8 billion.  This means that imports fro m the EU have risen far above the level in 2009 
(US$7.8 billion) and have already reached pre-crisis levels.  This has not been the case for Argentina's 
exports (which reached a peak of US$15 billion in 2009) , so if this trend continues bilateral trade will 
record a deficit in years to come. 
193. Imports from the EU mostly consist of goods with high value added as they are generally 
capital goods, especially machinery and equipment used  as important inputs for Argentine industry.  
In addition, the EU continues to be one of the major destinations for our agricultural exports.  In this 
connection, we hope that the EU will be able to make  a substantive contribution to lowering tariffs on 
agricultural products, especially processed products, so that the escalating tariffs on such products in 
the European market become comparable to those applicable to non-agricultural products.  We hope 
to continue working both here within the WTO and within the framework of the Regional Partnership 
Agreement between MERCOSUR and the EU. 
194. Lastly, I should like to say that we followed cl osely the EU delegation's statements regarding 
the measures adopted during the crisis and we en courage it to continue providing more detailed 
information on programmes such as the European  Regional Development Fund, compensation for 
services of general economic interest, measur es in support of the financial sector under 
Article 107.3(b) of the EU Treaty, and the European Economic Recovery Plan. 
THAILAND ON BEHALF OF ASEAN 
195. The EU remains one of the most important trad ing partners for ASEAN.  In 2009 bilateral 
trade amounted to US$171 billion, with an FDI inflow of US$7.2 billion from the EU that same year.  Bilateral cooperation between ASEAN and the EU has also strengthene d over the years.  We have 
worked well in jointly promoting trade and inv estment flows under the Trans-Regional ASEAN-EU 
Trade Initiatives.  ASEAN's economic integration e fforts have benefited from the EU's integration 
programmes, such as the ASEAN-EC Project on Regi onal Integration Support, which has contributed 
much to the development of the ASEAN Economi c Community.  We look forward to continued 
cooperation including through the new ASEAN Economic Integration Support Programme. 
196. ASEAN commends the EU's decision to ma intain openness and refrain from tightening 
restrictions on imports, even during the deep economic  recession it weathered since its last TPR.  This 
helped provide a stabilising effect to the multilateral trading system. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 34  
 
  197. On the EU's trade policy instruments, ASEAN notes that since its last review, the trade 
regime of the EU has remained largely unchanged.   While it is good that the EU's average applied 
MFN tariff has decreased slightly from 6.7% in 2008 to 6.4% in 2011, there needs to be improvement 
in the application of non- ad valorem  duties that remain high at 11% of total tariff lines, which 
together with the existence of tariffs peaks,  are mostly confined to agricultural products. 
198. ASEAN also notes that while support for agricu lture has been reformed significantly over 
recent years, there is still a considerable dependen ce on such support, amounting to over €100 billion, 
as estimated by the OECD.  Room for improvement also remains, in areas such as the current high export subsidies and complex measures that the EU has in place. 
199. The EU's implementation of the Regulation on Re gistration, Evaluation and Authorisation of 
Chemicals or REACH continues to be of great concern to ASEAN.  As REACH becomes more 
complex, ASEAN countries will require further technical assistance to understand and comply with such detailed requirements.  SMEs, which form a larg e part of our entrepreneurs, may face particular 
difficulties.  We hope that the EU will continue to  engage with third countries such as ASEAN on this 
matter, and continue to disseminate practical in formation and updated gui dance documents.  ASEAN 
would like to emphasize the need to ensure th at EU requirements are not too burdensome for 
developing countries.  Likewise, we convey similar concern that requirements of the EU Directive on 
Renewable Energy should not be burdensome. 
200. ASEAN appreciates the EU's significant role  and contributions to the preparation and 
implementation of the Enhanced Integrated Framework for LDCs, as well as the effective implementation of the Everything but Arms Initiative.  We welcome the EU's elimination of tariffs on 
sugar and rice for LDCs under this initiative. 
201. ASEAN would also like to mention the EU's trad e preferential schemes that some of us avail 
of, such as the GSP, which has greatly helped the economic development of some of the ASEAN 
Members.  We appreciate that the EU's trade po licies have taken into account the developmental 
priorities of developing countries, and hope to see this continue. 
202. ASEAN recognises the EU's longstanding commitment to the multilateral trading system and 
the DDA, and we value the EU's cons tructive partnership with ASEAN. 
THAILAND 
203. The European Union and Thailand have establishe d and enjoyed a meaningful history of trade 
and economic relationship.  The EU  is our important trading partne r, ranked fourth after ASEAN, 
Japan, and China for the past three years.  Our average trade value from 2008-10 was around 
US$34.5 billion and such value increased to US$35 b illion at the end of 2010.  Thailand and the EU 
are also under negotiations for the Framework Ag reement on Partnership and Cooperation or PCA 
under the ASEAN-EU initiatives to further deve lop an ASEAN-EU Free Trade Agreement. 
204. Echoing our common ASEAN friends, Thailand appl auds the EU for its transparent and open 
trade and investment regime during the previous economic recession, its role and contributions to 
developmental priorities of developing countries a nd LDCs, and the EU's long standing in the DDA 
negotiations and the multilateral trading system. 
205. Besides agreeing with ASEAN's concerns in the EU's implem entation of REACH and high 
tariffs and domestic support for ag ricultural products, Thailand h as also submitted advance written 
questions on the banking licensing regime or "single passport" in the EU.   WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 35 
 
 
  HONG KONG, CHINA 
206. The EU and HKC have long enjoyed close and co rdial economic and trade relations.  As our 
second largest trading partner, the EU is HKC's third largest market and third la rgest supplier.  We are 
confident that our close trade ties w ill continue to stre ngthen and expand. 
207. The EU's efforts in promoting market liberalisation are well recognised. We are particularly 
impressed by the EU's commitments  in maintaining the overall openness and transparency of its trade 
and investment regime in the midst of intensified protectionist pressures during the recent great recession.  We look forward to the EU's conti nuous efforts to liberalise trade and develop the 
multilateral trading system further. 
208. Turning to specific aspects of the EU's trade policy, we appreciate that the EU has bound all 
its tariff lines, of which one-quarter are duty free.  We also note that the EU has reduced its average 
applied MFN tariff rate by 0.3% since 2008.  The EU's average applied rate for non-agricultural 
products has, however, remained unchanged at 4.1% since the last review.  We are also concerned 
that the structure of the EU's tariff regime remains rather complex, as non- ad valorem  tariff rates 
apply to over one-tenth of its tariff lines.  In add ition, 8.7% of the EU's tariff lines are subject to 
international tariff peaks in excess of 15%.  We  would encourage the EU to consider further 
simplifying its tariff structure, reducing its tariff rates, and bringing down the peaks.  
209. As the Secretariat Report points out, despite the decrease in the number of anti-dumping 
measures in force and the rate at which these measu res have been adopted since 2008, the EU remains 
a major user of trade remedies, with 125 measures in force as at the end of 2010.  The number of 
provisional measures has also increased from five in 2008 to nine each in 2009 and 2010.  We would 
encourage the EU to continue exercising restraint in the initiation of investigations and imposition of 
AD measures, given their trade-inhibiting effects. 
210. Meanwhile, we are concerned about the upsurge in the number of confirmations of anti-
dumping measures following expiry review.  The aver age duration of such measures is between six 
and seven years, and approximately 12% of these measu res have remained in force for over ten years.  
We hope that the EU will conduct th orough reviews to ensure that a ny extension of its anti-dumping 
measure is fully warranted in order not to  unduly impede the free flow of trade.  
211. As for agriculture, we note from the Secretariat Report that the EU has undertaken reforms of 
its domestic support and export subsidies in the agri cultural sector, which have improved transparency 
and reduced trade and production distortions.  Howeve r, we note that the EU's total support for the 
agricultural sector remains considerable, and mark et price support continues to represent a large, 
albeit declining, portion of transfers to producers.  Moreover, both the average applied MFN rate and 
the variation in tariff rates are much higher in th e case of agriculture than non-agricultural products.  
As the EU is the world's biggest producer of sever al agricultural commodities,  including milk, wheat 
and grapes, as well as a major e xporter and importer of agricultural products, its agricultural policies 
have a significant impact on global trade in agriculture .  We look forward to more efforts by the EU in 
continuing to liberalize its agricultural sector further. 
212. Meanwhile, we appreciate the EU's willingness to make substantial cuts in its agricultural 
tariffs, reduce trade distorting subsidies, and elim inate export refunds upon successful conclusion of 
the Doha Round negotiations. We look forward to its continuous co-leadership with other major 
trading partners to overcome the present difficu lties and take the negotiations forward to their 
eventual successful conclusion. 
213. Both HKC and the EU share the same goals  of pursuing continuous and progressive 
liberalisation of trade in services and bringing about an ambitious and balanced outcome for the WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 36  
 
  Services negotiations.  We and the EU have been work ing together to promote further liberalisation of 
those services sectors that are of great importance to global trade flows, such as maritime transport.  
We would like to commend the EU's active and constructive participa tion in the Services 
negotiations, and its many useful contributions, particularly in the area of domestic regulation. 
214. On Trade Facilitation, we commend the EU's ongoing work in undertaking various initiatives 
to facilitate trade, such as the introduction of advance cargo information requirements and a customs 
registration number that is recognized throughou t the EU, as well as the preparation for the 
establishment of single-window services.  Such in itiatives will expedite the movement of goods 
across borders and help reduce the cost of doing busin ess.  In this regard, we note from the Secretariat 
Report that the Modernized Customs Code, which en tered into force in June 2008, has yet to be 
applied, pending the application of implementing provis ions by June 2013.  In view of the substantive 
benefits that modernized customs rules and proce dures can bring to traders, we would encourage the 
EU to speed up the implementation of this important initiative. 
215. We fully share the view with the EU that  a set of multilateral commitments on Trade 
Facilitation will remove obstacles to the movement  of goods across borders , streamline formalities 
and promote cooperation across agencies.  We appreciate the EU's active and constructive 
participation in Trade Facilitation negotiations, and look forward to continuing to work more closely 
with it towards the successful conclusion of the negotiations. 
216. It is commendable that the EU has a well-established system for adopting technical 
regulations and conformity assessment procedures, in cluding, for example, a transparent system for 
publishing notices for public consultations, the Co mmission's guidelines on impact assessment, and 
steps to harmonize various regulatory approaches among Member States.  We would encourage the 
EU to continue harmonizing the relevant rules and regulations so that traders can have a unified 
standard to follow. 
217. We note that there have been a considerable number of specific trade concerns raised by 
Members in the past few years, some of wh ich are still being discussed in the Committee on 
Technical Barriers to Trade.  We would urge the EU to take Members' concerns into due 
consideration before adopting its technical re gulations and conformity assessment procedures. 
NEW ZEALAND 
218. New Zealand has a strong and broad-based relati onship with the EU.  The EU is one of our 
most important partners and out third largest trad ing partner in two-way trade after Australia and 
China.  While our trade is increasingly diversifie d, and while we are developing innovative industries 
with the EU partners, exports of primary products to the EU remain of significant importance for the 
New Zealand economy. 
219. Like the rest of the world, we look to the EU, as the world's largest trader, to play a central 
role in leading the way in the continued liberalis ation of trade.  We acknowledge that the EU's 
decision to refrain from tightening restrictions on im ports following the global financial crisis has had 
a stabilising effect on the multilateral trading system. 
220. New Zealand greatly appreciates the construc tive engagement we enjoy with the EU 
colleagues in the WTO and in Brussels.  We look forwards to this coopera tion continuing and we 
want to take this opportunity to register New Zeala nd's appreciation for the role  the EU has played in 
seeking to secure a successful c onclusion to the Doha Round.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 37 
 
 
  221. We recognise that the EU's trade policy is a br oadly open and market-oriented one.  However, 
we retain concerns about aspects of the CAP, and we  will monitor with great interest work currently 
underway to re-design the CAP after 2013. 
222. New Zealand is pleased to note that the EU's use of agricultural export subsidies has been 
much reduced since a spike in 2009.  New Zealand hop es that the EU will continue in this direction 
and, recalling that export subsidies are the most damaging form of agricultural support, encourages 
the EU to consider moving towards elimination of all such subsidies. 
223. We would also note that there is a considerab le scope for improvements in market access for 
agriculture.  In terms of tariff barriers, the EC's  applied MFN tariffs on agricultural goods currently 
average 15.2%, but this average masks a more comp lex reality that includes a significant number of 
prohibitive tariffs on highly traded products. 
224. We are concerned about differences in relation to protection for geographical indications in 
the EU.  While interested parties have access to an opposition procedure for terms to be protected 
under EU Regulations, such an opposition procedure is not in place for GIs that are protected in the 
EU via bilateral agreements.  Yet the effect on thir d parties' ability to use certain terms in the EU 
market is the same. 
225. As has been noted in previous reviews EU regulations are often wide-ranging and 
prescriptive.  This includes regulations pertaining th e food and beverages, and technical measures in a 
diverse range of other areas.  We urge the EU to continue to take into account the interests and WTO 
rights of its trading partners in advance of in troducing new regulations, even on issues that may 
appear to have minimal external relevance. 
226. We note with appreciation that the EU's Tr ade Strategy of 2010 states that enhanced 
regulatory cooperation (equivalence or convergence)  is an important aspect of the EU's trade 
relationships with key partners.  An  open door here is always appreciated.  In this context, I should 
emphasize that New Zealand places great store in our sanitary agreement with the EU, as it has enabled the practical application of important WTO SPS Agreement principles and the 
implementation of least-trade-restrictive sanitary measures between the parties.     
EGYPT 
227. The EU is considered the first trading partner for Egypt, as well as one of the main sources of 
FDI in our country. Egypt and the EU have a part nership agreement which reflects the strength of 
trade and economic relations between the two parti es. We look forward to advancing the bilateral 
relations and enhance the cooperati on with the EU in all fields. 
228. It was only yesterday when we received and a dditional request for clarification from capital 
on another issue. In paragraph 106 of the Secretar iat Report it is indicated that the General Food Law 
permits the establishment of ''provisional'' measures if  ''the possibility of harmful effects on health is 
identified but scientific uncertainty persists''. 
229. We recognize the right of every country to ta ke the necessary measures to protect its citizens 
from any harmful effects on health. However, in cases  where there's a scientific proof that a certain 
source of imports is not to be blamed for any harm ful effects, would the EU be in a position to be 
using provisional measures, although there's not only lack of scientific evidence but also a scientific certainty that this source of imports is not the reason behind a certain health problem? WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 38  
 
  CROATIA 
230. Croatia  appreciates this opportunity to commend the EU on its 10
th TPR for its achievements 
in trade policy, as a major trading partner, as well as for maintaining the overall openness and 
transparency of its trade and investment regime.  For Croatia this TPR has been conducted in a very 
important and crucial moment of the conclusi on of the Croatia-EU membership negotiations. 
231. Namely, on 30 June, the last day of the Hungarian  EU Presidency, Croatia closed the last four 
negotiating chapters and thus formally closed accession negotiations, paving the way for becoming 
the EU's 28th Member on 1 July 2013, after the ratification of the Accession Treaty.  Croatia 
negotiated 35 chapters, successfully reformed 35 soci al segments and aligned its legislation with that 
of the EU.  The European Commission will pursue to monitor how Croatia is meeting its requirements 
and commitments, so that it can be completely  ready to assume the membership responsibilities from 
the day of accession. 
232. Eight years ago, precisely in February 2003, Cr oatia officially submitted its application for 
the EU membership.  In April 2004, the Europ ean Commission issued a positive opinion on the 
Croatian readiness to start negotiations with the EU , and in October 2005, the two sides formally 
started negotiations.  On 1 July 2013, when Cr oatia becomes an EU Member, it will start to 
implement the European trade policy. 
233. Bilateral relations between Cr oatia and the EU are governed by the Stabilisation and 
Association Agreement (SAA), one of the four FTA s Croatia has applied with 39 countries.  As 
regards trade and trade-related matters, the agre ement provides for a free-trade area for goods, with 
provisions covering trade in services, investme nt, intellectual property rights, competition and 
standards. 
234. The SAA contributed significantly to the boost of trade relations, increased trade exchange 
volumes, in goods, as well as in services area.  R ecently, the SAA, its services component, was 
reviewed in the Committee on Regional Trade Agreemen ts.  On this occasion Croatia emphasised that 
the Agreement contributed significantly to the ove rall reform process in Croatia and has a special 
importance not only for the Croatia's accession to the EU  but also for better and deeper integration of 
Croatia into the multilateral trading system. 
235. Let me highlight some figures.  In the period from January to December 2010, the Croatian 
export to the EU amounted to €5.4 billion in comp arison to the Croatia's export to the world of 
€8.9 billion, and import to €9.1 billion out of €15.1 billi on.  In relative terms, the EU is a market for 
some 60% of all goods exported by Croatia, and th e source of 60% of Croatian imports (before the 
crisis the last figure was larger and close to 70%). 
236. On the services side, travel services account for the largest share of the EU imports of 
commercial services from Croatia, followed by other business services and transportation services.  These results for travel services are expected, knowing the importance of tourism sector in Croatia.  
The largest part of around 9 million tourist's a rrivals last year was from the EU and from 
neighbouring countries. 
237. Regarding investments, more than two thir ds of investments whose structure shows 
domination of the financial sector relate to the EU.  The EU remains also the most significant partner in trade in goods as well as in services.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 39 
 
