EN    EN  
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION 
Brussels, 17.3.2015  
COM(2015) 127 final 
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL 
Trade and Investment Barriers Report 2015 
 
 
2 
 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION  TO THE EURO PEAN COUNCIL 
Trade and Investment Barriers Report 2015 
1) Introduction  
The 2015 Trade and Investment Barriers Report (T IBR) addresses a selection of key barriers 
faced by European Union (EU) companies on the markets of the EU’s six strategic economic 
partners1, i.e. China , India , Japan , Mercosur  (Brazil/Argentina ), Russia  and the United 
States (US) . Its main objective is to raise awareness of the most significant trade restrictive 
barriers and reaffirm the importance of tackling such barriers in a focused and concerted way. 
While the TIBR focuses on the 'priorities of the priorities' , the Commission also regularly 
publishes a 'report on potentially tr ade-restrictive measures' – or 'Protectionism Monitoring 
Report'  – which provides a more detailed overvie w of trade and investment barriers in a 
wider set of third countries2. The TIBR and the 'Protectionism Monitoring Report' are thus 
complementary. 
This fifth edition of the TIBR fi rst provides an overview of ongoing EU trade and investment 
negotiations (part 2); it then ta kes stock of key trade and inve stment barriers maintained by 
the EU's strategic economic partners in 2014 (par t 3); and concludes with a section (part 4) 
outlining the different strategies deployed by the EU to address these cases.     
2) Creating trade and investment opport unities – ongoing EU negotiations  
To create new trade and investment opport unities, the EU pursues a comprehensive 
negotiating agenda which has a multilateral, plurilate ral and bilateral di mension. The dynamic 
created by the negotiating framework can also contribute to the resolution of longstanding 
trade barriers.  
Regarding the EU's multilateral  negotiating agenda, outst anding issues of the WTO 'Bali 
Package'  – including notably those related to the Trade Facilitation Agreement – could 
recently be solved. This paves the way for a full implementation of this first global trade deal 
under the auspices of the WTO. At the plurilateral  level, negotiations on a Trade in Services 
Agreement (TiSA)  are progressing steadily. It should be possible to  reach an agreement on 
the expansion of the Information Technology Agreement (ITA)  product list shortly. 
Meanwhile, in July 2014 the EU and 13 ot her WTO Members launched negotiations to 
                                                 
1 As defined in the Commission Communication Trade, Growth and World Affairs , 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/november/tradoc_146955.pdf   
2 The eleventh such report is available under  
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/doc s/2014/november/tradoc_152872.pdf   
 
 
3 
 liberalise global trade in environm ental goods. This plurilateral ’green goods initiative’  aims 
to remove barriers to trade and investment in goods, services and technologies that are 
contributing to improving our environment. 
In parallel, the EU pushe s on with its ambitious bilateral  negotiation agenda with a view to 
strengthening its trade and investment positio n on a number of third country markets. In 
particular, negotiations with the US on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership 
(TTIP)  are a key priority. A far-reaching and ambiti ous TTIP Agreement which is to include 
strong disciplines on regulatory cooperation an d regulatory coherence will not only remove 
tariffs but also help reduce costs re lated to non-tariff barriers (NTBs).  
In December 2014, the EU and Japan  concluded their eighth session of technical talks to 
advance the EU-Japan FTA. With these negotia tions, the EU seeks to address a number of 
concerns affecting EU business, notably tari ffs, non-tariff barriers, and unsatisfactory access 
to the Japanese public procurement market.  
At the 16th EU-China summit which took place in Beijing in November 2013, the EU and 
China  launched negotiations on a comprehensive Investment Agreement  which is expected 
to benefit both sides by ensuri ng that markets are open to inve stment in both directions.  
In March 2014, the EU and Myanmar/Burma  launched negotiations for an Investment 
Agreement. 
The EU's FTA with Singapore  was, for its most part, ini tialled in September 2013 although 
negotiations in the area of investment protection were only concluded in October 2014. The 
trade agreement with Peru and Colombia  has been provisionally applied in Peru since 1 
March 2013 and in Colombia si nce 1 August 2013. Negotiations we re also concluded in July 
2014 for the accession of Ecuador  to the agreement with Colombia and Peru, while contacts 
are maintained to explore the possibility to integrate Bolivia  into this trade deal.  
On 26 September 2014, the Canada-EU summit in Ot tawa marked the end of the negotiations 
of the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA) . The agreement is expected to remove over 
99% of all tariffs between the two economi es and create sizeable new market access 
opportunities in services and investment. 
On 27 June 2014, Moldova  and Georgia  signed Association Agreem ents with the EU which 
include Deep and Comprehensive Free Trad e Areas (DCFTAs). The agreements apply 
provisionally since 1 September 2014. On 27 June 2014, Ukraine  also signed a DCFTA and 
the remaining parts of the Association Ag reement (AA) not yet signed on 21 March 2014. 
Following the signing of the pol itical provisions of the AA, the EU unilaterally granted 
autonomous trade measures (ATMs) on 23 April 2014, bringing forward the tariff cutting part 
of the DCFTA, to the benefit of Ukraine. The ATMs have been extended until the end of 2015 
and the entry into force of the DCFT A has been postponed to 1 January 2016. 
 
