REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION Trade and Investment barriers Report 2012
Date: 2012-02-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, European undertaking, India, Japan, Mercosur, Russia, United States, common commercial policy, foreign trade, international market, investment abroad, market access

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 21.2.2012 
COM(2012) 70 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL 

Trade and Investment barriers Report 2012 

{SWD(2012) 19 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL 

Trade and Investment Barriers Report 2012 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In 2011, the Commission presented its first Trade and Investment Barriers Report (TIBR) to 
the  European  Council.  The  report  was  issued  in  follow  up  to  an  undertaking  in  the  Europe 
2020  Strategy1  which  was  subsequently  taken  up  in  the  Commission's  Communication 
"Trade,  Growth  and  World  Affairs"2.  The  aim  of  the  report  was  to  "focus  attention  [at  the 
political  level]  on  the  common  efforts  needed  on  a  selected  set  of  market  access  barriers" 
which  prevent  European  companies  from  exporting  to  or  investing  in  third  countries.  The 
report aimed at raising awareness of the importance of addressing such barriers in a focused 
and concerted way so that European companies can reap the benefits of the global market in 
accordance with what has been negotiated with the EU's trading partners at the multilateral or 
bilateral level.   

This document is the second Trade and Investment Barriers Report. It provides an account of 
the  progress  achieved  on  the  21  barriers  identified  in  the  first  edition  and  also  identifies  a 
number of new barriers which merit concerted action and political prioritisation both by the 
Commission  and  Member  States.  As  in  the  2011  edition,  this  report  focuses  on  market 
barriers in some of the EU's strategic partners, i.e. China, India, Japan, Mercosur3, Russia and 
the US4. 

The  focus  on  some  of  the  EU's  strategic  partners  does  not  mean,  however,  that  barriers  in 
other  markets  will  not  be  addressed.  On  the  contrary,  the  Commission  is  actively  engaging 
with  a  broader  group  of  trading  partners  including  countries  such  as  Vietnam,  Indonesia, 
Ukraine  or  Turkey  -  where  European  companies  are  faced  with  a  considerable  number  of 
barriers - in order to improve market access conditions.  

Removal of specific trade barriers remains a corner-stone of the EU's relationships with third 
countries and an important component of EU trade policy. This becomes even more relevant 
in  the  present  context  of  protracted  economic  crisis,  which  has  a  severe  impact  on  many 

1 

2 

3 
4  

for 

and 

World 

smart, 

Growth 

strategy 

sustainable  and 

Europe  2020,  A  European 
http://europa.eu/press_room/pdf/complet_en_barroso___007_-_europe_2020_-_en_version.pdf 
Trade, 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/november/tradoc_146955.pdf 
Argentina and Brazil. 
On  Strategic  Partners  in  general  see:  European  Council  Conclusions  of  16  September  2010  point  4.:  
“The European Union’s strategic partnerships with key players in the world provide a useful instrument 
for pursuing European objectives and interests. This will only work if these partnerships are two-way 
streets based on mutual interests and benefits and on the recognition that all actors have rights as well 
as duties.” 

inclusive  growth. 

9.11.2010. 

Affairs, 

(2010) 

COM 

612, 

2

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
European companies and citizens in the EU. In this context, trade is a fundamental driver for 
stimulating economic growth and creating jobs5. At the same time however, increasing risks 
of protectionism6 pose a threat to an open trading system. It is, therefore, in the EU's genuine 
interest to promote and pursue trade openness in all fora - both multilateral and bilateral.  

With the prospects of concluding the Doha Development Agenda in the near future waning, 
the EU has refocused its trade strategy on bilateral negotiations. A very comprehensive and 
ambitious Free Trade Agreement with South Korea provisionally entered into force on 1 July 
2011 and will provide significant economic benefits to European companies and consumers. 
Bilateral  trade  negotiations  were  concluded  with  Central  America,  along  with  Peru  and 
Colombia. Negotiations are being concluded with Ukraine, are well under way with Canada, 
India  and  Singapore  and  are  ongoing  with  Malaysia  and  Mercosur.  New  FTA  negotiations 
have been launched with Georgia and Moldova and discussions are being held with Indonesia, 
Vietnam,  Thailand,  the  Philippines  and  Japan  in  view  of  possible  negotiations.  Russia's 
accession  to  the  WTO  opens  new  perspectives  for  the  ongoing  negotiation  of  a  New 
Agreement.  With  regard  to  the  US  and  China,  the  EU  is  engaged  in  high-level  dialogues 
dealing, inter alia, with market access barriers. Furthermore with regard to China, the EU is 
currently assessing the desirability and feasibility of a standalone investment agreement.  