 
  INDONESIA 
238. The EU is one of the world's key trading player s, with strong multilateral trade commitments.  
The single market of the EU, characterized by a common set of trade rules, duties and procedures 
which apply equally to all 27 of its  Member States, makes this entity a very attractive market for other 
countries.  Aside from being one of the world's foremo st trading partners, and the most open of all, it 
is also the world's biggest single market.   
239. Indonesia meanwhile, is Southeast Asia's larg est economy and an important partner for the 
EU in both trade and investments.  Accordingly, the EU and Indonesia enjoy strong and positive trade relations.  Promoting and e nhancing mutual trade and investment h as for several years been a priority 
issue for EU cooperation and activities in Indonesia.  The EU is firmly committed to the promotion of 
open and fair trade with all its trading partners.  T hus, for Indonesia, the EU is the biggest destination 
for non-oil and gas exports, and the volume of trad e has shown a continuous growth trend in recent 
years.  European investors have also proven to be among the most stable and reliable of Indonesia's 
partners. 
240. The total trade between Indonesia and the EU in  2010 increased by 21.3% compared to total 
trade in 2009.  During the first quarter of 2011, total trade between the two countries amounted to 
US$7.66 billion, up by 8.96% compared with th e same period in 2010 which amounted to 
US$6.08 billion.  Moreover, trends in the total trade between the two countries during five years 
between 2006 and 2010 were positive at 8.9%.  Indonesia's trade balance with the EU from 2006 to 
2010 shows a consistent trade surplus. 
241. Given our strong trade relationship and increasi ng interdependence, I ndonesia attaches great 
importance to the EU's commitment and efforts in maintaining an open trading system and an open 
market.  To this extent, Indonesia insist on EU no t to sets stringent entry criteria through the TBT, 
SPS and other measures, and especially discrim inates products from developing economies.  
Specifically, we have concerns on the following aspec ts.  Since the introduction of the EU Regulation 
No. 882/2004, nutmeg products from Indonesia face cer tain trade barriers in the EU market.  For 
example, the Indonesian nutmeg products were reje cted by Rotterdam Port authorities as they were 
suspected of containing levels of aflatoxin which exceeded the minimum threshold set the EU.  Hence, Indonesia would like to seek for further clarification from EU concerning its scientific 
evidence in accordance with relevant WTO provisions. 
242. Concerning the EU's policies towards the import of animals and animal  products intended for 
human consumption, cherry stuff product of Indon esia has experienced barriers to trade to the EU 
through the EU Regulatory Commission Regulations No. 605/2010, dated July 2, 2010.  Indonesia 
would like to seek for further explanation concer ning such restrictions imposed against imported 
products from Indonesia in relation to the existing regulation. 
243. The EU Directive 220/2010 is considered more stringent than necessary.  Until now there has 
been no scientific evidence showing Indonesia's fi sh exports contain antibiotics.  Indonesia has 
therefore requested that this measure should be re vised as it is obstructing fish exports from Indonesia 
to the EU. 
244. With regard to the EU's Renewable Energy Directive (EU-RED), Indonesia understands the 
reasoning behind this draft regulation which is to reduce vehicle emissions containing carbon dioxide, 
which cause the increase of greenhouse gas emissions and undermine environmental sustainability.  
However, Indonesia would like to sh are the same concerns raised by others and would also like to 
encourage the EU to ensure that the requirements are not too burdensome. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 40  
 
  245. Despite the several concerns wh ich we have raised, Indonesia greatly appreciates the various 
efforts the EU has devoted to maintain its ma rket openness and competitiveness.  The EU is the 
world's largest trading block, which makes it one of the key players in the WTO.  The EU supports the work of the WTO on multilateral rule-making, trad e liberalization, and sustainable development.  
As regards the DDA we believe that the EU will con tinue to stand by its commitment to complete the 
Doha Round and to bring the Doha ne gotiations to a successful conclusion,  as is indeed the hope of all 
WTO Members countries. 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
246. Since the EU's last Trade Policy Review in 2009,  we are pleased to note that it has weathered 
the storm of the global recession rather well, and there have been numerous institutional and 
economic developments, including, not least, the passage into effect of the Lisbon Treaty which 
provides the EU with more transparency and greater efficiency as well. 
247. The EU is the largest economy and trading entity in  the world.  Despite its own large internal 
market, however, it can never separate itself from the global trading system.  The most recent financial problems among its Member States, especially within the euro zone, are a vivid 
demonstration that any economic a nd financial instability within the region not only affects the EU's 
internal market but also has a spill-over effect on the rest of the world.  And, it shows the importance 
of further and deeper integration of its domestic ma rket.  There would be less disparity between the 
economies of Member States and it would be easier to implement fiscal policy, as well as to fend off protectionism at home.  We therefore very much appreciate the EU's clearly stated commitment to make the successful completion of the Doha Rou nd a top negotiating priority.  And, the EU's 
participation in, and contributions to the DDA negotiations are already widely recognized and 
appreciated.  At this critical juncture, we certainly look to the EU to continue its leadership role in 
bridging the difference between major players, with  the hope that soon all Members will be able to 
enjoy the fruits of the outcome that  the DDA has promised to deliver. 
248. Bilaterally, we enjoy a close relationship with th e EU and its Member States.  Firstly, some 
crucial progress was achieved this year with the introduction of the visa waiver treatment for our 
travellers, in both directions – a very important improvement between us indeed, which we firmly 
believe will facilitate our trade and investment activities even further. 
249. Secondly, on the trade and investment front, in 2010, our two-way trade grew by 31.4% to a 
total US$48.6 billion, making the EU our fourth largest trading partner.  With the EU being the largest 
recipient and supplier of FDI in the world, it is no  surprise that it is our biggest single source of FDI 
as well.  We therefore take a great interest in th e investment issues of the EU, especially since the 
Lisbon Treaty will soon have the effect of transferring certain areas of competence away from Member States and to the Commission. 
250. Thirdly, while our regular bilateral meeti ngs and the affiliated working groups already 
provide useful platforms for us to communicate with  each other, this year, we are pleased to see the 
dialogue expanded by the automotive issue group broa dening its scope to embrace TBT as well.  With 
such a solid base of communications now in place,  we look forward to seeing further substantive 
cooperation on more issues such investment, cu stoms and trade facilitation in the near future. 
251. One aspect on the EU's external policy we have not ed with special interest is its pursuit of an 
agenda of competitiveness-driven free-trade agreemen ts.  We share the EU's view that RTAs are a 
way of complementing the multilateral trading system  and a stepping stone rather than a stumbling 
block to the further opening up of multilateral trade.  We also believe that closer economic integration 
means a more liberalized trade regime.  Therefore, while the EU is expanding its economic and trade  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 41 
 
 
  relationships by signing FTAs with  our neighbouring partners, we would ask it to also consider the 
geographical and strategic advantages of our  economy as a gateway to its Asian market. 
252. We have studied very thoroughly the Reports on the EU's trade policy regime and trading 
environment, and submitted a number of written qu estions in advance, seeking further details and 
clarification from the EU of its policy direction and approach. 
PERU 
253. There have been important changes in the EU si nce the previous Review.  First of all, the 
Lisbon Treaty came into force, with the EU replacing the European Communities, and full 
decision-making powers have been given to the Eur opean Parliament for the bloc's trade policies, 
together with sole competence for foreign investment policies.  During this period as well, the EU felt 
the impact of the severe economic crisis, from which it recovered from 2010 onwards, even though 
the degree of recovery has not been the same in all member States. 
254. At the bilateral level, in recent years, we have seen a sharp increase in trade, the EU 
becoming the second largest market for Peru's expor ts.  In 2010, our exports reached the record 
figures of US$6.405 billion, doubling in value si nce 2005.  Imports, on the other hand, amounted to 
around US$2.996 billion, so the bilateral trade balance showed a surplus of some US$3.408 billion for 
Peru. 
255. Peru has been a beneficiary of the GSP grante d by the EU under the GSP+ scheme, which has 
had a positive impact on Peru's economy and its popula tion's well-being.  We therefore keenly await 
the information to be provided on its renewa l and the new scheme planned for 2014 onwards. 
256. The EU is Peru's foremost source of FDI, w ith the stock of investment estimated to be 
US$11.109 billion in 2010, according to the reco rds of the national agency PROINVERSIÓN. 
257. The growing trade and financial relations a nd the complementarity of Peru's economy and 
those of members of the EU led our Governments to negotiate a Multiparty Trade Agreement, which 
was initialled on 24 March last.  The Agreement in cludes comprehensive provisions on liberalization 
of trade in goods, services, government procurem ent and trade defence measures, competition and 
intellectual property policies;  it also enshrines our Governments' commitment to tighten the links of 
friendship and cooperation and to contribute towards the development of global trade, based on 
WTO rules. 
258.  That is why this Review of the EU's trade policy is of especial importance for my country 
because it enables us to examine and assess the EU's  considerable achievements and the fact that, 
despite this critical juncture at the global level, th e EU has managed to keep its trade and investment 
regime open and transparent.  My country is concer ned, nonetheless, that agriculture remains a highly 
protected sector, with an average applied tariff of 15.2% compared to 6.4% for other sectors, and that 
it still receives a considerable amount of support,  while price support takes up a large portion of 
transfers to producers. 
259. The Secretariat's Report underlines the need for structural reforms in order to harmonize 
members' differing levels of trade, productivity and competitiveness and reach  the growth targets set 
in the Europe 2020 Strategy.  We should like to  hear the EU's comments on the Secretariat's 
observations and recommendations. 
260. My delegation has submitted some questions c oncerning the EU's technical regulations and 
also on the assessment of the impact of trade agreem ents on sustainability.  We are also concerned at 
Regulation No. 258/97, which conti nues to restrict access to the Eur opean market for certain food and WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 42  
 
  food ingredients (termed "novel foods").  This affe cts trade in products derived from our biodiversity, 
for example, camu camu, yacón and sacha inchi, wh ich are consumed on the domestic market and are 
sold without any problem on large global market s such as Japan and the United States, but are 
prevented from entering the European market. 
261. Peru would also like to know whether the EU  has considered dismantling the entry price 
regime, which restricts access for exports of a series of fresh agricultural products (fruit and 
vegetables) if the prices at which they enter the Eur opean market are below a certain level specified in 
the regulations.  In Peru's view, the practical eff ect of such a mechanism is a penalty for efficient 
exporters.  We would like to hear the EU's respon ses to these questions and concerns, which we shall 
examine closely. 
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
262. Trinidad and Tobago has a dynamic and long-sta nding relationship with the European Union, 
which began formally when we established diplom atic relations in 1975.  Trinidad and Tobago's 
relationship with the EU is multifaceted, being stru ctured on the basis of several mechanisms for 
cooperation and dialogue including the ACP-EU Co tonou Partnership Agreement, which remains in 
effect until 2020 and provides the overarching frame work. It is supported by the CARIFORUM-EU 
Economic Partnership Agreement which serves as the platform for reciprocal trade between the EU 
and the Caribbean States party to the Cotonou Ag reement. Other arrangements include the EU-Latin 
America and the Caribbean Stra tegic Partnership; the EU-Rio  Group mechanism; and also 
importantly through bilateral le vel relations with both the EU, as well as individual EU Member 
States. 
263. Trinidad and Tobago was one of the original signatories of the first Lomé Convention 
establishing the ACP Group, and has been party to each  of the subsequent Agreements over the last 
35 years. Through this relationship, Trinidad a nd Tobago has accessed loan and equity financing from 
the European Investment Bank; technical assi stance from the Centre for the Development of 
Enterprise in support of the development of privat e enterprises; grant funding from the European 
Development Fund for various projects; as well as the mechanisms available under the regional and 
ACP projects funded by the European Commission. 
264. Cooperation in these areas have supported the im plementation of various programmes such as 
poverty reduction, structural adjustment, smal l business development, water supply, rural 
electrification, health services and school rehabilitati on. Trinidad and Tobago has been the recipient 
of loan financing in excess of €150 million for the development of productive infrastructure in the 
energy sector, and has participated in CARIFO RUM programmes for institutional support to the 
University of the West Indies, the culture sector, anti-money launder ing efforts and the development 
of medical laboratories. 
265. With regards to Trinidad and Tobago's trade relationship with the EU , bilateral merchandise 
trade in 2009 totaled TT$13.13 billion. For 2009, Tr inidad and Tobago imported approximately TT$5 
billion from the EU which included motor spirit gaso line; bitumen oil additives; milk; unsweetened 
powdered cream; and medicaments. Also in that year, Trinidad and Tobago's exports to the EU 
reached TT$8.13 billion that included liquefied natura l gas, iron and steel, ammonia, jet fuel kerosene 
and other liquefied petroleum gases.   
266. This favorable balance of trade that Trinid ad and Tobago enjoys with the EU masks the 
relative uncompetitiveness of Trinidad and Tobago's  manufactured exports. Close examination of the 
statistics will reveal the sheer dominance of Trinidad and Tobago exports by energy products 
particularly natural gas, which is directly relate d to heavy capital investment by the Spanish energy 
corporation, REPSOL - a relationship much valued  by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 43 
 
 
  267. However, excluding the trade in natural gas, the reality is that Trinidad and Tobago 
manufactured exports and services to the EU are very low, both in value and volume, to such an extent that without energy there would be a huge ne gative balance of trade with the Union.  It is 
therefore the main policy goal of the Government  to expand the range, and increase the value of 
Trinidad and Tobago's merchandise exports to the EU , and to attract EU investment in non-traditional 
areas as a stimulus to economic diversificati on. The CARIFORUM-EU EPA thus represents for 
Trinidad and Tobago an opportunity to advance on this strategic objective. 
268. The dynamism of our bilateral trade is the fru it of over three decades of bilateral cooperation 
and engagement, built upon the historical antecedents  of modern day globalisation that took the form 
of hundreds of years of conquest and empire.  
269. However, the potential for further growth of this  relationship is being severely limited by the 
continued existence of visa requirements for all categories of persons including entrepreneurs, 
corporate business people, public officials and touris ts of Trinidad and Tobago visiting the EU. Since 
Trinidad and Tobago has abolished visa requirement s for all EU nationals visiting the country, it 
would be appropriate that the EU extends reciprocal  treatment in this regard.  My delegation should 
further appreciate if the European Member State delegations present today would support Trinidad 
and Tobago's request at the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers when the matter is 
raised later this year. 
270. As this is the first review since the entry in to force of the Treaty of Lisbon, my delegation 
notes that the transition has been a smooth and seamle ss exercise that did not impact on the EU's 
enlargement process and the adoption of the Euro cu rrency by Estonia in January 2011. Trinidad and 
Tobago extends its congratulations to the EU in this regard.  
271. As we studied the Secretariat's background documents, my delegation was heartened to 
observe, and compliments the EU, on refraining fr om introducing new trade barriers in order to 
shelter its domestic manufacturing sector, and to protect its export trade from the economic depression 
brought on by the financial and economic crisis. It is this type of policy of resisting the temptation for 
protectionism that resulted in the multilateral trad ing system being able to achieve the level of 
stability we are seeing today. 
272. Within the WTO, the EU is one of the major actors that responsibly acknowledges its 
obligation to respect and acknowle dge the various needs and positions of the WTO's differentiated 
membership.  One example of this is the implem entation in January 2011 of the relaxed Rules of 
Origin for LDCs and the developing countries unde r the Generalised System of Preferences scheme. 
273. The EU has been among those international donor s who have been active in Aid for Trade. 
Considering, however, the critical importance of bu ilding productive capacity in developing countries, 
to empower them to meaningfully integrate into the multilateral trading system, Trinidad and Tobago 
hopes that the EU and other development partners  would do more to supp ort developing country 
trade.   
SWITZERLAND 
274. Let me start with a brief overview of the tr ade relations between the EU and Switzerland and 
a few general remarks on the EU trade policy before addressing some concrete issues which are of 
particular interest to Switzerland.  
275. The trade relations between Switzerland and the EU are strong, close and excellent. 
Switzerland is the EU's second largest economic pa rtner overall (trade in goods, services, foreign 
investments). In 2010, Switzerland was the EU's thir d largest export market, absorbing over 8% of all WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 44  
 