4 
 In addition, the EU is engaged in Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations with a number of 
other third countries and regions, namely Mercosur , India , Malaysia , Vietnam, and 
Morocco . 
3) State of play of key trade and inve stment barriers maintained by the 
EU's strategic partners in 2014  
a) Brazil/Argentina  
1) In the field of investment , although Brazil generally does not distinguish between 
foreign and national capital, certain se ctors – notably medi a and communications, 
aviation, transportation and mining – are subject to foreign ownership limitations . 
2) Discriminatory taxes and subsidisation  of domestic producer s in Brazil are an 
important issue in many sectors. In particular, the (re)introduction of the Reintegra  
programme of export subsidies causes co ncern. Moreover, Brazil's granting of 
subsidised loans or grants conditional  upon the fulfilment of local content 
requirements remains problematic. With regard to tax measures, the EU requested 
WTO consultations on 19 December 2013  on discriminatory tax advantages which 
Brazil grants in relation to automotive vehicles, electronics, automated machinery 
for industrial or professional use, and other related goods which are manufactured 
in Brazil and which fulfil certa in local content requirements . In addition, Brazil 
provides tax advantages, in the form of tax- free purchases of capital goods and inputs, 
to domestic companies that export 50% or mo re of their producti on. After unsuccessful 
consultations with Brazil in 2014, the EU f iled a request for a WTO Dispute Settlement 
panel on 18 November 2014. On 17 December 2014, the WTO established a panel to 
rule on the matter. 
3) Brazil  has adopted measures further distorting the conditions for participation in 
public tenders  by establishing preferential margin s for certain national products in 
tendering procedures. The measures fix marg ins ranging from 8% to 25%, and cover a 
whole range of sectors.  
4) In the field of sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) , there has been some, 
albeit insufficient progress with regard to imports of dairy, pork and beef from the 
EU into Brazil . The competent Brazilian authority pe rforms 3 to 5 audi ts per year and 
has started audits in some EU Member States , but the backlog related to 50 applications 
submitted by Member States remains the ma in concern. Overall, Brazil still has a 
lengthy, burdensome and unpredictable SPS pr ocedure to allow imports from EU 
Member States. In 2014, Brazil has announ ced new legislation and the EU made 
concrete suggestions to str eamline import procedures. Braz il constitutes an important 
alternative market further to  the ban imposed by Russia on EU exports of agricultural 
products and foodstuffs. 
 