With such a comprehensive negotiating agenda, it is essential to make existing market access 
commitments for European companies in third countries irreversible, as well as even generate 
new  market  access.  This  also  helps  create  stable  and  predictable  framework  conditions  for 
business  activities  worldwide.  The  successful  conclusion  of  negotiations,  however,  is  only 
one  side  of  the  coin.  The  other  side  –  equally  important  -  is  making  sure  that  opportunities 
created through negotiations are indeed translated into real trade flows on the ground. All too 
often,  in  practice,  European  companies  are  still  facing  considerable  barriers  in  entering 
foreign markets. These barriers are often in the form of non-tariff barriers, such as technical 
regulations  and  standards,  burdensome  customs  procedures  or  weak  enforcement  of 
intellectual  property  rights.  Increasingly,  since  the  start  of  the  economic  crisis  in  2008, 
barriers proliferate in areas where international trade disciplines are still rather weak – such as 
in government procurement and export restrictions.   

Trade  negotiations  and  enforcement  must  go  hand  in  hand.  Strengthening  the  negotiating 
agenda inevitably triggers a stronger focus on enforcement. This is also underlined in a recent 
Resolution by the European Parliament7 which provides valuable orientation for the work of 
the Commission and Member States on trade barriers. It reflects the rising political awareness 
that tackling trade barriers is crucial for both the legitimacy and effectiveness of trade policy. 
As  a  result,  enforcement  must  be  pursued  as  a  matter  of  priority,  especially  in  times  of 
economic crisis, including at the political level. 

5 

6  

7  

Commission  Staff  Working  Document  "Trade  as  Driver  of  Prosperity"  accompanying 
Commission's Communication on "Trade, Growth and World Affairs".  
World Trade Organisation, Overview of developments in the international trading system, 21 November 
2011;  World  Trade  Organisation,  Report  on  G20  Trade  Measures  (May    to  mid-October  2011),  25 
October  2011;  DG  Trade,  Eighth  Report  on  Trade  Restrictive  Measures  –  October  2011-September 
2011, October 2011 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148288.pdf  
Report  on  trade  and  investment  barriers  (2011/2115  (INI)),  Committee  on  International  Trade  o  the 
European Parliament, Rapporteur: Robert Sturdy. 

the 

3

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
The  key  message  of  this  report  is  consistent  with  the  core  idea  behind  the  Market  Access 
Strategy:  Where  Commission  and  Member  States  put  their  weight  behind  focused  and 
determined  action  in  a  coordinated  manner,  barriers  in  third  countries  can  be  removed  and 
European companies can get better access to foreign markets. Success does not always come 
about quickly and is not always as far-reaching as economic operators would wish. But when 
it  does  occur  it  can  provide  considerable  economic  benefits  to  European  companies  and 
citizens.   

This  second  edition  of  the  TIBR  is  structured  as  follows:  Section  2  sets  out  the  progress 
achieved  with  regard  to  the  barriers  identified  in  the  last  report  and  identifies  options  for 
further  action  where  progress  is  not  yet  satisfactory.  Section  3  proposes  a  number  of  new 
barriers for priority action in the future. Section 4 outlines an emerging tendency towards the 
introduction of trade-restrictive industrialisation polices in some countries.  

2. 

2011 BARRIERS: WHAT PROGRESS WAS ACHIEVED? 

The  TIBR  2011  identified  21  barriers  in  six  trade  partners/regions.  These  barriers  were 
considered to be of major importance for European business given the potential economic or 
systemic  impact  and  the  strategic  importance  of  the  countries  where  those  barriers  had 
emerged. These market access issues have been elevated to key priorities in the EU's bilateral 
trade  relations  with  the  countries  concerned.  The  Commission  has  sought  to  systematically 
raise  them  in  all  bilateral  meetings  including  up  to  the  highest  political  level  where 
appropriate (e.g. summits).  