  EU exports. Inversely, our country was the Union's f ourth supplier, with a total share of over 6% of 
EU imports.  Last year, the EU achieved a trade surplus of €21 billion with Switzerland, its second 
largest trade surplus among all trading partners. 
276. Swiss companies currently employ more than one million persons in the EU. On the other 
hand, more than one million EU citizens live and wo rk in our country, and over 200,000 cross-border 
commuters come to work in Switzerland every day. 
277. Numerous Agreements create the legal frame fo r bilateral trade, such as the Free Trade 
Agreement of 1972, an Agreement on Agricultu re, an Agreement on Mutual Recognition of 
Conformity Assessments and a Revised Protocol on  Trade in Processed Agricultural Products, to 
name just a few. At present, a further deepening of  our economic relationship is envisaged in the area 
of agriculture and health, electricity and chemical products. 
278. Over 120 bilateral agreements are proof that our respective economies are highly 
interconnected. However, it is not only on a bila teral basis that Switzerland enjoys a fruitful 
cooperation with the EU. This also extends to the WTO. In this context, Switzerland entirely shares 
the high commitment of the EU towards the multilate ral trading system and we very much welcome 
the EU's active and positive role w ithin the Doha round negotiations. 
279. With regard to government procurement, Switzer land very much appreciates the quality of the 
cooperation achieved with the EU at  bilateral, regional and multilatera l levels. Moreover, Switzerland 
welcomes the substantial progress of the bilateral ma rket access negotiations toward the revision of 
the GPA which is now in its very final stage. 
280. Switzerland has followed with great interest th e transformation of the legal and institutional 
framework of the EU as regards the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty and its impact on the policy 
making and conduct of trade policy. Therefore, we w ould be happy to receive some information of the 
EU on its experiences made so far in this respect. 
281. At the last TPR of the EU, Switzerland drew the attention to the fact that in the wake of the 
global financial crisis the EU, like many other tradi ng nations, had resorted to an extensive use of 
state aid to counterbalance the economic downturn. Not all of this aid was to the benefit of the 
financial sector which in many ways had unleashed the crisis. As is pointed out in this year's review, 
much state aid - in general exceeding the average support level of the pre-crisis years – has been 
channeled into other areas of the economy. It would be interesting to find out more about how the EU 
intends to scale back some of the exceptional stat e aid measures, given that some time has elapsed 
since the height of the crisis. 
282. It may of course be that the global economy may be  drawn into yet another critical situation, 
even though the EU is making great efforts to contai n sovereign debt crisis whose repercussions have 
the potential to shake up the very foundations of the Euro. It is virtually impossible to fathom the 
possible fallout of the problem at this point. Key pa rts of the global financial sector could yet again be 
drawn into a predicament whose ripple effects woul d inevitably have advers e consequences for the 
real economy at large. Like in 2008-09, one must rema in vigilant that global trade will not fall victim 
to another slowdown in economic activity or wor se still, a yielding to ill-fated protectionist 
temptations. 
283. In closing, I would like to reiterate some specific questions which Switzerland already 
submitted in written form to the EU.  The Secret ariat reports that 125 anti-dumping measures were 
simultaneously in place in the EU at the end of 2010. In addition, import surveillance mechanisms 
exist. These measures appear to be highly concentrat ed in certain sectors, notably chemicals, iron and  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 45 
 
 
  steel. Switzerland wonders whether such trade remedies may not hinder further the necessary 
restructuring of the respective sectors in Europe w ith regard to their competitiveness on a global scale. 
284. Moreover, concerning the proposal for a regulation establishing an obligation to indicate the 
country of origin on certain goods produced outsi de the EU, we would welcome to receive more 
information from the EU on this proposal which wa s approved by the European Parliament in 2010. 
Being mandatory only for third country imports in to the EEA, we would consider such a labelling 
legislation as a trade-restrictive measure. 
SINGAPORE 
285. Singapore's economic relationship with the EU is strong.  The EU is our second largest 
trading partner.  Despite a dip during the global downtur n, bilateral trade recovered to pre-crisis levels 
in 2010.  It reached over US$80 billion in 2010, up 14.5% from 2009.  The EU is Singapore's largest 
foreign investor.  Foreign direct investment from the EU more than doubled from 2000 to 2009, 
where it stood at over US$133 billion.  Today, more than 8,000 EU companies have operations in our 
country, adding a strong and vibrant presence to our business community. 
286. Like the EU, Singapore is firmly committed to the multilateral trading system based on 
common rules, while pursuing complementary trade liber alization at the regional  and bilateral levels.  
In this regard, Singapore and the EU are in the mi dst of taking significant steps to further strengthen 
our economic relationship through the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement.  Negotiations are at the 
advanced stages.  When concluded the FTA will be  an important milestone to enhance our already 
longstanding economic relations .  Singapore also firmly supports the EU's efforts to deepen trade 
linkages with ASEAN. 
287. Since the EU's last TPR, there have been im portant changes and developments in the EU 
which affected trade and trade-related policies.  In particular, the institutional changes resulting from 
the Lisbon Treaty and the EU's vision of its trad e policy in the Commission's communication Trade, 
Growth and World Affairs.  The EU has robust pro-trade policy plans.  We agree with the EU's approach of drawing on trade policy as an importa nt instrument to foster growth, create jobs and 
enhance consumer welfare.  We look forward to greater harmonisation of trade measures between and 
among the EU Members.  We are also glad to not e that the EU has maintained overall openness and 
transparency of its trade and investment regime despite pressure to impose trade restrictions during 
the slowdown. 
288. However, the EU still imposes long-standing barriers to market access and applies other 
measures that distort international competition.  The Regulation on Registration, Evaluation and 
Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) remains comp lex and can hinder entry into the EU market.  
Other areas of concern to our traders include the EU's complex decision making process on trade and 
investment matters;  the EU's burdensome customs procedures and practices;  the EU's stringent 
measures on SPS, technical regula tions and conformity assessment;  and the EU's approach to 
determining tariffs for processed agricultural produc ts.  These concerns are reflected in our written 
questions to the EU.  We hope to see future improve ments so that barriers are removed and business is 
facilitated. 
289. In addition, the EU also has a holistic appro ach to "achieving trade policy objectives while 
also driving improvements in social inclusi on, supporting green growth and climate change 
objectives, and promoting sustainable development, both in the EU and in the rest of the world".  We 
hope that such aims do not translate into more complicated measures that  can restrict trade. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 46  
 
  290. The EU, as a major trading power, plays a leadersh ip role in the multilateral trading system.  
The EU sets the example for other WTO Members to follow, and must take th is into account in the 
evolution of its trade policy. 
UKRAINE 
291. The EU TPR is always an event of special attention and importance since the EU is the 
biggest trading partner to many of us.  In this regard we welcome furthe r trade liberalisation and 
measures implementing the EU trade policy aimed at enhancing transparency and increasing trade. 
292. At the same time, we would like to draw atten tion of the EU trade policy-makers to several 
persistent issues, which are still on the radar screen and raise concerns since the last review.  I will 
mention a few:  the EU maintains a very high leve l of tariff protection for agricultural goods with 
strong internal support and export subsidization;  non- ad valorem  tariffs in agriculture;  the EU 
market remains protected by tariff quotas, entry prices, SSG mechanism and tariff rate quotas; non-
tariff barriers, such as SPS measures are too complicat ed and in fact may mean a ban on imports from 
third countries.  Even if a measure is being ju stified by legitimate objectives and non-discriminatory 
nature, it is oftentimes a serious  burden, and not only for SMEs. 
293. We are satisfied to note that the EU's top nego tiating priority is to complete the Doha Round 
by the end of 2011.  A very ambitious task given the current situation in the negotiations.  Ukraine welcomes the reconfirmed commitment by the EU to engage with Members in exploring new 
possibilities and seeking to strike a balance for the D DA, even if it is conditional on other Members' 
inputs and readiness to do their part of the job. 
294. Ukraine believes that further liber alization of trade, especially in agricultural products is an 
important contribution to sustainable growth of the global economy.  We urge the EU to further 
liberalize trade in light of the ongoing negotiati ons and push for an amb itious Doha Round outcome. 
295. As you all know, the EU has a vast variet y and geography of trading arrangements and 
schemes, covering trade in goods and services.  Pr oliferation of these agreements has opened up 
numerous opportunities for expanding trade relations w ith the EU.  Ukraine and the EU are currently 
actively engaged in bilateral negotiations in a new format of deep and comprehensive FTA, which is 
expected to cover substantially all trade.  Its ambitious objective is not simply to generate and 
strengthen trust between the trading partners but to lay down for years to come a solid and clear legal 
foundation of predictable and sustainable trade relati ons with rather a strong developmental aspect in 
it. 
EL SALVADOR 
296. At the bilateral level, El Salvador has cl ose and significant friendly relations with the 
members of the EU.  In this connection, we would stress the ongoing rapprochemen t in the political, 
economic, trade, financial and cooperation fields, as shown by th e Association Agreement with 
El Salvador and other members of the Central Amer ican region, an agreement which opens up to us a 
market of some 500 million and a series of expect ations that go beyond the economic sphere and 
include cooperation on matters of security, comba ting drugs trafficking, promotion of regional 
integration, inter alia . 
297. The Association Agreement covers trade in ag ricultural products, while products of the 
industrial sector will enter duty free, and for other pr oducts there will be a gradual lowering of tariffs 
over a period 15 years, as well as tariff quotas.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 47 
 
 
  298. For El Salvador, the EU is one of its leading trade partners both as regards trade in goods and 
in services;  even though the trad e balance is in favour of the EU, the annual rate of growth in 
Salvadoran exports to this market remains positive,  as can be seen from El Salvador's exports for a 
total of US$194 million.  These exports are mainly  from the agricultural and agro-industrial sector 
and include products such as coffee beans, cooked tuna  loins and other tuna.  Exports by the clothing 
sector are the second largest component.  El Salvador's imports from the EU are mainly in three 
sectors:  mechanical and electrical machinery and appliances, chemical and metalworking products, 
inter alia . 
299. We note that since the previous Review of th e EU, changes to customs procedures have been 
introduced, based on security considerations, for ex ample, the advance cargo information requirement 
as part of the so-called "safety and security ame ndments" to the Customs Code.  Trade facilitation 
measures are still being implemented, including prep arations for the establishment of single window 
services and the introduction of a customs regi stration number recognized throughout the EU. 
300. In our view, the purpose of such measures is to  lower transaction costs at national borders in 
order to boost trade and increase trade flows. 
301. The Secretariat's Report shows that trade has been  and continues to be an engine for global 
growth.  Accordingly, the EU showed leadership in its response to the global economic and financial 
crisis by shaping its policies guided by the princi ple that a sustainable recovery needs to remain 
rooted in open markets and international rules. 
302. Another key feature of this Member's trade policy has been active participation in the 
Doha Development Agenda negotiations, as well as in the regular work of the WTO councils and 
committees to monitor and ensure the implementa tion of the covered agreements, pursuing its 
liberalization agenda bilaterally and also unilate rally so as to facilitate trade for developing 
economies. 
303. In this connection, we reiterate our interest in  seeing the EU continue to play its leadership 
role in the current Round of negotiations in order to  ensure that the development dimension is present 
in the final outcome of this Round and that it con tinue to promote trade liberalization and develop a 
trading system of benefit to all. 
304. Lastly, in relation to agriculture and in appli cation of the decisions contained in the health 
check of the CAP, there is a pack age of reforms to modernize, ra tionalize and streamline agricultural 
policy, including reforms for the wine-growing sector and a CAP for the Union post-2014.  Notwithstanding this, total support remains consider able in both absolute and relative terms, and 
market price support still accounts for a large portion of transfers to producers, a situation that 
continues to distort trade. 
CHILE 
305. Since 2002, Chile has had a Political, Coopera tion and Economic Asso ciation Agreement 
with the EU, whose content and scope go beyond th e trade measures being addressed today.  The EU 
is our second largest trading partner, accounting for 15 .4% of our foreign trade in 2010.  Chile's trade 
relations with the EU are marked by the broad dive rsification of the exportable offer and the growing 
involvement of small and medium sized Chilean co mpanies - around 27% of total exports to Europe 
come from small and medium-sized companies.  Th is is largely attributable to the cooperation 
programmes under the Agreement. 
306. The EU has shown responsibility and commitment to the principles that underpin and govern 
the rules-based multilateral trading system.  We th erefore echo the call made by other speakers urging WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 48  
 
  the EU to assume leadership in the conclusion of the Doha Round.  How could it be otherwise as the 
EU is the largest economy and leading trader in th e world?  It is also the principal origin and 
destination for FDI in the world.  The EU acc ounts for around 40% of FDI in Chile, for an amount 
close to US$30 billion over the period 1974-2010.  This  investment is diversified and is in trade, 
mining, industry, gas, electricity, water and financ ial services.  The three major investors in Chile 
during this period were Spain, the United Kingdom and Italy. 
307. In this, the tenth Review of the EU's trade po licy, we would like to express two concerns in 
addition to the questions raised.  We are concerned at the form and application of certain technical 
regulations and standards, especially those concer ning phytosanitary measures because the way in 
which they are implemented could constitute unnecessar y barriers to bilateral trade, and we are also 
concerned about the so-called REACH. 
308. In spite of the aforementioned Association Agreement, the CAP provides the reference 
framework for support to the agricultural sector.  This could in practice prove prejudicial to our bilateral trade, particularly in areas not adequately covered by the Association Agreement.  This is not 
only true for domestic or export subsidies which distor t international prices, but could also affect our 
access to the European market  for agricultural products. 
309. Lastly, it should be emphasized that in June  2012 Chile will be the host country for the 
VII
th EU-Latin America-Caribbean summit, a great oppor tunity to reinforce bi-regional dialogue in 
areas such as innovation, education, employment, the environment, renewable energy, trade and the 
international financial system. 
INDIA 
310. The EU is India's largest trading partner.  In  2010, the total trade between India and the EU 
increased by 28.1% to €68 billion,  including India's exports of €33  billion and imports of about 
€35 billion.  The EU is also one of the largest s ources of FDI for India.  FDI inflows from the EU 
Member States have amounted to US$26.9 billion during the period April 2000 to April 2001 accounting for over 20% of total FDI inflows into the country.  Therefore, the EU is extremely 
important both in terms of trade and investment for India. 
311. Our delegation has posed several questions to th e EU delegation.  Being India's largest trade 
partner, we appreciate this opportunity to engage in an open discussion of the EU's trade regime and 
its impact on our bilateral trade. While I do not wish  to go over these questions in detail, I would like 
to highlight some of our major concerns. 
312. In 2008 and 2009, pharmaceutical consignments e xported by India to Africa and some Latin 
America and in transit through the EU were seized under the EU Directive 1383/2003.  To our 
understanding these seizures were not WTO compliant .  The EU assured India that such seizures 
would not occur and that the relevant regulation would be amended.  We would like to know the 
timeframe within which this amendment process is likely to be completed so as to provide 
predictability and certainty to our pharmaceutical industry. 
313. Anti-dumping duties which have been imposed on PET film exports from India recently have 
not followed the procedures for review under the EU law.  Similarly, exports of Indian honey to the EU have been banned without provi ding adequate justification. 
314. The EU has harmonized its pesticide r esidue level framework under Regulation 
No. 396/2005. A default level of 0.01 has been a pplied on many chemicals because the EU has not 
made a specific determination that it is safe for ma ny products.  So this de fault level is actually the 
level at which the scientific instruments can detect  pesticide levels, it has nothing to do with human  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 49 
 
 
  health or any risk analysis.  The basis for setting such maximum residue levels for pesticides, their 
scientific justification and risk assessment have not b een provided, and this has adversely affected rice 
exports from India to the EU. 
315. Another concern relates to the Traditional Herbal  Medicinal Products Directive that came into 
force on 1 May 2011, and which imposes several requirements for import of herbal medicines 
including submission of onerous and burdensome t est reports which are costly and registration 
conditions which are difficult to meet by small an d medium exporters.  For instance, the Directive 
provides for import of herbal medicines only when  there is a proven use of these medicines for 
30 years, out of which 15 should have been in th e EU, which is neither science-based nor otherwise 
justified. 
316. The provisions of the REACH Regulation which came  into force in June 2007 have also been 
found to be discriminatory between the EU and non-EU  industry.  Additionally, the registration under 
this law involves huge costs and enor mous generation of data on chemic als to be provided to the EU.  
The registration requirements are fairly complex a nd more burdensome than the considered necessity.  
This affects on particular our chemical industry is in  the small sector and they are unable to meet with 
these requirements of registration. 
317. The agricultural subsidies provided by the EU  on agricultural products is another area of 
concern since such subsidies, especially when world prices are low, tend to distort international trade.  
The subsidy given by the EU its dairy sector re cently severely affects the livelihood of the poorest 
economies and people of the world including hundr eds of millions of milk producers in India. 
318. On services, there are a number of restrictions in Mode 4 which are of concern, such as the 
requirement for 3-6 years of professional experi ence for contractual suppliers and independent 
professionals.  There is also a great deal of c oncern about the different  regulations governing 
professional qualifications which prevail across Member States in the EU. 
319. We look forward to receiving the EU's responses to these concerns and all the other questions 
raised earlier.  As pointed out in the Secretaria t Report, it is important that the EU consider the 
possible trade impact of its regulatory environment,  including its standards with regard to food and 
product safety, so that it's SPS and technical regul ations and conformity procedures do not create 
unnecessary obstacles to trade with third countries. 
320. Being an important WTO Member and a major player in world trade, it is natural that 
Members look to the EU to play a leadership role  in the Doha Round negotiations, taking into account 
the development aspects and interests of the developing countries.  
ECUADOR 
321. Ecuador wishes to underline the importance of th is Trade Policy Review, the first after the 
entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, which gave  effect to important amendments to the EU's 
institutional structure. 
322. Economic data for the EU show an improvement  in 2010 compared to 2009, but the figures 
do not exceed those achieved in 2008.  The EU's impor tance in international trade is undisputed as it 
accounted for one sixth of global trade in goods a nd one quarter of trade in services in 2009.  
In addition, its GDP rose in 2010 in comparison with  2009 and the euro has reached its highest point 
since November 2009 against the dollar and the pound sterling. 
323. With regard to market access, we should like to emphasize that the average applied tariff in 
the EU is currently 6.4%.  The average tariff on agricultural products, however, exceeds 15%.  WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 50  
 