5 
  With regard to certain import restrictions  on EU beef related to Bovine Spongiform 
Encephalopathy (BSE) , Brazil  has changed its import requirements, but did not yet 
fully align them with the international st andard of the OIE (World Organisation for 
Animal Health). 
5) In Argentina , the requirement to fill out a 'sworn prior importer declaration (DJAI)'  
for all imports remains a major challenge.  The WTO Dispute Settlement Appellate 
Body ruled on the DJAI dispute as well as  a number of other unofficial import-
restrictive measures such as import balancing requirements on 15 January 2015. The 
Appellate Body confirmed the previous Pane l ruling which had found that Argentina's 
administration of the DJAI breaches WTO law.  
6) Moreover,  Argentina  continues to apply severe restrictions on the transfer of foreign 
currencies, dividends and royalties . The situation is even worsening due to an 
increasing scarcity of foreign currency re serves. A new body with representatives of 
several authorities, including the Central Ba nk, has been created for the transfer and 
tracing of payments.  
7) Lastly,  Argentina  has resorted to internal taxation to regulate imports of high-end cars, 
boats, planes and motorcycles, imposing a "luxury tax"  rate of up to 50% above a 
certain value threshold. The ta x affects premium cars and ther efore imported models to 
a much greater extent than domestically-produced models. 
b) China  
8) China  applies significant restrictions on foreign investment . In particular, China 
should open up sectors closed to  Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) or subject to joint 
venture requirements, including where Chin ese majority ownership is a condition. 
China should also remove other restrictions such as technology transfer and local 
content requirements  as well as administrative pre-approvals. Subsidisation  of 
domestic producers, and in particular of St ate-Owned Enterprises (SOEs), is also an 
important impediment to investment in China.  
 China has taken some measures related to investment unilaterally. In November 2014, it 
has proposed to review its Foreign Investment Catalogue  and eliminate some 
restrictions. Although the review is welcome,  the limited new opening of sectors and the 
closing of others in this draft review ar e disappointing. Reforms announced within the 
framework of the Shanghai Pilot Free Trade Zone  (SFTZ) have not materialised at the 
appropriate speed. The "negativ e list" of the SFTZ (listing all sectors in which foreign 
investment is restricted, investment bei ng permitted in all other sectors) has been 
subject to review in  July 2014. Although a few restrictions on foreign investment have 
been relaxed for certain sectors, companies co ntinue to face many im portant barriers to 
foreign investment in the zone. This situati on will also be monitore d in the light of the 
recent announcement by the Chinese authorities to open new FTZs. 
 
6 
 9) In the area of public procurement , the EU continues to encourage China to join the 
Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) as soon as possible and to bring its 
legislation in line with the GPA. In Janua ry 2015, China submitted a revised GPA offer; 
the EU welcomes the progress in terms of co verage at sub-central  level, but further 
significant improvements are still needed, in pa rticular with regard to the coverage of 
SOEs.  
10) A multitude of issues persists with regard to the respect for Intellectual Property 
Rights (IPR)  in China . This includes the registration of  patents and utility models of 
low quality and of trademarks applied for in  bad faith, as well as  lengthy registration 
proceedings and a burdensome procedure for legalising foreign documents. In addition, 
protection against IPR infringements thr ough administrative, judiciary and customs 
authorities is still insufficient. Also, ther e is still much uncertainty regarding the 
protection of trade secrets, which – reporte dly – often must be shared with Chinese 
authorities/companies.  
11) China  continues to consider that only Chinese-developed information security 
technology is regarded as "safe" , and applies a concept of "national security"  far 
beyond normal international practise. This ac ts as a tremendous barrier for foreign 
companies competing for commercial applica tions in the IT se ctor. Furthermore, 
foreign companies continue to be blocked from participating in security-related 
standardisation bodies . 
12) EU companies are facing many Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS)-related import 
measures in China . The existing ban on EU beef and sheep meat imports should be 
lifted. In addition, internationa l standards should be accepted, concerning for instance 
food safety and animal health. 
13) The EU is also concerned with Chinese market access barriers in the health and 
cosmetics sectors . For medical devices and pharmaceuticals , the new regulatory 
system should be aligned with international standards and practices on issues such as 
clinical trials and registra tion requirements. Concerning cosmetics , the registration 
process for new cosmetics ingredients shoul d be improved and limited to higher risk 
ingredients. Labelling of cosmetics by using stickers should be allowed and testing 
regulations should be aligned w ith international standards. 
c) India  
14) In India , EU companies are still facing important market access barriers in the IT 
and electronics goods sectors . No further substantial progress can be reported with 
regard to the implementation of the Preferential Market Access policy for 
domestically manufactured electronic goods  in public procurement  due to security 
considerations after India ha d suspended the policy in 2013 a nd explicitly ruled out its 
application to non-public procurement. India maintains that it is not bound by any WTO 
commitments (notably the Government Procur ement Agreement to which India is not a 
 