This section will report on the most important actions carried out on the barriers, along with 
the progress achieved in the course of 2011. A comprehensive summary of all actions taken 
by  the  Commission,  including  at  working  level,  is  available  in  the  attached  staff  working 
paper. In some cases, progress has translated into the full removal of a barrier. In other cases, 
while some improvement has been achieved, part of the barrier remains. For a few barriers, 
the situation has deteriorated as compared to last year notwithstanding the numerous actions 
undertaken.  

Analysis in this section will be carried out along these three categories according to the degree 
of progress achieved. For Russia, the upcoming WTO accession has the potential of solving 
many longstanding market access issues; the state of play of barriers in Russia will therefore 
be analysed under a separate category. 

 2.1  Barriers where substantial progress was achieved 

Substantial  progress  was  achieved  on  two  measures  concerning  India.  First,  success  was 
achieved in removing restrictions on the export of cotton, namely on cotton yarn and raw 
cotton,  which  were  introduced  in  2010.  In  August  2011,  the  Indian  government  ultimately 
lifted any remaining quantitative restrictions on raw cotton. At present, no restrictions on the 
export  of  cotton  are  applicable.  Export  restrictions  on  cotton  and  products  thereof  were  of 
great  concern  due  to  their  upward  pressure  on  world  prices  and  the  distortions  they  were 
causing  on  security  of  supply.  Moreover,  India  has  remained  one  of  the  main  EU  import 

4

 
 
 
sources  for  cotton  products:  in  2009,  23%  of  import  for  the  products  concerned  by  the 
restrictions came from India. Therefore, lifting of this barrier is of high economic importance 
for EU companies, particularly those in the textiles sector. In the course of 2011, EU concerns 
were raised with the Indian authorities on many occasions, including by the Director General 
of DG TRADE.  

The second Indian measure where substantial progress was achieved concerned the licensing 
requirements introduced in 2010 for telecommunication equipment; these were ultimately 
modified  so  as  to  eliminate  most  of  the  burdensome  conditions.  According  to  the  initial 
requirements  introduced  in  2009  and  2010  based  on  concerns  relating  to  security,  foreign 
telecom  equipment  providers  should  have  transferred  their  technology  within  the  first  three 
years of contract and replaced their engineers with Indian ones within two years. Moreover, 
certain sensitive information would have to be disclosed to the Indian authorities for security 
reasons. Such requirements, however, departed considerably from consolidated international 
practices. As a result of concerns expressed by various actors and countries, including the EU, 
India  finally  discontinued  the  strict  security  rules,  including  requirements  to  mandatorily 
transfer technology. 

The actions undertaken by the Commission during 2011 proved very effective: The issue was 
raised on all occasions including by President Barroso at the EU/India summit in December 
2010.  The  progress  achieved  has  contributed to  solving the most  relevant  issues  for  the  EU 
industry. India's total telecom equipment  market had a value of around 16.7 billion € in the 
financial year 2010-11. The Commission remains in close contact with the industry concerned 
and will follow up on some technical issues which are still open.  

2.2 

Barriers where some progress was achieved 

Progress  was  also  achieved  on  a  number  of  other  barriers  identified  in  the  TIBR  2011. 
Nevertheless, these issues are not yet completely solved and therefore will remain on the list 
of  priories  for  2012.  In  some  cases,  barriers  are  of  a  systemic  nature  and  are  longstanding 
issues  in  bilateral  trade  relations.  Therefore,  the  improvements  achieved  in  2011  are 
promising signals for what could be further achieved this year. The Commission will continue 
raising  these  issues  in  all  fora,  building  on  the  good  progress  achieved  in  2011,  aiming  at 
reaching a full removal in 2012. 

As  regards  China,  the  Commission's  persistent  action  has  paid  off  for  one  of  the  most 
systemic issues on the list of bilateral trade irritants. Important progress was achieved on the 
so-called 'indigenous innovation' policy which is based on the principle of providing access 
to public procurement only for innovative products whose intellectual property is of Chinese 
origin.  After  initial  positive  indications  already  given  at  the  meeting  of  the  High  Level 
Economic and Trade Dialogue in December 2010, China made concrete steps in 2011 towards 
de-linking  procurement  from  requirements  on  the  origin  of  intellectual  property,  e.g.,  by 
removing any reference to indigenous innovation from the draft implementing decree of the 
Government  Procurement  Law  and  by  committing  to  suppressing  mandatory  catalogues 
(including provincial catalogues). Moreover, the Ministry of Finance (MOF) adopted a notice 
announcing the abolishment of three national indigenous innovation-related policies. Finally, 
at  the  US-China  Joint  Commission  on  Commerce  and  Trade  meeting  in  November  2011, 
China made further concrete moves on the issue of ensuring implementation of commitments 
at provincial level.  