  Furthermore, the EU still app lies specific or compound tariffs to over 300 headings, and complex 
technical tariffs apply to products such as sugar, where protection exceeds 100% in ad valorem  terms.  
In this connection, we should like to recall the initial comments by the Discussant concerning the 
tariff combinations applicable to these products.  Accordingly, against this background and in line 
with the systemic consistency promoted by th e EU and other Members, Ecuador takes this 
opportunity to suggest to the EU that, to the exte nt that its government po licy so permits, it should 
convert its tariffs to ad valorem  tariffs in accordance with the principle of streamlining tariffs and 
with the goals of the Doha Round. 
324. Although in the case of agriculture, support pr ogrammes decoupled from prices or the volume 
of production have gained ground in comparison with  other more distorting measures, total levels of 
support are still high and dissuade farmers in developing countries from producing because they do 
not have the possibility of competing on an equal footing. 
325. The adoption of strict technical standards and rigid measures on food safety raises serious 
problems of access for products from developing countries.   The proliferation of private standards in 
such areas has created a new series of barrier s which are only tenuously based on international 
standards by recognized organizations. 
326. The enforcement of intellectual property rights on an extra-territorial b asis has caused serious 
prejudice to several developing countries, as can be seen from the cases of confiscation of medicines in transit in some EU member countries.  We s hould not forget in this connection that several 
developing countries depend on the implementation of the flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement, in 
some cases to be able to guarantee supplies of medici nes at affordable cost and in others simply to 
protect the lives of their citizens.  Ecuador is follo wing closely the steps that may be taken in this 
regard. 
327. As to the banana dispute, one that lasted approximately 16 years and was finally resolved by 
the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas of 2010, Ecuador welcomes the constructive position 
adopted by the EU during the final phase of this di spute and at the same time renews its commitment 
to complete the internal procedures for a pproval of the Agreement as soon as possible. 
328. In conclusion, Ecuador has posed a series of qu estions to the EU in order to gain a better 
understanding of this important market which, overa ll, is the second largest trading partner for our 
country. 
GUATEMALA 
329. The size of the EU's economy and its position in world trade show the importance of this 
biennial Review of trade policy and also explain the interest of all the EU's trading partners in this 
exercise.  The EU's responsibilities in relation to  the multilateral trading system are commensurate 
with the important role played by this regional bloc  therein.  We therefore welcome the fact that the 
EU renews its commitment to maintain and strengthe n the WTO, and particularly to the conclusion of 
the Doha Round as the trade response to the global crisis. 
330. The EU is a leading trading partner, investor a nd donor in Central America.  In 2010, the EU's 
exports to the Central American isthmus represen ted €25.9 billion, while th e total imported from the 
region was €20.7 billion. 
331. The excellent relations between the EU and th e Central American region recently reached a 
historic point.  After several years of negotiation, in May last the EU and Central American countries 
initialled an Association Agreement, which includes an FTA as well as chapters on political dialogue 
and cooperation.  This Agreement is the first re gion-to-region agreement concluded by the EU with  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 51 
 
 
  another region in the world.  This is significant.  The fact of signing agreements between two blocs of 
regions in fact acts a catalyst for multilateral liberali zation.  We are convinced that the entry into force 
of this Agreement will help to tighten still furt her the close links of friendship and cooperation 
between both blocs and, in particular, the integration process in Central America. 
332. In Guatemala's particular case, we hope th at this instrument will promote European 
investment in key sectors, will streamline and expand trade in both directions and, in definitive, boost 
sustainable development and support my country 's integration into the multilateral system. 
333. This is also the opportunity to highlight the fact that trade relations between my country and 
the EU have benefited from the signing of the Gene va Agreement on Trade in Bananas in May 2010, 
which brought to an end the well-known and long-runni ng dispute.  Like the majority of signatory 
countries, including the EU, Guatemala has already no tified the Director-Gener al that its internal 
procedures for approval of the Agreement have been completed.  After notification has been received 
from all the signatories and the Agreement has entered into force, Guatemala is certain that the EU 
will pursue the procedures required for endorsing th is Agreement in its Schedule of Commitments. 
334. With regard to the content of the Reports  for this TPR, my delegation underlines the 
considerable efforts made by the EU to reform  and liberalize its economic and trade regimes.  
We draw attention in particular to the fact that, since the previous TPR, the EU has continued to adopt 
measures to streamline and update its trade regime, as shown by the adoption of the Trade, Growth 
and World Affairs Communication of November 2010.  This Communication sets out the guidelines 
for trade and investment policy which we hope will  in practice contribute to lessening trade barriers 
and to opening up European markets. 
335. We also note that, during the review period, th e EU introduced positive changes to its trade 
practices.  In customs procedures, for example, we  note that trade facilitation measures have been 
adopted, including preparations for the establishment of single window services and the introduction of a customs registration number recognized throughout the EU.  These measures help to streamline and lower transaction costs and we therefore encourage the EU to continue adopting and 
implementing similar measures, including the enfo rcement of objective prac tices and procedures for 
the clearance of goods in transit through Community ports. 
336. As regards the challenges and interrogations facing the EU, I think three need to be 
highlighted.  The first concerns the gradual eliminat ion of support related to the financial crisis once 
economic recovery has been confirmed.  This will ensure that these support measures do not hinder 
long-term adjustment and restructuring in the beneficiary sectors. 
337. The second and very important challenge for the EU is the adoption of a single patent and a 
single patent tribunal.  My delegation encourages the EU to pursue efforts to adopt the necessary 
instruments as they will ensure transparency, lower costs and str eamline procedures for the protection 
of intellectual property rights by means of patents. 
338. Lastly, the third challenge we identify for the EU is to conduct an in-depth review of the 
possible trade impact of its regulatory framework, including safety standards for food and products in 
order to ensure that its technical regulations  and conformity assessment procedures do not create 
unnecessary barriers to trade with third countries.  We  are certain that, with sufficient determination 
and political will, the EU's member States w ill be able to confront these challenges. 
SOUTH AFRICA 
339. The EU is a significant player in the WTO and therefore from the point of view of 
maintaining the systemic integrity of the WTO it is meaningful that this biggest player subjects itself WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 52  
 
  to these important rules of the game.  The assessm ents carried out under the TPR contribute to more 
effective functioning of the multilateral trading sy stem.  One of the objectives of the TPR is to 
facilitate greater transparency of and understanding of the Members trade policies and their impact on 
the multilateral trading system. 
340. The EU and South Africa share deep political, hist orical and cultural ties.  Most importantly, 
since the dawn of democracy in South Africa, the central pillar of our relationship with the EU has 
been economic.  The economic bond between Sout h Africa and the EU was concretised when 
President Nelson Mandela first visite d the EU in June 1998, during this visit a bilateral free trade zone 
was agreed between South Africa and the EU.  Soon after the visit, negotiations on a reciprocal WTO 
compliant agreement commenced.  The result was a Trade, Development a nd Cooperation Agreement 
that came into force on 1 May 2004.  The TDCA has become the pillar of our bilateral economic 
relations with the EU. 
341. On the political front, the relationship continu es to mature and to grow from strength to 
strength despite differences of views in respect of cer tain areas.  This political relationship is reviewed 
annually by the Joint Ministerial Summit and the clim ax being the joint Presidential Summit which is 
also convened annually.  This year's Presidentia l Summit will be held in September in the Kruger 
National Park, South Africa.  Notwithstanding the strengt h of this relationship, there are some areas of 
concern that we have on our side wh ich have been confirmed by the Secretariat Report.  In the interest 
of time, we will focus on a few. 
342. Firstly, some long-standing barriers to mark et access and other measures that are trade 
distortive continue to remain place in the EU.  In  the area of agriculture, we welcome the reforms 
undertaken in the Common Agricultural Policy.  We  do however regrettably note that these reforms 
have not gone far enough and this is  substantiated by the Secretaria t's finding on paragraph 3 on page 
101 of the Report, which states that support to agricu lture remains considerable in both absolute and 
relative terms.  In addition to th is finding by the Secretariat, South Africa would also observe that 
MFN tariffs also remain relatively high. 
343. Secondly, an aspect critical to competition and market access is the easing of burdensome 
regulations.  You will recall Mr. Chairman that Me mbers highlighted this issue at the EU's last 
review. According to the Secretariat Report, duri ng the period under review, the EU adopted measures 
that aim to remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles.   We look forward to hearing from the EU 
whether improvements have b een made in this regard. 
344. Thirdly, the area of SPS continues to be a significant source of concern for us.  We would 
urge the EU to adopt SPS measures that are consis tent with international norms and thus rendering 
them less restrictive as regards imports into the EU market.  In this respect, South Africa has specific 
examples wherein market access was denied to South African goods.  We recognise that this may not 
be the appropriate platform to raise these issues,  and so we will do so at the forthcoming joint 
Ministerial Summit. 
345. Fourthly, while we recognise the legitimate right  of Members to take measures to maintain 
the integrity of their financial markets during times of crisis, we are also interested in an examination 
of the type of measure adopted and the possible tr ade distortive effects of such measures on the global 
financial services market.  We hope that we will he ar a signal from the EU on timeliness to phase out 
the support that was granted to its financial institutions. 
SAINT LUCIA ON BEHALF OF THE OECS 
346. At the outset we would like to thank the EU  for the thorough Report and its deliberative 
approach in addressing issues attendant to its trade po licy.  One of the hallmarks of the success of the  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 53 
 
 
  multilateral trading system is a functioning TPRM – hence we welcome this transparency exercise 
both for the substantive benefits but also a clear de monstration that the WTO is not confined to the 
DDA. 
347. The EU and the OECS Member States have under the auspices of CARIFORUM, signed, 
ratified and implemented a comprehensive trade and development accord that will serve as a platform 
for trade relations with the Union for the foreseeable future.  What  distinguishes this accord from 
other bilateral and bi-regional agreements is the fa ct that it seeks to frontload development, placing it 
at the very core of the agreement.  This approach  or attempted approach h as become a template being 
replicated in other north-south agreements.  It is not novel that trade should be supportive of the 
mutual development of contracting parties, however, the elaboration of an agreement with its fulcrum 
squarely placed on development is a welcomed departure from the pure mercantilism frequently 
associated with RTAs. 
348. In the multilateral trading system, the EU continu es to play a constructive role in driving the 
DDA towards a conclusion.  My delegation welcomes  this determined engagement and hopes that the 
enlightened pragmatism that informed the develo pment focused approach of the EPA will not be 
diluted as we continue to grapple with the challenges of Doha. 
349. As the global economy struggles to stabilize afte r a wrenching financial and economic crisis 
and now a sovereign debt crisis, the reflex of so me Members to counter-cyc lical instruments that 
distort markets must be vigilantly guarded against.  It is clear, that the difficult lessons of the great 
depression have been learnt and th at the EU has not engaged in w holesale tit-for-tat protectionism.  
We however register concerns expressed with respect  to the level of subsidization, particularly in 
respect to the agriculture sector under the CAP. 
350. Members have also registered concerns rela ting to the strengthening and establishment of 
non-tariffs measures, including standards.  While such  rules and regulations are not intrinsically trade 
distorting, these measures should be transparent in  nature and not be invoked as disguised and 
insurmountable barriers to trade. 
351. My delegation notes, and would like to congrat ulate the EU on measures undertaken in the 
modernization of its trade facilitation architecture, including efforts directed at establishing a single 
window.  It is worth reflecting that during this reform process on trade facilitation, due account was taken of the sensitivities of all its Members.  It is my delegation's earnest desire that this pragmatic 
approach will be extended in its negotiations on the multilateral front. 
352. The EU continues to be a very important trad ing partner for the OECS Members and remains 
our biggest export market for goods, a significant source of FDI and the second largest market in the 
tourism sub-sector.  While we register that the contours of our bilateral trade relations are significantly framed by the EPA, we nonetheless welcome the undertakings made by the EU as it relates to the further simplification of trade measure s. I would like to thank the EU for it continuing 
support under the EPA directed inter alia  at strengthening supply side capacities as a key driver of the 
economic development. 
353. It is my delegation's hope that the EU brings its influence to bear on the multilateral trading 
system with a view to ensure an outcome that w ill be a harbinger of global economic development, 
particularly for the poorest. 
VIET NAM 
354. Regarding the bilateral economic  relationship between Viet Nam and the EU, the EU has 
been one the largest trading partners of Viet Na m for many years.  From 2000 to 2011, Viet Nam and WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 54  
 
  the EU saw an impressive increase in two-way tr ade, from US$4.1 billion to US$17.75 billion (it was 
an increase of 4.3 times).  The EU remains Viet Nam's most important foreign market for such 
products as footwear, textile, with export turnovers of US$2.2 billion. 
355. Viet Nam and the EU are very keen to furt her enhance our economic and trade relationship 
which is already flourishing.  In 1995, Viet Na m and the EC signed a Coope ration Agreement, and we 
also signed the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement in 2010.  This framework, aiming for deeper 
bilateral activities, will extend the previous aid a nd trade agreements to cover new areas such as 
science and technology, natural resources, climat e change and environment, security, health 
education, research and many others.  Besides th e Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, the EU 
and Viet Nam have agreed to launch bilateral FTA negotiations. 
356. Taking this opportunity we would like to th ank the EU for its financial and technical 
assistance, including the ODA, which has been trem endously helpful in our country's development 
process.  We appreciate the EU's lifting anti-dumping levy on Viet Nam footwear from 1 April 2011.  We also highly appreciate the preferential market access provided by the EU through the GSP, a factor which has contributed to Viet Nam's impre ssive export performance and encouraged the EU to 
further open its markets to our exports. 
357. At the same time, in order for Viet Nam and the EU to further develop bilateral cooperative 
relations for the sake of mutual benefits, we would like to request the EU to pay closer attention to 
one issue: its plan to modify its GSP which would limit specific tariff preferences to the poorest of developing countries.  We hope that the EU  continues to provide GSP to Viet Nam. 
NIGERIA 
358. From the outset Nigeria would like to acknowledge the critical role of the EU in the 
multilateral trading system.  In that regard, we wi sh to commend the important role being played by 
Ambassador Angelos Pangratis  and his colleagues here in Geneva.  It is our expectation that the EU 
would provide the necessary leader ship to ensure a development outcome of the DDA negotiations. 
359. As one of the largest trading partners in the wo rld that continues to make major contributions 
to the growth of the global economy, Nigeria considers today's review of the EU as highly significant, 
particularly as this would be the second exerci se since the aftermath of the global economic and 
financial crisis.  In that regard, Nigeria is pleased to  note that, in spite of the intensified protectionist 
pressures, the EU has maintained overall openness and transparency of its trade and investment 
regime.  The decision of the EU to refrain from ti ghtening restrictions on imports in response to the 
financial crisis has had a stabilizing effect on the multilateral trading system. 
360. However, despite its open and transparent trad e regime, the EU has continued to maintain 
some longstanding barriers to market access and other measures that distort international competition.  
We, therefore, agree that the EU has significant in terest in undertaking further trade and investment 
liberalisation, which would ensure an open trade regime that, is vital to enhancing external 
competitiveness and economic growth. 
361. As indicated in the Secretariat Report, the tr ade performance varied across individual Member 
States of the EU, largely reflecting uneven gain s in productivity and competitiveness, especially 
within the euro area.  The EU considers that structur al reforms are needed to correct this situation and 
to achieve the economic growth objectives as define d in its Europe 2020 Strategy.  Strengthening the 
internal market for goods and services is a key priori ty for structural reforms.  Nigeria would like to 
know the structural reforms that are being pursue d by the EU in order to have even gains in 
productivity and competitiveness within the euro area.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 55 
 