7 
 party). India is expected to soon announce th e value addition criter ia in its government 
procurement scheme.  
Since 3 January 2014, registration of 15 categories of  IT and consumer electronic 
products became mandatory  in India . This was extended to further 15 products by an 
order published on 8 November 2014. The im plementation of mandatory in-country 
testing and certification of telecom network elements was further postponed to 1 April 
2015. Since a significant part of these products  are imported on the Indian market, these 
measures can particularly affect trade. 
15) Meanwhile, problems persist with the implementation of India's Bureau of Indian 
Standards (BIS) certification regim e for imported and exported tyres . The main 
concerns are fees charged per marked tyre, lengthy procedures, factory inspections, and 
required bank guarantees.  
16) Since August 2013, India  has changed the interpretation and enforcement of the 2011 
Food Safety Standards Regulations concerning labelling and packaging , adopting a 
more restrictive approach for the use of stickers on packaging, thereby triggering a 
serious disruption in the trade of foodstuffs. More generally, India ha s recently extended 
its labelling schemes in a restrictive ma nner across many sectors (e.g. cosmetics, 
medical devices, ICT). 
17) During 2014, India introduced several measures affecting the cosmetics  sector on issues 
such as labelling, animal testing and regi stration requirements for imported products. 
With regard to labelling , in July 2014 India published labelling requirements for 
vegetarian and non-vegetarian orig in. Moreover, India introduced a ban on  animal 
testing  for cosmetics in a way that could lead to  a ban, in practical terms, of widely 
used and irreplaceable ingredients that still rely on animal test data when no 
replacement alternative exists.  
d) Japan  
18) Since the start of the negotiations for a comprehensive FTA , non-tariff barrier -
related discussions continue. On some of  these barriers (e.g. organic food, liquor 
wholesale licensing), Japan has already co mplied with the commitments it took during 
the preparatory phase prior to the launch of  the FTA negotiations. On some others for 
which Japan committed to deliver within the first year of negotiations, significant 
progress can be reported (e.g. on pharmaceuticals,  food additives, beef, medical devices 
authorisation procedures). 
However, unresolved issues still remain and wi ll need to be addressed before the end of 
the negotiations. In addition to the list agreed  in the context of the scoping exercise, the 
EU has submitted a second list of NTMs  to Japan in December  2014 which includes in 
particular many outstanding SPS-related issues . Discussions on this second list are still 
ongoing with Japan and the EU's aim is to ach ieve timely and meaningful progress. The 
negotiations are covering also other areas where EU business encounters problems 
 
8 
 when doing business in Japan, such as fo r example public procurement (including 
railways). 
e) United States  
19) The EU continues to be concerned about "Buy American"  restrictions governing US 
public procurement . Such restrictions still cove r a large proportion of public 
purchasing in the US by reserv ing a significant part of public procurement to local 
goods and services and excluding foreign companies from procurement. It is clear that 
significant progress in this area is an importa nt pre-requisite for a successful conclusion 
of the TTIP negotiations. In particular, it will be crucial to secure better EU access to 
sub-federal procurement in the US. 
20) Difficulties to protect intellectual property rights  – in particular EU geographical 
indications (GIs) on food and drinks  (especially in the wine, cheese and meat sectors) 
– in the US are a source of considerable frus tration for EU producers. The ongoing 
TTIP negotiations  provide an important opportunity to achieve a better protection of 
EU GIs in the US.  
21) A multitude of SPS barriers  persist in the US. Major EU concerns remain with regard 
to US import restrictions on sheep and goat meat as well as egg products. In addition, 
EU applications to export products of an imal origin, such as beef, certain dairy 
products, live bivalve molluscs, as  well as plant products such as apples and pears, face 
long delays. Here again, TTIP negotiations may offer the opportunity to advance in 
settling these issues. 
f) Russia  
22) Russia has incorrectly implemented its  WTO bound tariffs  for many products, 
including paper, appliances and agricultural products such as palm oil. On 31 October 
2014, the EU launched a request for WTO Dispute Settlement consultations.  
23) The new Russian law on personal data localisation  (Federal Law 242) signed by 
President Putin on 21 July 2014 requires that all personal data of Russian individuals 
are stored and processed in Russia, with no exemptions offered for commercial data. 
Such blanket local server requirements, wi thout exemption for commercial data, are 
disproportionate and could have a detrimental effect on the digital economy as a whole. 
In particular, this creates a major barri er for European cloud providers and the 
development of a cross-border cloud comput ing market. In the EU's view, such 
localisation requirements should rather be lim ited to specific, exce ptional instances (e.g. 
only where data security/privacy requirement s cannot be ensured otherwise) and must 
be fully compatible with relevant provisions of WTO law. 
24) Many SPS issues with Russia remain . On 8 April 2014, the EU requested WTO 
Dispute Settlement consultations with Russia regarding import rest rictions against live 
 