5

 
 
The Commission acknowledges and welcomes the important progress achieved in 2011 as an 
important  step  towards  eliminating  discriminatory  provisions  in  an  important  area  as  public 
procurement. The Commission will continue monitoring the follow-up commitments made by 
the Chinese side, so as to ensure that these translate into actual access to Chinese markets for 
European companies. 

In the meantime, positive developments can be reported on the EU's action to address Chinese 
export restrictions on raw materials, in the framework of the dispute launched at the WTO 
in  2009  regarding  nine  products8.  The  WTO  Panel  issued  its  report  in  July  2011  which 
clarified  that  export  restrictions,  as  applied  by  China  on  a  number  of  raw  materials,  are 
inconsistent  with  China's  obligations  under  WTO  law.  The  Panel  found,  in  particular,  that 
China's export duties on the raw materials at stake were inconsistent with China's obligations 
under its WTO Accession Protocol. The exports quotas imposed by China on this set of raw 
materials were found to be violating the general prohibition to introduce quantitative export 
restrictions. Moreover, the Panel found that the measures in question were not justifiable on 
the  ground  of  concerns  on  protection  of  the  environment  or  on  shortage  of  an  essential 
product.  China  appealed  the  Panel’s  report  and,  on  30  January  2012,  the  WTO  Appellate 
Body confirmed the illegality of the Chinese quotas and export duties.  In the course of 2011, 
the  Commission  also  continued  raising  the  broader  issue  of  export  restrictions  on  raw 
materials beyond the specific WTO case, since this Chinese policy continues to cover a very 
wide  range  of  fundamental  raw  material  components,  such  as  rare  earths.  Following  the 
publication of the Appellate Body’s report, the Commission will consider how to address this 
matter further.  

Also with India, while FTA negotiations are ongoing, some progress was achieved in sanitary 
and  phytosanitary  (SPS)  issues,  more  specifically  as  regards  bovine  genetic  material,  in 
respect  of  prospects  of  alignment  to  international  standards.  However,  further  progress  is 
needed in order to fully unblock exports from the EU. Furthermore, in the food safety area, 
India provided ad-hoc guidelines in October 2011, which will facilitate trade for several EU's 
agri-food products exported to India. Overall, however, India still needs to further align with 
international  standards  to  fully  open  its  market  to  EU  products.  Therefore,  the  Commission 
will  continue  raising  these  issues  in  all  multilateral  and  bilateral  fora  with  the  Indian 
authorities building on the positive achievements of 2011. 

In  Japan,  while  preliminary  discussions  are  progressing  with  the  prospect  of  possibly 
launching  FTA  negotiations  in  2012,  some  progress  was  achieved  on  medical  devices  as  a 
follow-up of commitments taken by Japan at the 2009 EU-Japan Summit. Following regular 
contacts with the Ministry of Health, Labour  and Welfare, "pre-market" approval procedures 
applied  in  Japan  for  medical  devices  were  clarified  and  a  small  improvement  in  the 
conformity  assessment  process  was  achieved  for  certain  categories  of  medical  devices  (e.g. 
limitation  of  "on  site  "  audits  to  Class  IV  medical  devices  every  two  years  only).  The 
Commission  will  be  monitoring  the  implementation  of  this  commitment  and  will  continue 
pursuing  further  improvement  and  simplification  of  the  Japanese  conformity  assessment 

8  

On 23 June 2009, the EU and the US, followed by Mexico, requested WTO consultations with China 
regarding Chinese export restrictions on nine products: bauxite, coke, fluorspar, silicon carbide, silicon 
metal, zinc, magnesium, manganese, yellow phosphorus. In particular, the EU asked for consultations 
on China's export duties and quotas and its measures for quota administrations and licensing as well as 
on China's system of a minimum export price. A Panel was established in December 2009. 

6

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
procedures  for  ensuring  they  do  not  constitute  an  unjustified  obstacle  to  market  access  for 
medical devices, as well as for other products. 