 
  362. The Report further indicates that, since the Li sbon Treaty entered into force in December 
2009, the EU's external trade and investment policy has been conduc ted within a transformed legal 
and institutional framework.  The European Parliame nt has rights equal with the Council in adopting 
EU trade legislation, and must give its consen t before the Council can ratify international trade 
agreements.  In addition, the Lisbon Treaty br oadened the exclusive competence of the EU to 
encompass FDI.  To that end, we hope that th ese arrangements would ensure policy coherence.  
Nigeria would therefore like to know how conflicts between the European Parliament and the Council 
arising from the adoption of EU trade legislation are resolved. 
363. Nigeria, along with other countries in the ECOWAS region are presently engaged in 
negotiations on an EPA with the EU in order not only  to deepen the existing level of cooperation, but 
also establish a mutually beneficial trading arrangeme nt that is consistent with our economic interests 
and levels of development.  We, therefore, continue to look forward to an enduring partnership with 
the EU that is geared towards assisting Nigeria and other ECOWAS countries deepen their regional 
integration initiatives and successfully address the de velopment challenges, including the attainment 
of the MDGs. 
364. Nigeria attaches great importance to its bilateral trade relations with the EU, which have been 
progressively expanding over the years through sever al initiatives on issues of mutual interest and the 
friendship of our peoples.  The relations have been  characterized by cooperation and trust between our 
leaders, and owe a great deal to the desire of our  countries to forge ahead in addressing the important 
issues that would make the world a better and more s ecure place to live.  To that end, Nigeria and the 
EU have intensified their bilate ral relationship and coope ration through the consistent exchange of 
visits by our leaders, at the highest level. 
365. Nigeria would like to acknowledge, with a ppreciation, EU's continued development 
assistance in vital sectors of our national economy such as water supply, agriculture, health care 
delivery, education and rural electrification. 
SRI LANKA 
366. We are indeed pleased to participate in this important as the EU continues to remain Sri 
Lanka's main trading partner accounting for 38% of Sri Lanka's total exports .  However Sri Lanka's 
exports to the EU have stagnated ar ound €2 billion in the past few years.  In spite EU has consistently 
remained a most critical market for Sri Lanka's most important  export item, the apparel sector.  
Overall Sri Lanka's exports in this sector to the EU market accounts for al most 55% of its apparel 
exports to the world.  At the same time, it is enc ouraging to note that several other sectors have shown 
positive growth namely fish products and bicycles, i ndicating that Sri Lanka has been able to expand 
its basket of exports to the EU, as a result of th e EU GSP Plus concessions which were withdrawn on 
unjustifiable non-trade concern. 
367. On the import front, the EU maintained its pos ition as an important supplier in a number of 
products sectors, notably sugar, fabrics, equipments and medicaments. 
368. The EU also continues to be an important inv estment and development partner of Sri Lanka.  
A number of investment projects exist in diverse sectors, including apparel, textiles, electronic products, rubber based products , coir, gems, and jewellery, diamond processing, tourism, 
infrastructure, computer to name a few.  At the same time, the EU has contributed to a number of development and cooperation projects in Sri Lanka.  For example, under the Switch Asia Programme 
Sri Lankan private sector companies have benefitte d in the past and we recognise the importance of 
continuation of such programme focused on sustainabl e agricultural development.  We also recognise 
following the submission of the technical dossier in 2008 to establish an EU national standard for the WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 56  
 
  content of sulpher dioxide in cinnamon.  On our  specific concern EU has positively responded as 
included in the Commission Directive as set out in 2010/69/EU has been passed in this regard. 
369. As I have already noted, the EU is an extrem ely important trading partner for Sri Lanka.  In 
the past, Sri Lanka enjoyed benefits under the EU GSP+ Scheme for a number of sectors though this 
Scheme currently excludes Sri Lanka for reasons of purely non-trade concerns and partly driven by 
EU pursuing its foreign policy objectives.  It must th erefore be noted that the majority of Sri Lanka's 
trade today is on GSP or on MFN basis, which has led to facing a number of high tariffs, tariff peaks and competition on its key exports. 
370. With respect to the implementation of the new GSP Scheme my delegati on takes note of three 
categories of countries are excluded.  We would like to clarify what would this exclusion means for 
conferring rules of origin under the cross regional or existing regional cumulation requirement.  For 
example, if we source material from a non GSP be neficiary developing country Member who has 
signed a FTA.  Although the delegation of Australia has raised this issue we appreciate a further 
clarification on the treatment given for conferring rOO under the regional or cross regional cumulation arrangement. 
371. Sri Lanka also wishes to point out some trade con cerns in the EU market related to restrictive 
trade regulations imposed on market access to tr aditional Ayurvedic medicines supplies or herbal 
medicine from abroad.  The traditional herbal re gistration scheme under the EU regulatory framework 
is creating excessively restrictive eligibility require ments for Asian origin herbs.  Therefore, my 
delegation requests the EU delegation to clarify the rationale of the importing such regulatory 
requirement.   
372. Sri Lanka takes note of paragraph 5 of the EU Report, admitting its policy commitment 
towards promoting economic growth and jobs not only  in Europe but also in other countries.  While 
we take note of the EU trade and development policy to assist poor countries, we are of the view that such programs should be extended to similarly situ ated vulnerable economies in terms of financial, 
trade and development need to which would othe rwise have a negative impact on our development 
efforts which depend on on e or two product sectors. 
373. We would therefore wish to suggest that th e EU consider extending similar concessions or 
appropriate assistance to countries like mine who ar e facing the same development challenges without 
conditioning upon non-trade concerns .  Granting such benefits in terms of better and more access 
would facilitate Sri Lankan exports, pa rticularly the apparel industry, at  this hour of need would be of 
particular importance to our economy, as such be nefits can help accelerate the country's post-
development efforts and generate more job opportuni ties for its rural youth, especially those who are 
in the north and east, the two regions worst a ffected by nearly 30 years of conflict. 
374. We also note the emphasis the EU places on regional and bilateral initiatives, as a 
supplementary process to the multilateral trading system.  While recognizing the EU's wish to 
improve trade through such processes, Sri Lanka wo uld recall that for small economies like mine, the 
multilateral trading system provides the main, a nd sometimes only feasible, playing field to 
participate in global trade. 
375. As mentioned this morning by the DDG Balás, we  are glad to hear that EU attaches high 
priority for multilateralism in the WTO system.  As regard an early down payment in December at the 
MC8 this package should be extended to poorest  Members both LDCs a nd small and vulnerable 
economies like mine which trade la rgely on MFN basis.  Therefore,  while noting with encouragement 
the reiteration of the EU's commitment to the conc lusion of the Doha Development Round, we urge 
the EU to continue its active participation in this  Round and to hear the cry of countries like mine 
when negotiating the Round.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 57 
 
 
  JAMAICA 
376. The reports before us today reflect the con tinued significance of the EU in the global 
economy.  Despite the impact of the global financia l and economic crises, it has remained the world's 
largest economy and trader accounting for almost 29% of global output, 17% of global merchandise 
trade and 26% of global commercial services trade in  2009.  The EU also rema ins the world's largest 
recipient and supplier of foreign direct investment and is a net investor in the rest of the world. 
377. Like all other WTO Members, the EU and its Member States have been impacted negatively 
by the global economic downturn, suffering negative growth, particularly during the height of the 
crisis with, inter alia , declines in real GDP and increases in unemployment.  The EU has introduced a 
number of initiatives, including the Eu rope 2020 Strategy to deal with the effects of the crisis by 
addressing certain institutional, ec onomic and regulatory mechanisms and to introduce much needed 
structural reforms, particularly in certain EU Member  States.  Projections are, however, that while an 
economic recovery is underway, supported by fiscal a nd stimulus packages, this recovery is likely to 
be moderate and uneven.  The Secr etariat Report points out that although output for the EU as a whole 
is forecast to regain its pre-crisis level in the second quarter of 2012, growth in some Member States 
is expected to remain below pre-crisis  levels until at least the end of 2012. 
378. The EU remains committed to the tenets of an  open rules-based multilateral trading system.  
In this regard, it has maintained the overall openne ss and transparency of its trade and investment 
regime in spite of intensified protectionist pressures.  The maintena nce of open markets will 
contribute positively to the EU economy and to ot her markets given the high level on integration 
between the EU and the rest of the world. 
379. The EU continues to play an active role in the WTO through its strong commitment to 
multilateralism and recognition of its leadership res ponsibilities.  It continues to play an important 
role in seeking to advance the DDA negotiations.  The EU is well placed to influence the negotiations 
to ensure that the development dimension is  filtered throughout a ll areas under negotiation. 
380. It is well known and the reports befo re us attest to the fact that  the EU is a keen proponent of 
regional and bilateral initiatives which it regards as th e cornerstone of its trade policy.  Jamaica is 
party to the CARIFORUM-EU Economic Partnershi p Agreement which establishes the basis for a 
new trade and economic relationship between the Caribbean countries and the EU moving from one 
previously based on non-reciprocal preferences to one that provides for the phased liberalization of 
trade between the parties. 
381. The EU is one of Jamaica's most important tr ade and investment partners.  It is the second 
largest market for Jamaica's exports and our fourth largest source of imports.  The EU is also among 
the primary sources of investment in Jamaica.  It  also continues to be the largest provider of 
development assistance to Jamaica in areas of crucial importance, such as institutional and 
infrastructural development, private sector development and programmes aimed at diversification and competitiveness of certain agricultural activities. 
BARBADOS  
382. A number of significant internal and external de velopments have taken place during this latest 
review period including the development of a renewe d trade strategy for the EU, "Trade, Growth and 
World Affairs";  the entry into force of the Lis bon Treaty which has brought changes to the legal and 
institutional framework that governs EU trade and i nvestment policy;  and the global recession and 
emergence from the financ ial and economic crisis. WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 58  
 
  383. As the world's largest economy and trader, th e EU has a principal role and responsibility 
within the global and multilateral trading system.  It is therefore laudable as highlighted in the 
Secretariat's Report that the EU's decision to re frain from tightening restrictions on imports in 
response to the crisis has had a stabilizi ng effect on the multilateral trading system. 
384. While economic recovery across the global landsca pe is underway, this is tempered by an 
outlook that suggests that recovery for the EU is likely to be moderate a nd uneven.  This will be 
however compounded by the current debt  crisis impacting the euro zone. 
385. I wish to compliment the EU on the manner in  which they have shouldered the responsibility 
for averting or moderating more severe crises in th e weaker European countries.  This is a major 
responsibility as it has significant implications by wa y of contagion effects for the whole of the EU 
and beyond.  It is useful to mention that cred it bail-out packages that significantly increase debt 
burdens may lead to a vicious cycle and the "high ri sk-high interest" formula being used may need to 
be reviewed because of its boomerang effects on the very creditors who demand it.  Possible 
contagion effects mean that the responsibility which the EU has assumed has become a global 
responsibility.  We wish them well. 
386. The Secretariat Report records that during the period under review, the EU's main policy 
instruments remained largely unchanged.  Barbados  has noted that a number of additional trade 
facilitation measures are being pursu ed, including preparations for the establishment of a single 
window, which will be of particular interest to minimising the transaction costs for our small and 
medium sized enterprises that face capacity constraints. 
387. The EU continues with an ambitious free trad e agenda with a diverse range of trading 
partners.  Most recently we recognise the entry in to force of the EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement on 
1 July.  Within our own region, following th e provisional application of the CARIFORUM-EU 
Economic Partnership Agreement since December 2008,  it remains too early to assess the real impact 
of the EPA on CARIFORUM economies.  The accord nevertheless represents a tool for encouraging and promoting meaningful and beneficial trad e and economic relations between CARIFORUM and 
the EU, given the new realities of a dynamic global environment. 
388. There are however, a number of challenges a nd bottlenecks facing CARIFORUM states in the 
agreement's implementation, which in addition to being related to regional governance issues, also 
include human and financial capacity  constraints that have been exacerbated by the global recession.  
Furthermore, it has been noted that the EU Aid for Trade facility expected to be a significant source of 
funding for EPA implementation projects, has not yet delivered on what was anticipated. 
389. Most recently, the first meeting of the Trade and Development Committee under the 
CARIFORUM-EU EPA was held on 9 June, 2011 in Barbados and provided an opportunity for 
detailed exchange on and identifi cation of follow up regarding inter alia  legal issues, ratification of 
the agreement, trade in goods, trade in servi ces, development cooperation and monitoring the 
implementation of the EPA itself.  The establishment of the EPA implementation unit at the regional 
level as well as within five CARIFORUM States, has also marked one of the successes of the 
Agreement at this stage. 
390. At the multilateral level, we recognise and appr eciate that the EU and its Member States 
continue to be among the leading providers of trad e related assistance and Aid for Trade.  We look 
forward to engagement with the EU and its Memb ers at the forthcoming Third Global Aid for Trade 
Review on July 18-19.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 59 
 
 
  391. As the world's largest investor and principal hos t, we encourage the EU to expand their range 
of developing country investment partners to wards the enhancement of  economic opportunities and 
the promotion of sustainable development. 
392. My delegation welcomes the high level of engage ment and leadership that the EU undertakes 
within the multilateral trading system in general, an d in the Doha negotiations in particular.  We are 
reassured to know that completing the Doha Round re mains the EU's top priority.  Barbados also 
appreciates the increasing recognition of the EU in  considering the specific characteristics and 
relevant trade related responses, necessary to addr ess the concerns and interests of small, vulnerable 
economies so as to facilitate their fuller inte gration into the multilateral trading system. 
393. We anticipate continued guidance and leadersh ip of key players like the EU towards a 
successful outcome to the Doha Development R ound and remain committed to the continued and 
constructive engagement with the EU and its Members States.  WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 60  
 
  V. REPLIES BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND 
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 
394. I would like to start by thanking all the Members for their comments and questions to the EU 
on Wednesday, which I will try to respond this morn ing. I will focus on the recurring questions, as we 
have provided replies to the vast bulk of the specific questions that had been addressed to us ahead of 
the meeting. Also, several matters were already explained in our opening statement. As a general 
remark, let me first state that one of the reasons for many detailed questions is surely the amount of 
public information available and the level of tran sparency of the EU's policies and measures in 
general.  
395. Today a further batch of replies to those ques tions we received late after the deadline is 
distributed. While we hope that Members will acknow ledge our efforts, we are clearly not in the 
position to provide replies to questions presented to us  just before the meeting, and even on the day of 
the meeting. As mentioned already on Wednesday, this issue could be something to be looked at 
during our upcoming reappraisal to make the TPR exercise even more useful. 
396. In this respect I would like to say a few wo rds on the TPR process itself. The EU is strongly 
in favour of an effective, interactive and valuable  mechanism. And we are ready to put the necessary 
resources into this. Our aim is to have a frank peer  review that stimulates concrete action in the 
governments of the reviewed Members and contribut es to greater transparency and understanding of 
Members' policies. Getting there may require some improvements to the present system; the 
4
th reappraisal will be a perfect opportunity for us to work on a set of improvements that our Ministers 
could then endorse in December. While we do not want  to go into details now about our ideas, but our 
own review already provides directions for some desirable changes. For in stance, the Secretariat 
Report goes into more details about our Member States ' policies than before. We think that in general, 
the coverage of sub-national measures should be improved in the Secretariat's documentation as in 
many WTO Members these are important elements of their trade policies. Another aspect is the 
changing nature of the Chair's concluding remarks, encouraging changes in specific policy areas, in 
reaction to Members' frequent comments. We would like this approach to be consistently followed 
also in the upcoming reviews.  We also think that value could be added by exploring ways of making the whole exercise more transparent both internal ly, by granting access to questions to Members 
earlier, and externally, by allowing access to our discussion to a broader public. 
397. Turning to our review, let me first of all e xpress our appreciation for the many positive views 
expressed about the fundamental aspects of the EU's  trade policy. A recurri ng theme has been the 
recognition of the resistance the EU has shown against giving into protectionist pressures and to the 
introduction of trade restrictive measures. This broad view of the Membership confirms that it is not 
just us who think that the EU, as the largest trad ing entity of the world, has shown a good example, 
and thereby gave a major contribution to the mainte nance of open markets in most Members in spite 
of the crisis.  
398. Another recurring theme has been the recogn ition of the EU's strong attachment to 
multilateralism and the leadership role it played a nd continues to play in the DDA negotiations. These 
views give an underpinning to our efforts to keep  the DDA going and to work for agreeing on an early 
contribution to its successful conclusion at the December Ministerial Meeting.  
399. Let me turn now to specific areas.   Many Members as well as our Discussant have questioned 
the support measures the EU and its Member States have taken during the cris is, primarily in support 
of banks but also to the automotive, construction and tourism sectors.  First of all, we question that 
any distortion may have generated by these measures.   In the financial sector, the aid granted to 
selected banks between October 2008 and December 2010 does not seem to have  affected the market 
performance of non-aided banks: the latter have performed marked ly better than aided banks  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 61 
 