9 
 pigs, pork and certain pig products originat ing in the EU, due to the occurence of 
African Swine Fever in limited areas in Lit huania and Poland clos e to the border with 
Belarus. Consultations did not bring any result and a WTO Dispute Settlement panel 
was established on 22 July 2014. A ban on the expor t of potatoes and other plants is still 
in place since 1 July 2013 while new issues include a ban on beef trimmings from the 
EU since 27 June 2014, a ban on fruits and vege tables from Poland (affecting apples in 
particular) introduced on 1 August 2014 and a ba n on meat meals, offal and fat from the 
EU since 22 October 2014. 
25) On 7 August 2014, Russia decreed a ban on agricultural products and foodstuffs  
from certain countries – including EU Member States – which have adopted sanctions  
against Russia in the context of the situation in Ukraine. These products cover almost all 
meat products (beef meat, pig meat, poultry, an d certain prepared meat products), milk 
and dairy products, fruits and vegetables, as well as fi sh and crustaceans. Some 
processed agricultural pr oducts are also banned.  
26) In the area of Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) , EU economic operators are still 
facing numerous horizontal and se ctor-specific obstacles due to burdensome technical 
regulations  which often establish excessive certification and conformity assessment 
requirements . In many cases, technical regulati ons – which are now adopted by the 
Eurasian Economic Union – are incompatible with international standards. Important 
examples of overly burdensome technical regulations establishe d by the Eurasian 
Economic Union are the technical regulati on on safety of consumer goods and goods 
destined for children and adol escents (amongst others releva nt for textiles, clothing and 
footwear) as well as the dr aft technical regulation on alcoholic product safety.  
27) Russia has adopted a subsidy programme that includes subsidies to the producers of 
farm equipment and agricultural machinery . This programme establishes subsidies 
for manufacturers and purchasers of agricultural machinery under certain local content 
conditions . This is detrimental for EU exporters of  agricultural machinery (in particular 
of combine harvesters) which have a st rong interest in the Russian market. 
28) On 14 May 2013, the Eurasian Economic Commission imposed anti-dumping duties 
on imports of light commercial vehicles  from Germany and Italy. As a consequence of 
the measure, exports of light commercial vehicles from the EU to Russia virtually 
stopped because of the prohibi tive duty level. The anti-dum ping measures are to be 
applied for 5 years and affect approx. 180  million € of EU exports. Several EU 
companies have seen their market presence dramatically reduced in this market segment 
in Russia. The Commission launched WTO Dis pute Settlement proceedings and a panel 
was established on 20 October 2014. 
 
 
 
10 
 4) Different tools to address trade and investment barriers  
a) Ongoing FTA negotiations 
The EU is engaged in FTA negotiations with f our of its six strategi c economic partners as 
well as in investment negotiations with Chin a. Although progress has been insufficient in 
negotiations with India and Mercosur, the EU remains committed to signing ambitious 
agreements. The TTIP and the EU-Japan FTA ne gotiations are advanci ng at a steady pace. 
Bilateral talks with a number of other countrie s and regions are also ongoing as de scribed in 
the overview in section 2 above. 
Despite the improved prospects for a full implem entation of the WTO 'Bali Package' in the 
near future and the variety of promising ongoing plurilateral nego tiations, bilateral FTA 
negotiations are an increasingly important inst rument to address specific trade-disruptive 
measures in important third country markets.  The TTIP negotiations with the US have a 
particularly important strategic dimension as  a comprehensive Agreement including strong 
regulatory disciplines could not only boost trade between the Pa rties but also establish an 
innovative model for regulatory convergence and set a global template. An ambitious deal 
with the US could thereby consolidate and furthe r project the EU's role  as a global regulatory 
leader.  
In addition to the TTIP model, the EU also  relies on FTA talks to address longstanding 
obstacles to key markets such as in the case  of Japan where the negotiations are based on a 
comprehensive approach aimed at addressing a broad range of non-tariff barriers. This 
strategy has already delivered concrete resu lts in the ongoing negotiations and could be a 
promising model for future FTA negotiations. 
FTAs also have the advantage of allowing to address a large number of  significant barriers 
simultaneously and to go beyond existing intern ational trade rules where possible. Such 
agreements can help to prevent the emergence of new barriers. 
However, preferential trade agreements also have limitations. The negotiation and 
implementation of these agreements takes time  and the necessary ba lance of concessions 
implies that not all barriers can be addressed at once.  
b) Implementation and enforcement of existing FTAs 
On the implementation and enforcement side, the EU continues to work towards full 
implementation of all concluded agreements. To  make sure trading opp ortunities created by 
negotiations are translated into real trade flows on the ground the EU deployed inter alia  its 
Market Access Strategy to follow up on the commitments taken by third parties. The EU's 
negotiating and enforcement age nda are thus complementary. 
The EU's FTA with South Korea which entered into force on 1 July  2011 is a good example 
of how the implementation of a preferential trade agreement can  be efficiently monitored. For 
 