Progress  was  also  achieved  with  Japan  on  the  front  of  government  procurement,  in  the 
framework  of  the  Government  Procurement  Agreement  (GPA)  negotiations  that  were 
successfully concluded in December 2011. Japan in fact undertook the commitment vis-a-vis 
the EU to apply the operational safety clause in railways procurement in a transparent and non 
discriminatory  manner.  This  commitment  should  result  in  a  non-discretionary  use  of  the 
clause, thereby keeping procurement in the railway sector open to foreign operators. 

Progress was also achieved as regards the “100% scanning” legislation of the US. As a result 
of  a  number  of  actions,  including  by  the  European  Commission,  the  US  Secretary  of  the 
Department  of  Homeland  Security  announced  that  she  would  seek  the  postponement  of  the 
entry into force of this measure, which was initially foreseen for 1 July 2012. This is a first 
step  hopefully  leading  to  the  repeal  of  this  legislation  by  the  US  Congress.  This  followed 
actions taken in the framework of the Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC), notably in 2010 
and  2011,  where  the  issue  of  secure  trade  was  addressed.  Cooperation  on  supply  chain 
security  between  the  EU  and  the  US  was  spurred  by  a  joint  statement  by  US  Homeland 
Security Secretary Napolitano and Commissioners Šemeta, Kallas and Malmström on 23 June 
2011. This statement provides a political framework for EU-US cooperation, both bilaterally 
and in multilateral organisations such as the WCO, International Civil Aviation Organisation 
(ICAO), International Maritime Organisation (IMO), and the Universal Postal Union (UPU). 
At  the  November  2011  TEC  meeting,  the  EU  and  the  US  followed  up  on  the  statement  by 
completing  their  preparatory  work  on  mutual  recognition  of  trade  partnership  programmes, 
which,  once  signed  and  implemented  in  2012,  will  form  part  of  an  alternative  to  the  100% 
scanning procedure.  

There  was  also  some  –  albeit  limited  –  success  with  regard  to  the  “Buy  American” 
legislation.  The  stimulus  package  introduced  during  the  financial  crisis  in  20099  which 
contained  far-reaching  “Buy  American”  provisions  expired  in  September  2011  and  was  not 
extended.  Nevertheless,  the  tendency  in  the  US  Congress  and  Administration  of  tabling 
legislative proposals with similar “Buy American” provisions is still present in the currently 
critical  economic  context.  The  most  recent  example  is  President  Obama's  announcement  in 
September  2011  of  the  so  called  "American  Jobs  Act"  proposal,  which  would  introduce  a 
public  spending  programme  in  infrastructure,  subject  to  “Buy  American”  requirements. 
Prospects for the adoption of these initiatives remain rather uncertain at the moment given the 
current political context in the US Congress. The Commission, however, will remain vigilant 
on  all  possible  developments  towards  the  adoption  of  “Buy  American”  provisions  in  new 
legislation.  

2.3 

Russia – The implications of the WTO accession on longstanding market access 
issues 

9  

On  13  February  2099,  The  Congress  passed  a  790  billion  $  American  Economic  Recovery  and 
Reinvestment  Act  (ARRA)  including  two  Buy  America(n)  provisions,  which  prohibit  funds 
appropriated  by  ARRA:  (i)  to  be  used  for  a  project  for  the  construction,  alteration,  maintenance,  or 
repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel and manufactured goods used in 
the  project  are  produced  in  the  United  States  (ii)  and/or  to  be  used  for  the  procurement  by  the 
Department  of  Homeland  Security  of  a  detailed  list  of  textiles  items  (e.g.  clothing,  tents,  cotton  and 
natural fibres, etc) unless the item is grown, processed in the United States. 

7

 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Russia has concluded the 18 year process towards WTO accession and will formally accede to 
the  WTO  in  the  course  of  2012.  Russia  will,  therefore,  have  to  implement  multilateral 
disciplines which should help solve several longstanding bilateral market access issues, while 
helping  prevent  the  introduction  of  any  new  measures  running  counter  to  its  WTO 
commitments before formally becoming a WTO member.  

First, accession to the WTO will also settle the Russian trade-related investment measures 
in  the  sector  of  motor  vehicles  and  their  components.  According  to  the  agreed  terms  of 
accession,  the  Russian  investment  programme  will  be  exempt  from  WTO  rules  until  1  July 
2018,  by  when  Russia  will  be  phasing  out  these  measures.  At  the  same  time  however,  a 
bilateral  agreement  between  EU  and  Russia  establishes  a  compensation  mechanism  which 
would  be  triggered  if  EU  exports  in  parts  and  components  of  motor  vehicles  decrease  as  a 
result of the application of the Russian measures.  