 
  throughout the period. Even more importantly, the alternative, i.e. letting the weaker banks to 
collapse, could have had much more negative conse quences not just for the EU, but also for the whole 
world economy. 
400. As regards other sectors, the Temporary Framework was basically aimed at the SME sector, 
helping  companies' access to finance to the tune of a limited amount of aid up to €500,000 per 
company, in the form of subsidised loans and gua rantees, more flexible risk capital funding and trade 
financing. We are still waiting for any data or pr oof that these measures helping small and medium 
sized companies had any noticeable trade distorting effects, damaging the exports of other WTO Members, especially in such sectors as construction or tourism.   
401. Several of you have also mentioned the auto motive sector. During the crisis the European 
Commission has been particularly a ttentive to State aid projects by Member States in favour of this 
sector, in order to prevent disguised form of pr otectionism that would differentiate among homemade 
and imported products. Thus, such measures had positiv e, but neutral effects for the whole car market 
– that cannot be said of the projects of several other WTO Members. The rolling back process has already started with a gradual phasing out. On 1 December 2010 the Commission decided to prolong 
some of these measures until the end of 2011 but subj ect to stricter conditions keeping in mind that 
the main objective is to return to the normal ru les as soon as possible when the financial situation 
normalises. In particular, in deciding on the phasing out of the 2011 Temporary Framework, the Commission will assess the evolution of the ec onomic situation, the Temporary Framework's 
appropriateness in sustaining the economic recovery , its effects on competition between firms and 
across Member States as well as the availability of access to finance based on the companies' 
creditworthiness. 
402. Let me say a few words on another topic whic h raised interest among Members, the recent 
institutional developments in the EU. It is enc ouraging to see that most Members have welcomed 
these as positive further steps towards the EU inte gration. While the way of taking decisions has 
become undoubtedly more complex and takes more time also in the trade policy area, we consider this 
as a small price to pay for enhanced democracy and legitimacy. 
403. On investment, China and many other Members ra ised concerns about the validity of existing 
BITs. Let me very clearly reassure all of you that  the new EU competences on FDIs do not affect the 
validity of existing BITs between Member States and third countries. For the sa ke of legal certainty, 
the proposed draft Regulation which is currently in th e legislative procedure, contains a provision that 
the existing BITs will be maintained in force, also in order to ensure the necessary level of protection 
for investors. These would be overtaken only gradually and over time by eventual EU-level 
agreements. 
404. Regarding both new EU competences in the field of investment and new trade legislation 
procedures, I have already stated in the opening st atement that internal discussions on the future 
arrangements are ongoing and thus it is not possible at  this stage to provide definitive information. 
However, in the spirit of more streamlined and focused TPRs, I would surely encourage the WTO 
Secretariat to have a special regard to these issues  at our next review in 2013 by which time all these 
issues should have been settled. 
405. Regulatory issues are another field on which we've got a lot of "bitter medicine" from 
Members as our Chinese colleagues would put it. Even if some Members did acknowledge the 
transparent way in which EU develops and adopts measures affecting trade.  First, some general 
remarks on the EU system, which is unique in the wa y it combines federalism with subsidiarity – this 
is apparent among others from the fact that in  the WTO both the EU a nd its Member States are 
members. While trade policy is an exclusive compet ence of the EU, other policies are not - and will 
not be in the foreseeable future. Thus, complaints about the lack of harmonisation of, e.g. internal WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 62  
 
  taxation or excise duties are misplaced. Members should calibrate their expectations to our 
institutional realities.  
406. It is not always possible or even necessary to be frank to adopt harmonised EU legislation for 
all goods. In the non-harmonized area, the free movement  of goods is guaranteed by the application of 
the general Treaty provisions and the operation of the mutual recognition principle as defined in the 
case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Furthermore, the vast majority of EU 
regulations are based on international standards th at by their nature tend to represent middle-way 
solutions or standards. Such reliance on internationa l standards is, by the way, not the case for several 
other major WTO Members, complaining about our regime at this forum.  
407. Secondly, the EU's legislation seeks to ensure the functioning of the internal market and a 
high level of consumer and enviro nment protection - frequently higher than in other WTO Members. 
This is a fundamental point for us, as Article 168 (1 ) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union provides that "A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and 
implementation of all Union  policies and activities". Several Members have also recognised 
Wednesday that public policy concerns relating to food safety, consumer and environmental 
protection are legitimate. 
408. To achieve this level of protection the EU  needs technical regulations, for example on 
chemicals, which affect foreign producers just as mu ch as domestic ones and that take into account to 
the highest extent the WTO principle of not crea ting unnecessary obstacles to trade. To ensure this, 
the EU carries out extensive stakeholder consultati ons (including with third countries) and detailed 
impact assessments. 
409. Finally, some delegations have  mentioned our SPS standards 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 e fforts, the numerous cooperation programs with 
developing countries in this area. Furthermore and more importantly, trade figures speak for themselves: the EU is the world's largest importe r of agricultural products; it is also the largest 
importer of such products from developing countries, and the major market for LDCs. In fact, the EU 
imports more of LDCs products than the rest of  the world put together. If SPS measures were to be 
such an insurmountable obstacle as claimed by some, all this trade could not have been realized. On 
Wednesday Egypt made a note about lack of scien tific proof – we are currently still assessing the 
reasons of the recent e-coli outbreak and the sour ces can be likely found outside the EU. Considering 
the severity of this health crisis, we are fully convi nced that the measures taken by the EU to check it 
remain fully WTO-consistent, in line with the Article XX of the GATT. 
410. More specifically concerns were raised on We dnesday, for instance about the number of TBT 
notifications. We fail to see the link between the nu mber of notifications a WTO Member is carrying 
out and the fact that the proposed technical regula tions and conformity assessment procedures is an 
obstacle to trade as stated by some Members. The impact of a notified measure can only be assessed 
with regard to its specific content and not by the num ber. For instance, certain EU notifications are in 
fact amendments of existing legislation with the aim of simplifying the regulatory framework and/or 
updating it to technical progress rather than intr oducing genuinely new re quirements. Therefore 
statistics alone say nothing. The number of EU a nd Member State notifications reflects the full 
commitment of the EU and its Member States to the transparency obligations arising from the TBT 
Agreement. Moreover, the EU and Member State le gislation is equally applicable to domestic and 
imported products as well as to domestic and fore ign suppliers.  As to the comment period, the 
notification of EU legislation usually gives at least  60 days. The EU takes note of the remark that 17% 
of Member States' notification in the report 's period did not respect such requirement.   WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 63 
 
 
  411. With regard to the point made by some Member s that EU draft regulations are notified at a 
stage when deliberations among EU Member St ates have progressed too far to allow for the 
meaningful consideration of trading partners' views,  the EU would like to point out that, contrary to 
other Members' practice, the EU submits its notific ations always when the technical regulation or 
conformity assessment procedure is still at a draft st age. No notified text has been adopted before the 
end of the comment period given to WTO Members.  Legislative discussions with EU Member States 
take place either after or in parallel with the notification. Comments from WTO Members submitted 
in the comment period under the TBT notification pr ocedure are always carefully analysed during the 
legislative procedure and taken into account befo re the adoption of the text. It does not mean, 
however, that every proposal is taken on board.  
412. As regards questions on specific regulations, I would like to start with replying to question 
about the Regulation 765/2008 concerning the extensive discussions on the EU's common accreditation framework that has taken place in the TBT Committee from June 2009 until March 2010.  The EU's common accreditation framework is a tool to support our internal regulatory policy 
and is based on the existing intern ational accreditation framework. It is not intended to change or 
undermine international cooperation arrangements operated under ILAC (International Laboratory 
Accreditation Cooperation) and IAF (International Accreditation Forum) and to affect or force 
changes in accreditation practices in other WTO Me mbers. There is no issue of national competence 
of individual Member States in relation to the recognition of non-EU accreditation bodies. The EU 
therefore is of the opinion that the European  common accreditation framework establishing this 
Regulation is fully compatible with WTO rules. 
413. On the Commission proposal for a Regulation on novel foods, I note that thorough 
discussions have been taking place in the TBT and SPS committees and I will not enter into details as 
this is not the aim of the TPR mechanism to replace those fora. However, I would just recall that the 
EU ensured that Members' concerns would be ta ken into account in the ongoing discussions in the 
legislative process, on which Members were re gularly updated and wh ich is still ongoing.  
414. Concerning the much discussed REACH as much as the REACH Regulation and the 
Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packag ing of Substances and Mixtures (ATPs and CLP) 
these were the most broadly criticised pieces of EU regul ations in this review. I take note of this and 
refer to the detailed information we provided in th e TBT Committee but we maintain our position that 
all those regulations are fully WTO consistent. 
415. On the claims on excessive labelling requirements,  I would like to recall that the objective of 
foodstuff labeling is to guarantee that consumers ha ve access to complete information on the content 
and composition of products, in order to protect thei r health and their interests. Other information may 
provide details on a particular aspec t of the product, such as its or igin or production method. Some 
foodstuffs, such as genetically modified organisms,  allergenic foods, foods intended for infants or 
even various beverages, are also subject to specifi c regulation with respect to labeling. Labeling of 
certain non-food products must also contain particular information, in order to guarantee their safe use 
and to allow consumers to exercise real choice. Th is information is necessary for consumers to choose 
according to their preferences.  
416. As regards harmonisation of SPS regulations  across Member States, the SPS standards 
concerning imports are substantially harmonised at  EU level up to 99%. Import requirements for 
nearly all agriculture products are harmonised for al l major product groups like dairy, meat, fisheries, 
and the work is proceeding apace also on the remaining areas of maximum residue limits, as it was 
recognized by a number of speakers.  Non-harm onised areas are very residual and where these 
national provisions lead to problems in intra-commun ity or international trade, efforts are made to 
introduce harmonized measures.  WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 64  
 
  417. Concerning GMOs specifically our legislativ e framework is currently subject to two 
evaluations: 1) evaluation of the EU legislative framework on GM food and feed;  and 2) evaluation 
of the EU legislative Framework in the Field of Cultivation of GMOs under Directive 2001/18/EC 
and Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 and marketing of their other uses under Directive 2001/18/EC. 
The final reports of these two evaluations are due to be published soon. It is on the basis of these 
reports that it will be considered whether there is a need to review the current EU policy on GMOs. 
418. Concerning intellectual property protection, the EU has rapidly acted on the concerns on the 
medicines in transit – and an amendment of the Customs Regulation 1383/2003 on generic medicines 
is on track. For obvious reasons, we cannot predict yet when this will be adopted as the EU legislator 
is still discussing it – but I am happy to see that  Members concerned have acknowledged our action 
on this irritant.  
419. On customs procedures, we received a bitte r-sweet treatment. We got praises for our 
modernised customs code, and notably for the singl e window and the authorised economic operators, 
and critical remarks on the harmonisation of cust oms procedures. However, I recall that the 
Implementing provisions of the modernised Custom s Code currently being drafted will address the 
interoperability of national customs IT-systems in order to provide for a seamless flow of data, and 
this will contribute to even better integrated  and harmonized customs procedures in practice . In any 
way, we do not think that the number of issues with  practical implementation is higher than those for 
other large WTO Members, but we remain alwa ys ready to look at specific concerns.  
420. Concerning the complaints about the use of  the TDI measures, the EU applies these 
instruments, anti-dumping and anti-subsidies, in orde r to address unfair trading practices, fully in line 
with the relevant WTO Agreements. The EU is a prud ent user of these instruments and in this context 
it should be recalled that the EU applies the lesse r duty rule which is designed to impose measures 
only at a level which eliminates the injury caused by either dumped or subsidized.  Furthermore, 
ensuring a steady supply of raw materials is also a pr iority in the European Union's trade policy and in 
this context attention is drawn to the European Unio n's interest test (e.g. determination of impact of 
such measures on downstream users of the product) which is applied when deciding whether or not 
any TDI measures should be imposed. We would ju st ask other major users of TDI measures to 
follow the example of these liberal practices.  
421. The EU continued to address competition distortions  in international trade via the use of its 
trade defence instruments (anti-dumping, anti-subsidi es and safeguards). While an increase in trade 
defence actions which are fully compliant with WT O rules could have been expected following the 
global economic downturn, it is notable that in 2009 these measures affected only around 0.5% of 
trade. We do hope that DDA outcomes will result in a broader use of liberal pr actices similar to ours 
with all the positive effects on world trade in gene ral and specifically on the EU exports in particular . 
422. A number of comments were made about the EU  tariffs, and reference was made to some 
tariff peaks on industrial products. I would just note that these tariffs peaks ar e in the low twenties, 
which could be technically based on the technical defi nition considered as tariff peaks. But looking at 
the tariffs applied by other WTO Members even in  the industrial area certainly are not at all 
excessive.  Furthermore, also comments were made a bout the agricultural tariffs and I will come back 
to this issue later.  But concerning how to deal with  this situation we have a very simple response:  
successfully conclude the DDA. This will bring majo r changes in the EU's industrial and agricultural 
tariffs.  
423. Some comments were made on government procur ement.  Specifically I would refer to a 
comment made by Japan about the difficulties caused by what they call complicated, two-layer system 
in government procurement. But this has to be lo oked at in the context of Japan's own regulatory 
regime in this area, that resulted in the share of foreign suppliers in contracts resulting from open  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 65 
 
 
  tenders in Japan of just 1.1% in 2009 – several times lower than that of  the EU. So, in light of this, the 
EU legislation does not seem to be excessive.  
424. I appreciate the many positive remarks from Members acknowledging the EU's role and 
commitment to multilateralism, and to the DDA. I al so noted the Discussant's point on the spaghetti 
bowl being easily digestible. I would say that our sauce may be better than others because our MFN 
rates are already very low and our trade agreements are much deeper and broad in coverage than the 
ones negotiated by some other major notably emerging economies. 
425. I would anyway reiterate that bilateral deals are not for us a substitute for multilateral rule-
based system.  Our RTAs are based on the WTO di sciplines, and in their effects they create, not 
divert, trade. And when they are not fully recipro cal, this is to cater for our partners development 
constraints; in this regard, I was happy to h ear the various positive remarks that some of our 
Caribbean partners have expressed with regard  to our Economic Partnership Agreement.  
426. On GSP I thank those Members that have dul y acknowledged the progress we made with our 
new rules of origin towards a simpler and more de velopment-friendly scheme, in line with our Hong 
Kong, China commitment. Equally, I noted the signs  of appreciation for the EU having extended the 
current GSP scheme until 31 December 2011.  
427. I also heard the criticism of those Members w ho may face higher tariffs for some of their 
exports if the Commission proposal was adopted as such by the EU legislator. On this issue I can only reiterate that the Commission's objective is to a ddress the needs of the less competitive and more 
vulnerable countries while at the same time recognizing sustainable development through our GSP+ scheme.  
428. Several Members expressed concerns on our Emi ssion trading rights system and the inclusion 
of aviation into it. Such inclusion applies to airc raft operators who choose to  operate to and from the 
EU market. It does not apply to third countries, but in a non-discriminatory manner to those airlines that arrive at or depart from an EU airport.  If a third country adopts measures for reducing the climate 
change impact of flights departing from that country which land in the European Union, the EU can 
exclude all incoming flights from that country from the EU ETS. The intention is to avoid double 
regulation of aviation emissions when other States de cide to take action. Th e measures should have an 
environmental effect at least equivale nt to that of the EU legislation. 
429. Let me turn now to sectoral issues, first of  all to agriculture.  The EU takes note of 
delegations' remarks about the EU tariffs in agricu lture. First, we do not agree with the views that 
non-ad valorem  tariffs are necessarily barriers to trade, it is the level of protection that is important. In 
fact, the EU has only a limited number of the so-ca lled "tariff peaks". The solution to these concerns, 
as already mentioned, lies in the successful conclu sion of the DDA. The EU's contribution on market 
access would bring deep changes in the level of prot ection of its agricultural market. In the meantime, 
EU tariffs which result from the Uruguay R ound negotiations are bound by our schedule and 
furthermore the post 2013 CAP reform should not be expected to bring automatic changes in the EU 
tariffs. 
430. Concerning domestic support, the Secretariat's Report duly recognises the significance of the 
CAP reforms and we are pleased to note statements of Members expressing appreciation of the evolution of the policy. We can only regret that out of all the positive elements described in the report 
in relation to the reforms of the CAP, most Memb ers chose to refer to one sentence about the overall 
level of support as calculated under the OECD met hodology. However, what matters is the level of 
the trade-distorting support in agriculture as per the definition of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture 
and the fact that this kind of support has b een massively decreased in the recent period.  WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 66  
 