11 
 instance, in accordance with the cooperation pr ovisions established by the Chemicals Annex 
of the FTA, Korea and the EU could clarify va rious issues related to the new Korean "K-
REACH" legislation in the meetings of the Chemicals WG under the FTA. Similarly, 
meetings of the pharma/medical devices Wo rking Group under the FTA have allowed proper 
implementation of specific commitments agreed between both sides in these sectors. This 
approach – which has also b een developed in the context of the Trade Agreement with 
Colombia and Peru and with Central America – sets a useful precedent to develop our 
implementation approach under future FTAs. 
c) WTO Dispute Settlement proceedings 
WTO enforcement action remains an important enforcement tool whenever necessary and 
appropriate. The EU continues to make frequent use of the WTO's Dispute Settlement 
proceedings. In 2014, the EU launched three new WTO Dispute Settle ment cases against 
Russia as well as one case against th e US concerning subsidies granted to Boeing.  
A number of other WTO Dispute Settlement proceedings launched by the EU before 2014 are 
still ongoing. For instance, a WTO pane l was established on 17 December 2014  in the case 
against Brazil regarding tax advantages for domestic producers of automotive vehicles, 
electronics and automated goods.  
WTO Dispute Settlement remains the strongest option when other enforcement tools have 
proven to be insufficient. Alt hough such proceedings take consid erable time, they offer the 
possibility to tackle significant barriers in a more systematic way and achieve legal certainty 
in the longer term. An importa nt example of a successful case  launched by the EU concerns 
China's restrictions on the e xport of rare earths where China decided in January 2015 to 
abolish its export quotas.  
d) WTO Committees 
The EU is one of the most active WTO Me mbers in the TBT and SPS Committees. TBT and 
SPS Committee meetings in Geneva are effectiv e tools for highlighting the EU's concerns 
with technical regulations a nd unjustified SPS meas ures introduced by ot her WTO Members, 
as well as for informing, raising awareness and building alliances with other WTO Members 
affected. 
The EU's proactive approach is not limited to  the TBT and SPS Committees and extends to all 
other WTO Committees such as notably thos e dealing with Import Licensing Procedures, 
Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) and Subsidies and Coun tervailing Measures 
(SCM). 
e) International Summits 
Finally, international summits both at the bilateral and multilateral level to which the EU 
and/or Member States participate have gained in importance over the last years and should be 
 
12 
 seen as an important tool to address specific tr ade and investment barrier s. Heads of State and 
Government meet more frequently to discuss crucial international economic challenges which 
oftentimes cannot be seen in isolation from a number of underlying tr ade concerns. Meetings 
in the G20 format provide good occasions in this regard. In the context of the EU preparation 
of Summits involving the HRVP3, the Commission and Member St ates particular attention 
should be paid to the trade and investme nt barriers prioritised in this report. 
5) Conclusions  
This fifth edition of the TIBR demonstrates once ag ain that our strategic partners continue to 
maintain a variety of significant trade and inve stment barriers which are often difficult to 
tackle. In the current overall challenging cont ext of economic uncertainty and considerable 
political tensions, there is a great risk that ma ny of these barriers will pe rsist and new barriers 
will be established, to the detriment of all.  
More determination at the political level as well as an intensified and active implementation 
of the EU Market Access Strategy remain therefore crucial for the EU's efforts to remove 
barriers. The combined use of different tools, considering the specific context of each barrier 
and the prospects of its resolu tion, promises the best results.  
 
                                                 
3 High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European 
Commission