Progress is also expected in the area of customs practices. Concerns that arose in the context 
of the customs union formation have partially been solved thanks to close contacts between 
the Commission and Russian authorities and to a transitional period in the implementation of 
the new Customs Code. New customs practices have, by and large, not translated into further 
barriers  to  market  access  as  originally  feared.  Nevertheless,  issues  such  as  arbitrary 
interpretation  of  customs  legislation  by  Russian  authorities  continue  to  remain  a  cause  of 
concern. Russia's accession to the WTO is expected to bring a number of improvements, as 
Russia becomes subject to WTO provisions and to such agreements as the WTO Agreement 
on Customs Valuation, all of which will contribute to trade facilitation. Work has also started 
with a view towards implementing the objectives of the EU-Russia Strategic Framework for 
Customs Cooperation, aiming to achieve maximum trade facilitation while ensuring security 
and safety.  

Progress is also expected on intellectual property right matters (IPR) where the bilateral EU-
Russia  Intellectual  Property  Dialogue  should  continue  to  prove  very  useful  in  dealing  with 
enforcement-related problems.  

Finally, progress on the many SPS issues should be expected since Russia needs to ensure full 
compliance  with  international  standards  and  apply  them  in  a  non-discriminatory  manner. 
Russia should further ensure that its SPS measures are based on the principles of transparency 
and  scientific  justification,  and  that  they  are  proportionate  and  non-discriminatory.  Pre-
accession discussions on SPS matters at the WTO have already led Russia to make a number 
of  commitments  and  adopt  several  texts  -  including  at  the  level  of  the  customs  union  with 
Belarus  and  Kazakhstan  -  in  order  to  prepare  the  full  alignment  of  SPS  norms  with 
international standards by the date of accession. Other decisions or norms have been adopted 
or are in preparation10. The implementation of these acts and other legislation in conformity 
with  WTO/SPS  rules  needs  to  be  closely  monitored  in  order  to  ensure  that  Russia  is  in  full 
compliance with its SPS obligations as soon as it joins the WTO, in particular as regards non-
discrimination and proportionality. In parallel, the Commission continues bilateral discussions 
with Russia, as well as its customs union partners, regarding necessary further adaptation of 
Russian and customs union disciplines to international norms.  

10  

These  norms  would  provide  guarantees  on 
transparency,  proportionality,  non-discrimination, 
equivalence,  risk  assessment,  veterinary  control  and  certification,  import  and  transit  permits  among 
others. 

8

 
 
                                                 
 
 
With Russia's WTO accession, a very important step has been taken towards solving many of 
the  longstanding  trade  barriers  encountered  by  European  companies  in  the  Russian  market. 
Monitoring  Russia's  implementation  of  its  WTO  commitments  against  progress  on  these 
barriers will be high on the EU's enforcement agenda in 2012 and beyond.  

2.4 

Barriers where no progress was achieved in 2011 

In  spite  of  action  undertaken  by  the  European  Commission  during  2011,  including  taking 
issues  to  the  highest  political  level  in  some  cases,  no  significant  progress  was  achieved  on 
some barriers. These will remain on the list of priorities for 2012.  

For  instance,  China  has  not  offered  progress  on  two  of  the  barriers  identified  in  the  TIBR 
2011. Investment continues to be a crucial area in bilateral relations with China, given the vast 
potential offered by this country. Nevertheless, investment barriers persist and the picture has 
not  improved  in  2011.  Adding  to  the  existing  foreign-direct  investment  (FDI)  screening 
mechanisms, in February 2011 China adopted a National Security Review Mechanism which 
allows for the vetting of mergers and acquisitions involving foreign investors against national 
security  considerations  (see  section  3).  Its  overly  broad  and  ambiguous  scope  has  raised 
concerns  over  new  potential  future  barriers  for  foreign  investors  in  China.  This  signal  was 
confirmed  by  the  long-awaited  draft  revision  of  the  Investment  Catalogue  issued  by  the 
National  Development  and  Reform  Commission  in  April  2011,  which  did  not  meet 
expectations regarding further opening of China foreign investment, for instance in the area of 
telecommunication,  financial  services11,  construction,  retail,  express  delivery  or  some 
manufacturing sectors such as cars, notably in the electrical vehicles subsector. Commissioner 
De  Gucht  raised  this  issue  on  the  occasion  of  the  Joint  Committee  of  July  2011  and  the 
Commission provided detailed comments to the Chinese authorities at the technical level. The 
Catalogue  was  adopted  on  24  December  2011  with  no  substantial  changes  from  the  April 
draft. 