  431. With regard to export subsidies for agricultura l products, reference has been made by some 
Members to the Hong Kong Declaration. The text of this Declaration states "We agree to ensure the 
parallel elimination of all form s of export subsidies and disciplines on all export measures with 
equivalent effect to be completed by the end of 2013."   Parallelism is indeed the core element of this 
commitment. The EU remains comm itted to the successful conclusion of the DDA negotiations which 
should lead to the parallel elimination of all fo rms of export subsidies and disciplines on all export 
measures with equivalent effect, as part of a co mprehensive, ambitious and balanced package under 
the Single Undertaking, governing all aspects of ag ricultural issues as well as TRIPS issues, namely 
GI register and GI extension. 
432. But let me note that the use of export subsid ies has anyway continued to decline over the 
years. In terms of traded volumes, export refunds we re used on less than 1% and 0.5% of EU exports 
of agricultural products in 2009 and 2010 respectively.  The days when the EU used export subsidies 
to be an active player on world commodity markets are long gone and even the much referred to temporary export subsidies on dairy products have been gone now for a couple of years. 
433. Finally, let me refer under this heading to th e conclusion of the dispute on bananas. As has 
been pointed out by a number of Delegations, we are also very pleased with th is result. The agreement 
will enter into force once all signatories notify ab out the completion of ratification process and the 
certification of the EU banana schedule can start thereupon. 
434. Turning to services, I would like to start by the level of harmonisation of the European market 
in services which many Members as well as our Di scussant raised on Wednesday. As it has already 
been pointed out, the EU integration is progressive  and important achievements have already been 
reached in many sectors such as postal and courier se rvices where the EU has the most liberal system 
in the world, but as well in financial services, telecommunications services and international maritime transport services. Indeed, all service activities are co vered by the Treaty of the EU, and its general 
principles (such as transparency, proportionality) an d the very large majority of service activities are 
also covered by specific EU instruments such as Services directive, Professional Qualifications 
directive and other sector-specific instruments.  
435. In comparison to the last TPR in 2009, the impl ementation of the Services directive in the 
Member States progressed a lot with the overwhelming majority of Member States, that is 22 out of 
27, having now completed the implementation. Even  though the internal market for services remains 
work in progress, the openness of the EU's market is proven by the fact that we are the largest 
importer of commercial services. Nevertheless, to ta ckle the remaining obstacles the EU has launched 
targeted actions to strengthen the EU services market s, including: first, making sure the Single Market 
works effectively on the ground, by introducing a so-called "performance check" from the user's 
perspective. The objective is to identify specific pr actical problems that hamper the internal market 
for services;  and secondly, removing obstacles to cross-border services, with special emphasis on the difficulties in the cross-border provision of  services without permanent establishment.  
436. In the same vein, some Members criticised par ticularly a lack of full harmonisation of the 
recognition of professional qualifications. In this r espect, the EU Treaty provides that the EU adopts 
rules on the recognition of professional qualifications  to facilitate the free movement of persons. 
Accordingly, EU legislation was introduced to en sure the mutual recognition of qualifications in 
regulated professions. In order for third-country nati onals to obtain an EU-wide recognition of their 
qualification, it is necessary that a Mutual Recogn ition Agreement be negotiate d. This process should 
be industry-driven, with support from the prof essional bodies, but the EU is certainly open to 
negotiate such agreement. 
437.
 There were a number of comments relating to Mode  4 and visa procedures.  In this respect it 
is important to reiterate that the Member States of  the EU, like all other countries of the world, follow  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 67 
 
 
  a security based application of their visa rules, in  full awareness of their obligation not to nullify or 
impair the benefits accruing to any WTO Member under the terms of a specific commitment.  
438. Concerning the conditions for providing a service through the movement of natural persons in 
the EU market, for instance as contractual serv ice supplier or independent professional, those 
conditions (be it for professional experience or for qua lifications) do not constitute barriers to trade, 
but are a legitimate means to ensure an adequate  level of consumer protection. Moreover, those 
conditions are subject to negotiations in the frame work of both the DDA or bilateral negotiations.  
439. As regards the concern expressed about the in consistent procedures for intra-corporate 
transferees, the Commission tabled a proposal one year ago that would facilitate for multinational 
companies to temporarily transfer skilled non-EU na tionals to branches and subsidiaries in Member 
States. More specifically, the directive contains pr ovisions to set up a common set of rules and to 
introduce a combined residence and work permit for th is category of workers. It also envisages a new 
fast-track entry procedure according to which a perm it should be issued within a fixed time limit. The 
proposal is currently in the ordinary legislative procedure and therefore being discussed between the 
Institutions of the EU.  
440. Some comments were made about the delay concerning the consolidation of the EU-25 
schedule.  As Members are aw are, the schedule will enter into force when the EU will finalise its 
internal approval procedures. The internal ratifi cation process has been the subject of discussions. 
Furthermore, certain constitutional issues arose in one of our Member  States. As of 1 July 2011, 
17 Member States out of 25 have finalised the ra tification procedure, while eight ratification 
procedures are ongoing. The EU is determined to complete this process as quickly as possible.  
441. Finally, let me also say a few words on the alleged scheduling failure under GATS because of 
the horizontal reservation applying for public utilities. While the ope ning up to competition within the 
EU Member States has reduced the number of public monopolies and exclusive rights in almost all services areas, there are still some cases which ju stify such reservation, for instance in cases 
where  having an unlimited number of service suppliers  competing  within a  given geographical area 
is not technically feasible or economically viable (e.g. water distribution) or  cannot guarantee the 
appropriate  universal access to services (e.g. waste collection). This limitation is not, and has not been used as a market a ccess barrier, nor were any new monopolies or exclusive rights being recently 
created.   
DISCUSSANT 
442. The first thing I should like to emphasize is th at almost all Members referred to the rapid 
progress in EU integration, which deepened in some  areas with the economic crisis when increased 
efforts were made to seek solutions to new problems. 
443. Secondly, it was recognized that, because of its economic size and the level of its trade, the 
EU has responsibilities for the proper functioning of th e multilateral trading system.  It is precisely for 
this reason that Members raised various concer ns.  I should like to stress that virtually all 
acknowledged the caution shown by the EU during the cr isis as far as protectionism is concerned.  
It is clear that there were indications that in some  cases intervention resulted in some minor deviations 
and although Peter tried to assure us that these were in significant and did not distort trade, I think that 
there were some doubts on the part of Members.  It is particularly in relati on to the support given to 
certain sectors that the most concerns arose. 
444. 
The high tariff peaks still applicable to non-ag ricultural products and some other products 
were mentioned and Peter told us that the highest  peak is around 20%.  If one takes into account the 
actual protection given by tariff escalation, this 20 % can be much higher depending on the level of the WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 68  
 
  tariffs on inputs for these products.  Although I agre e with Peter that the nominal rates may not be 
high, the actual protection may be so.  I should like to  mention in this connection what is said about 
the spaghetti bowl, indeed, the spaghetti bowl is dige stible in the case of tariffs because 80 to 85% of 
the EU's imports are subject to very low tariffs and are on an MFN basis.  What I would like to 
indicate is, however, that the spaghetti bowl is possibly not in the tariff part, but in the other 
regulations under various free trade or bilateral agr eements.  I should once again like to state that the 
example of the EU suffices to show that issues such as TBT, SPS, and today Peter mentioned the 
question of aviation and climate change, where there is agreement with the EU showing that there is 
an equivalent effort by other countries, all m ean that the spaghetti bowl is tending towards the 
regulatory part rather than the trade in goods part. 
445. There was an important discussion of the EU's  new functions under the Lisbon Treaty and 
some of the concerns are essentially issues such  as investment.  As regards the latter, the 
1,200 agreements of the EU member States with  various countries are also a somewhat complex 
framework and naturally there is a concern regardi ng what will happen with th is new function.  Peter 
is quite right to say that we do not yet know what will happen. 
446. I think the largest number of concerns once mo re concerned technical barriers to trade and 
sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  The real pr oblem I think I heard expressed, and which I also 
mentioned, is that the measures taken by the EU go beyond the goal of protecting consumers.  I agree 
with Peter in the sense that the number of TBT or  SPS notifications does not mean that these are a 
reflection of a restrictive level but what is impor tant is that the number of concerns expressed by 
Members in the various committees have  increased considerably and, a bove all, this type of concern 
has been addressed to one of the WTO's leading Members. 
447. The concern most often expressed related to agricult ure.  It is clear that we all hope that in 
2013 the CAP will be less trade-distorting, and in partic ular that the levels of protection in agriculture 
will be brought down.  It must be borne in mind th at the EU is the major importer of foodstuffs, but 
also that many of the WTO's Members have ser ious problems in gaining access to the Community 
market.  The best solution would of course be the rapid conclusion of the Doha Round and I think we 
all agree that the problem is that we have been  unable to reach agreement on how to conclude the 
Doha Round as soon as possible. 
448. I could make further comments on what has been said, but I think one of the most important 
elements has been the GSP.  On the one hand, Member s have pointed to the benefits to the system that 
will stem from lessening the considerable complexities of the EU's rules of origin.  On the other hand, 
the problems which the new system could create with  regard to the number of beneficiary countries 
were also mentioned. 
UNITED STATES 
449. We commend the EU and its member States fo r their commitment to the multilateral rules-
based trading system and for their contribution to  the phenomenal growth of global trade during the 
last half century.  We would also like to thank you for your ideas this morning on the forthcoming 
TPR appraisal and look forward to continuing this  dialogue to improve the Trade Policy Review 
Mechanism. 
450. We acknowledge and share the EU's commitme nt to the WTO and the Doha Round. We 
appreciate the EU's active participation in the diffi cult task facing Members in assessing next steps in 
the Round, and trying to determine what is achievable in the short term.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 69 
 
 
  451. We reaffirm the concerns expressed by sever al Members about the Common Fisheries Policy 
and the importance of EU reforms that result in th e reduction of harmful subsidies to the fisheries 
sector. 
452. In the area of sanitary and phytosanitary me asures, an area in which many Members have 
expressed concern in this review, we continue to ur ge the EU to implement a regulatory regime that 
complies with the EU's own statutory deadlines and in  which regulatory decisions are consistent with 
the outcomes of risk assessments based on science and ar e consistently applied across member States.   
453. Notwithstanding the EU representative's statement this morning, we nonetheless believe that 
improvements are also warranted in the EU's pro cess for notifying regulatory proposals.  We would 
like to see WTO Members and affected exporters gi ven a meaningful opportunity to comment on 
regulatory proposals and have those comments taken into consideration before a final technical 
regulation is promulgated and enfor ced.  I should note that we made this same observation at the last 
two TPRs of the EU. 
454. Finally, echoing the comments made by others on Wednesday, and acknowledging the EU's 
statement this morning, the United States still enc ourages the EU to ensure that implementation of 
REACH, RED and other regulatory initiativ es do not unnecessarily impede market access. 
455. We have several follow-up questions and to further enhance our discussion today, and I 
would like to ask them of you today. 
456. The first question regards our question 7 regard ing notifying the EPAs.  We appreciate the 
EU's assurance that notification of the EPAs will occur once these Agreements have been ratified by 
the Parties, and by the time they enter into fo rce.  However, Paragraph 3 of the Transparency 
Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreem ents states that: "As a rule, it [notification] will occur no later 
than directly following the parties' ratification of th e RTA or any party's decision on application of the 
relevant parts of an agreement, and before the application of preferential treatment between the 
parties."  Could the EU please explain the extent to which preferential treatment is already being applied with regard to the non-notified EPAs?  
457. The second question involves our question 8.  In its  answer, the EU states that national courts 
"may" submit questions to the Court of Justice where there is a question of interpretation or validity of 
EU law.  However, the EU also states that national courts "must refer a matter to the Court of Justice in cases of doubt regarding a European provision ".  Please explain the difference between the 
discretionary decision to refer a question of inte rpretation and the mandatory obligation to refer a 
matter in the case of doubt regarding a European prov ision.  How is the mandatory obligation to refer 
matters to the Court of Justice "in cases of doubt " enforced on national courts?  What measures are 
available to compel the national court to refer the ma tter?  Does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction 
to resolve conflicting decisions issued by differe nt national courts, including where there is no 
question of interpretation or validit y of EU law?  If the Court assum es jurisdiction in such a scenario, 
is a referral mandatory or discretionary? 
458. The third question relates to our question 11.  The EU states that where Member States are 
unable to agree on the uniform customs classification of a product, the Commission may propose classification regulations or explanatory notes to  the Combined Nomenclature.  Please explain the 
procedure and process by which the proposal is made.  The EU states that during the last five years, 
122 classification regulations were published.  How many Explanatory Notes have been published?  
How does an Explanatory Note ensure uniform a pplication given that Explanatory Notes are not 
legally binding?  WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 70  
 
  459. With regard to U.S. question 14, in its answer, the EU states that the proposed origin marking 
scheme would not apply to the enumerated non-EU  countries, "owing to the existing agreements 
between the EU and the relevant parties" but th e response does not include the provisions of these 
agreements that require this result, as we original ly requested.  We respectfully request that the EU 
provide these provisions to us. 
460. Lastly, with regard to question 33, does the reference in the Secretariat's Report to the 
"different structures of the public sector (and its spending power) in the respective member States" 
refer only to the centralized versus decentra lized purchasing policies?  Please explain how the 
maintenance of a centralized versus a decentra lized purchasing policy affects the publication of 
notices. Please also explain why some Member States publish notices for as little as 7.1% of their 
procurement. 
CHINA 
461. I would like to take this opportunity to follow up on some of our concerns after the first day 
intervention.  First, regarding the traditional herbal  medicine issue, China is interested in exporting 
traditional herbal medicinal products to the EU market.  Seven years ago, the EU issued the 
Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive wh ich stipulated that plant medicine production 
enterprises must be registered by the end of April 30, 2011 before en tering the market.  However, the 
Chinese herbal medicine has yet to be authori zed due to the stringent requirements and high 
registration cost. China calls upon the EU to work t ogether with China to seek an appropriate solution 
to this issue in a timely manner. 
462. Second, complicated and burdensome TBT regulati ons.  From the questions raised by China 
to the EU in this Trade Policy Review process, it is clear that our industry is very keen to draw the 
EU's attention that its directives like RoHS, WEEE, Eup and REACH are rather complicated and burdensome and have created imme nse difficulties for enterprises in  the developing countries to 
export to the EU market.  China would like to urge th e EU to take these concerns into consideration in 
its future policy formulation to avoid using co mplicated and burdensome TBT regulations as they 
may create unnecessary barriers to tr ade. Meanwhile, technical assistance should be provided to the 
developing countries in meeting the stringent require ments as these Directives do affect the capability 
of the developing Members including  China to enter the EU market. 
463. Third, regarding SPS transparency, SPS notifi cation obligations at the EU level have 
generally been observed but the stories for differe nt Member states are uneven. China believes that 
this kind of practice by the EU Member States has undermined the rights of WTO Members as 
stipulated in the SPS Agreement to comment on the SPS measures by the EU Member States. 
Therefore, it is China's hope that the EU could urge its Member States to fulfil the transparency 
obligations, notify their proposed SPS measures to  the WTO and provide no less than 60 days for 
comment. 
464. China is not alone in voicing concerns over the EU's SPS/TBT measures during this review. 
China hopes that the EU could take these concerns  into serious consideration to avoid creating 
unnecessary barriers to trade. We take note that some of our TBT/SPS questions were addressed by the EU in the responses provided today. We will exam ine them carefully and come back to the EU if 
necessary, through bilateral channels.  
JAPAN 
465. Japan appreciates the constructive role that the EU is playing in preventing protectionism as 
well as the efforts to secure the tr ansparency in policy making process.  The EU has also contributed a 
lot in international negotiations including DDA, and EU and Japan worked together in many topics.   WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 71 
 
 
  466. On the first day, our Ambassador Otabe touched on four areas, namely: Trade and Investment 
Policy, Common Policies and Regulations, Tari ff Classification issues for IT products, and 
Government Procurement.  Japan would like to c ontinue to follow up on EU trade policies in these 
areas.  To be a little bit more specific, I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the points from our second set of questions. 
467. Some provisions in the area of government proc urement still leave some ambiguity as to their 
interpretations and applications. We take note of the responses from the EU regarding actual data of 
the share of foreign suppliers in government procur ement market in the EU and Japan. According to 
the Secretariat Report, the percentage of the EU's above-threshold proc urement from non-EU GPA 
suppliers in 2007 is estimated to be 3.3%. Accordi ng to the Secretariat Report issued at the time of 
Japan TPR back in February this year, the pe rcentage of Japanese pr ocurement from non-Japanese 
suppliers in 2007 is 3.7%. I do not intend to play wi th numbers, but the EU's statement that the EU 
market is several times more open to foreign su ppliers than Japanese market is not supported by 
statistics. Moreover, our questions in government  procurement were more on the legislative and 
institutional elements. 
468. Regarding some custom procedures, such as the "24 hour rule" applied for containerized 
marine cargo, I would like to refer to our concer n about the rising costs caused by increased inventory 
and a lack of predictability coming from differences in individual Member States. Furthermore, the 
termination of tariff suspensions could disturb the sound business environment. 
469. Thirdly, with respect to tariffs on information technology devices, granting duty-free 
treatment to monitors that are solely or princi pally used with Advanced  Data Processing machines, 
whereas imposing 14% duties on other monitors, w ill distort the fair competition in the market. 
470. I would like to submit our follow-up questions in cluding those points in a written format later. 
Finally, I would like to point out that, given the cu rrent economic and financial situation in Europe, it 
is even more important for the EU to continue to be committed to open a nd transparent economic and 
trade policies. Japan wishes to further cooperate with  the EU, on a bilateral basis, based on the recent 
agreement in the Japan-EU Summit as well as on a multilateral basis including the WTO.  
CANADA 
471. We would like to seek further information and clarification in two general areas.  They are 
related to agriculture, the EU's MF N tariffs on cereals and that is with respect to Canada's question 
No. 62. On Services we will be seeking further in formation on maritime transport services and further 
progress to its market opening and also on cabotage markets in the EU Member States. 
EUROPEAN UNION 
472. Regarding support measures I know that some WTO Members recently initiated an exercise 
to look into the support measures in reaction to the cr isis. However, looking at the effects of the EU's 
support measures, the great majority of which went for the stabilization of the financial sectors, we 
still remain to be convinced that the sectoral s upport measures which have been elaborated are truly 
trade distorting.  It is easy for countries who took bo rder measures to claim that  they are poor and that 
they take border measures but the rich countries s upport their specific sectors.  It might be true in 
certain cases but we do not think that this is true in  the case of the EU when looking at the reaction to 
the crisis.  The support measures pointed out predom inantly for the small and medium-size companies 
with a rather clear maximum quantitative limit.  I would like to see any data or specific trade 
complaint which would show the marked displaceme nt of this maximum €500,000 subsidy on exports 
of our partners.   WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 72  
 
  473. Support measures were provided clearly and thus we acknowledge to the automotive sector, 
but I can again underline that these were predomin antly in the form of support for consumption 
(scrapping schemes), similarly provided both to domestic and imported cars.  So this kind of 
consumption support was not linked to specific origin of the product.  Finally while it might be that 
some support measures for such sectors as construc tion and tourism had effects on some foreign 
services exports to the EU but we have not seen any such information as yet. 
474. Especially when it comes to tourism looking at the huge amount spent worldwide on tourism 
promotion and supporting tourist projects, we do not see that in this respect the EU measures even in 
the crisis anything goes of exception. To sum up we would like to see apart from the fact that we step 
up which we recognise that we are transparent the level of support and also when it comes to SMEs 
especially the loosen of the conditions for suppor t we would like to see beyond this fact some 
practical proof of the claimed trade distorting effect. 
475. The tariffs which you referred, Fernando, I can confirm that our tariff peaks are in the low 
20s, 24% is the highest, that is for canned tuna wh ich is food item even if it is under the industrial 
sector but when it comes to industrial manufactured products they are much lower.  
476. Remark on spaghetti bowl and rules aspects in th is bowl - when it comes to TBT and SPS it is 
not our understanding that these are areas where the substantive regulations are much different under 
FTAs compared to the generally applicable treatme nt.  Normally there are some agreements like 
TRIPS which specifically exclude the applicability of pr eferential treatment and it is also the fact that 
when it comes to substantive regulations on SPS a nd TBT they tend to be non-discriminatory.  
However, what it is certainly true that under deep  and comprehensive FTAs especially there is legal 
harmonisation involved, so the partners undertake to a pproximate their legislation in this area to that 
of the EU it might has a major liberalizing effect .  And on the other hand there is normally an 
enhanced cooperation and enforcement of these me asures which again might have a liberalizing 
effect. 
477. Concerning FDI and specifically the legal certainty of the bilateral investment treaties, it is 
not the question what happens but ra ther when happens.  These BITs re main in force until they will be 
overtaken by EU level investment agreements which is  not for the near future.  This will be a rather 
slow and gradual process and it is as much the interest of the EU as our partners to make sure that there is no legal uncertainty that the protectional i nvestment is ensured also in the coming years.  
Therefore it is very clearly the intention of the EU and the Members States to keep these BITs in force 
and not to change the conditions for investment.  
478. Turning to TBT and SPS this is a long discussion and some of the follow-up questions also 
referred to the fact that, whether there is anythi ng what goes beyond legitimate motivations under the 
various WTO Articles that would justify the use of su ch measures in the EU.  In our view is that we 
are in line with the WTO where we do not follow in ternational standards which we try to do in the 
majority of the cases and we very much encourage our  partners to do so.  In some areas that there is 
scientific uncertainty, and it is also clear that unlik e some of our partners in the WTO, the EU in cases 
of well founded uncertainty about the effects of ce rtain substances follows the precautionary principle 
and this is something on which we think that we are ready to continue the dialogue with the interested 
partners.   
479. Concerning the number of notifications I am glad th at you also share the view that it is not the 
number that counts but whether to what extent these really reflects the reality.  We try to notify 
everything which is not necessarily the case for eac h of the WTO Members and I pointed out we 
always respect the comment periods before putting into e ffect the legislation.  It is not equivalent that 
we automatically accept all the comments by our partne rs of particular trade interest, which might be 
different from the health or consumer protection obj ectives as seen in the EU.  I made reference in the  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 73 
 
 
  opening statement that technical and SPS regulations ca n be barriers to trade. Sometimes it is the 
specific intention to stop trade for instance from re gions where there is certain human or animal 
sicknesses prevailing, the point is whether this is  necessary or unnecessary.  The REACH follows the 
basic principle that our consumers and the EU popula tion in general has the right to know and to be 
sure that all the chemical substances used are cl early non-hazardous to health and if there are doubts 
in this area then we require the procedur es foreseen under REACH.  REACH is fully non-
discriminatory it might be even costly in some cas es if certain chemicals used even for a long time 
have to be withdrawn from production at least to e xports to the EU but with the advance of science. 
480. Regarding agriculture, the new CAP reform that will be applied from 1 January 2014 is being 
discussed.  It has been pointed out  that the major directions are already known from a communication 
of the Commission which was issued last autumn.  Clear ly there is a trend and an intention to continue 
further moving away from trade distorting support towards fully green box support which has been 
going on now for over a decade, but at this stage th ere is no intention that the reform would affect 
directly the border protection. 
481. Finally on GSP I can acknowledge that on one hand the simplified use of origin was good 
news concerning the effect on beneficiaries of these changes.  This depends whom you consider as the 
major addressees or beneficiaries.  The Commission's line is that the fact that specially LDCs and 
poor and vulnerable developing countries could not very much increase thei r share in world trade 
unlike emerging economies.  I would note it is due to  the fact that the major competitive disadvantage 
and thereby in the new GPS scheme the Commission's intention is to focus the benefits to these 
countries given them clearly a preferential margin not just vis-à-vis  developed but also competitive 
emerging economies and thereby to ensure that they can increase their participation in world trade. 
482. Turning to some of the comments made by so me WTO Members a number of them are highly 
complex technically like for instance U.S. questio ns No. 8 and 11. We will provide more detailed 
explanation in a written form. 
483. Concerning the notification of the EPAs we do not question that this is a slow process.  The 
effect is that of course every preferential agreemen t has a minimum two parties to it and it needs the 
agreement of both parties based on the internal proce dures to be able to notify. The EU is looking at 
this issue, we would like to speed up the ratifica tion process and the notification thereby and we hope 
that this is clearly an outstanding task a nd a result can be achieved in the near future. 
484. Concerning the origin marking scheme this is a long-standing proposal by the Commission, 
the progress is rather slow so therefore we do not yet see due to the different views especially in the 
Council about this scheme, when and under what  conditions it would enter into force.   
485. Finally the last U.S. question related to the different structures of the public sector in the 
respective Members States and the different levels of publications of the procurement. We shall look 
into it but in our view this might partially be expl ained by the different practices with respect to the 
threshold levels.  There are minimum threshol d levels for the various types of government 
procurement on goods or services and depending on th e set up of the various Members States the level 
at which procurement contracts are issued or rather procurement tenders are issued they might or might not fall under the same threshold. 
486. Turning to the questions of China with respect to the registration of herbal medicines we are 
ready to look at any reasonable solutions as long as th ey are in line with our general directives.   
487. Concerning the complicated and burdensome TBT regulations, first of all as SPS transparency 
apparently we are in the same boat as China. We ju st looked that the outcome of the TPR Review of 
China when it comes to the Ch inese system a large number of comments were made, it does not of WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 74  
 
  course mean that the EU should not take it seriously  its obligations under the WTO.  We would like to 
see China and other Members to scrupulously follow all the transparency provisions that we do follow 
including the possibility of comments for each of our regulations both for TBT and SPS measures. 
488. Concerning technical assistance we provide technical assistance to a large number of 
developing countries but again I have to say that we focus on those developing countries on which in 
our view are most in need. 
489. Regarding to the Japanese questions, I think th at the openness of the government procurement 
market is something which is discussed not just on mu ltilateral fora but also bilaterally with Japan and 
certainly the views are very different but I do not want to go into that kind of discussion.  On the implementation process of the IT this is underway and we are working within the Commission and 
with all Member States to make sure that within  a reasonable period of time the necessary changes are 
undertaken and clarifications in the EU's tariff cla ssification ensuring that the EU fully complies with 
its obligations under the IT.    
490. Turning to the questions of Canada we will come back on the specific data concerning the 
tariffs for cereals as requested by Canada.  Concerni ng the transport related services specifically with 
respect to the marine services we can give some information.  First of all, one of the follow-up 
questions of Canada relates to the ongoing EU-Canad a FTA negotiations I can state that we are ready 
to discuss it bilaterally.  The second follow-up questi on in this respect about which Member States 
have opened up their cabotage market to foreign par ticipation, I would like to say that according to 
our full knowledge is Denmark, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Latvia, Cyprus and Estonia.  
DISCUSSANT 
491. Firstly, I have never said that the support m easures to the financial sector were trade 
distorting.  I have said that those supports to the fina ncial sector helped to avoid a major disaster at the 
world level.  The second element that I would like to transmit is that I do not agree with you that TBT and SPS cannot be part of a spaghetti bowl.  I agree that TBT, any standard, any technical regulation 
would be the same for all countries, any SPS measure  would also be the same for all countries where 
apply both to their domestic producers as well as for the other countries.  But with those countries 
with which you have a FTA agreement where there is a mutual recognition agreement on SPS or on 
TBT then these countries with which you have the ag reements will have an advantage over the other 
countries that do not have this kind of agreement. 
EUROPEAN UNION 
492. I agree with both points that Fernando made.  To be frank I reacted because reference was 
made to the sectoral support measures and I have tried to explain how we see our sectoral support 
measures.  I think that there was no difference on the support measures for the financial sector.  
Concerning the MREs this is clearly a possibility, this is not linked only to FTAs.  We have signed 
MREs with a number of countries where the conditi ons are there, I do not even question that it 
simplifies and streamlines the application of technical or SPS measures, but as I have mentioned the 
EU remains open with all interest ed partners to entering MREs.  WT/TPR/M/248 
 Page 75 
 
 
  VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON 
493. This is the tenth Trade Policy Review of th e European Union and I would like to thank 
Peter Balás and his delegation for their constructive and interactive engagement in this meeting.  I 
would also like to thank Ambassador de Mateo fo r his excellent interven tion as discussant.  The 
Review was based on reports by the WTO Secr etariat and the EU, both of which delegates 
appreciated. 
494. At the time of its previous Trade Policy Review, in April 2009, the EU was in deep economic 
recession, which was accompanied by a sharp contraction of EU and global trade.  Helped partly by a vigorous policy of national and EU stimuli, th e EU economy is recoveri ng, and EU trade has 
rebounded along with global trade.  Delegations we lcomed this, and commended the EU for having 
resisted pressures to respond to economic difficu lties by tightening restrictions on imports and 
exports.  In the face of economic uncertainty caused by  the sovereign debt turmoil in some euro area 
countries, the EU's continued commitment to ope nness and transparency remains essential for many 
Members' own trade and development prospects.  Delegations were encouraged by the role assigned 
to trade and investment openness in the EU's ove rall economic growth and competitiveness strategy. 
495. This is the first Trade Policy Review of the EU  after the Treaty of Lisbon entered into force 
on 1 December 2009.  Under the Treaty, the European  Parliament has rights equal with the Council in 
adopting EU trade legislation, and must give its consent before the Council can ratify international 
trade agreements.  In addition, the Lisbon Treaty broadened the exclusive competence of the EU to 
encompass foreign direct investment as part of  the common commercial policy.  Delegations 
commented on the importance of these changes fo r increased EU trade and investment policy 
coherence, and for further trade and investment liberalization. 
496. Delegations congratulated the EU for having conf irmed that the WTO remains the focus of its 
trade policy.  They recognized the significant contribution made by the EU to the Doha Round, and called on the EU to assert leadership commensurate w ith its status as the world's largest trader in 
order to help bring the Round to a successful conc lusion, including its development dimension.  A 
number of delegations cautioned against the possi bility that the pursuit of the EU's agenda of 
"competitiveness-driven" free trade agreements might detract from the EU's commitment to a strong 
multilateral trading system. 
497. Delegations welcomed the EU's preference programmes to support export growth and 
diversification in developing a nd least developed countries, and remarked on the recent introduction 
of new, more flexible rules of origin for product imported under the Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP).  Many delegations drew atten tion to the European Commission's proposal to 
amend the GSP regime, and some voiced concerns about  the potential impact of this proposal on their 
exports to the EU.  The EU delegation responded th at the proposed changes were meant to create 
better opportunities for those developing countries that are most in need and complied with the letter 
and the spirit of the enabling clause.  Many delega tions welcomed the EU's contributions of Aid for 
Trade and trade-related development assistance  and capacity building, including through the 
WTO Global Trust Fund and the Enhanced Integrated Framework. 
498. The numerous interventions, questions, and answer s during this review have highlighted the 
scope for further rationalization of the EU's trade a nd trade policies.  Indeed, there remain a number of 
areas where reforms would both be beneficial for the EU and help to strengthe n international trade, 
which the EU acknowledged is integr al to its continued prosperity.  The EU authorities may wish to 
give particular thought to possible improvements in the following areas: 

 Tariffs .  It was recognized that import tariffs have remained relatively low and that a 
significant proportion of imports enters the EU duty free under zero-level MFN tariffs WT/TPR/M/248 
Page 76  
 
  or preference programmes.  At the same time, delegations encouraged the EU to 
eliminate remaining tariff peaks, including on motor vehicles, fish, and agriculture, and to simplify its overly complex tariff structure.  Members were satisfied to know 
that the EU stands ready to move in this direction as the result of a successful conclusion to the Doha Round. 
 Regulatory barriers to trade .  Many delegations repeated concerns expressed in 
previous EU Reviews about the burdensome impact of certain regulatory measures on 
market access in areas such as techni cal barriers to trade and sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures.  It was felt that  more extensive reliance on international 
standards as well as enhanced transparen cy and closer cooperation with third 
countries during the development and implem entation of technical regulations and 
conformity assessment procedures have important roles to play in ensuring that new 
and existing regulations do not result in unnecessary obstacles to trade. 
 Support to agriculture .  While acknowledging recent progress in reforming the 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), delega tions remain concerned about the high 
level of support to EU agriculture, in both  absolute and relative terms, and the large 
share of market price support in total transf ers to EU farmers.  The EU was urged to 
continue reducing the role of the CAP in the market, and to complement this with 
significant reductions of MFN tariffs on agriculture. 
 Crisis-related government support .  The EU was urged to persevere with ongoing 
initiatives to phase out crisis support in order to minimize any distortions to international trade and investment. 
 Single EU market .  Delegations commended the EU for its recent initiatives to 
deepen the internal market for goods and services.  Nonetheless, several delegations 
expressed concern about delays in the implementation of the EU Services Directive, 
which is seen as essential to strengthening competitiveness throughout the EU.  Many delegations urged the EU to align with b est liberalization practices services sectors 
such as professional services that remain subject to high barriers to the free 
establishment of and cross border provision by foreign competitors. 
499. I also noted the EU's suggestions for improving  the Trade Policy Review process.  We will go 
back to this point as part of our discussions with in the framework of the fourth appraisal of the 
Mechanism with a view to the eighth Ministerial Conference. 
500. The large number of questions tabled during this Trade Policy Review indicates clearly the 
importance of the EU as a trading partner for most  WTO Members.  The EU delegation is to be 
commended for giving comprehensive replies to so ma ny questions and for having reacted to many of 
them in the meeting room.  Members look forward to  receiving the final responses within one month.  
In closing, I would once again like to thank th e EU delegation, the discussant, and Members for 
contributing to what has been a very successful Review. 
 
__________