The  Commission  continues  to  actively  work  on  overall  investment  relations  with  China. 
Following the launch in 2010 of a bilateral EU-China taskforce on investment, discussions are 
ongoing  to  work  towards  the  potential  launch  of  negotiations  of  an  EU-China  investment 
agreement  that  should  include  market  access  aspects  as  well  as  the  highest  standards  of 
protection  for  investment  and  would  include  further  transparency  mechanisms  to  increase 
legal certainty for EU investors in China.  

In the area of standardisation and technical regulation, Chinese barriers in the ICT security 
sector that were identified as a priority (e.g. OSCCA12 regulation on commercial encryption 
and the Multi-Level Protection System - MLPS) continue to cause concern. The Commission 
has undertaken many efforts in 2011 by raising this issue at Ministerial level. On all occasions 
- and more specifically with regard to the revision of the OSCCA regulation - the Chinese 
authorities  have  signalled  that  the  revised  regulation  will  be  published  for  stakeholders' 
consultation  ahead  of  adoption,  will  address  industry  concerns  and  will  be  more  open  to 
foreign  technology.  Nevertheless,  the  timeline  of  the  new  regulation's  adoption,  which  was 
expected for 2011, remains unclear. In the meantime, the OSCCA regulation and the MLPS 
continue  being  used  as  legal  basis  for  the  adoption  of  measures  related  to  information 

11  
12 

Insurance for instance still belongs to the 'restricted' category of investment. 
Office of State Cryptography Administration. 

9

 
 
                                                 
security,  such  as  in  the  case  of  6  standards  for  IT  appliances.  In  2012,  the  European 
Commission will continue raising this issue on all occasions and will pursue its efforts to try 
and reach all relevant Chinese authorities involved in this very complex web of measures. 

No  substantial  progress  was  achieved  in  India  on  opening  up  certain  sectors  to  foreign 
investment,  such  as  legal  services,  accountancy,  insurance,  banking  and  financial  services. 
Equally, concerns persist over the reform of the postal sector and potential negative impacts 
on  express  delivery  services.  These  issues  are  being  dealt  with  mainly  in  the  context  of 
current FTA negotiations. Proposed legislation currently under discussion for adoption would 
allow foreign investment in retail and distribution services. Investment in multi-brand retail, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  swiftly  put  on  hold  sine  die  due  to  a  negative  political  and  social 
reaction. In Japan, limited progress was achieved on some of the TIBR 2011 barriers despite 
the  intensification  of  bilateral  activities  in  the  course  of  2011.  Following  the  last  EU-Japan 
Summit in May 2011, a scoping exercise was launched with a view to exploring the scope and 
level of ambition of future FTA negotiations. This exercise provides a useful forum for raising 
specific  barriers  with  the  Japanese  authorities.  While  some  progress  was  achieved  on 
conformity  assessment  procedures  for  medical  devices  and  government  procurement  (see 
section 2.2.), the state of play has remained unchanged on financial services.  

Finally, no improvements were obtained on the barriers identified in 2011 for the Mercosur 
countries,  where,  on  the  contrary,  the  continuation  of  some  protectionist  tendencies  was 
observed, notably with regard to the measures in place in Argentina and Brazil13. For some of 
these  barriers  (e.g.  restrictions  in  maritime  transport  and  export  restrictions  on  raw 
materials  in  Argentina  and  Brazil),  the  FTA  negotiation  is  the  main  framework  where 
issues are currently being discussed; therefore such issues will be prioritised in that context. 
The Commission has, in addition, raised these irritants with Argentina and Brazil bilaterally 
and will continue to do so in 2012.   

In the case of Argentina's non-automatic import licenses (NALs), the system has remained 
in place and the situation has not improved. In fact, in March 2011, Argentina extended the 
application of non-automatic import licences to a list of 178 new tariff lines14. As a result, the 
non-automatic  licensing  system  now  covers  589  tariff  lines,  thereby  affecting  12.3%  of  EU 
exports to Argentina. While the exports from the EU has been hit by these measures relatively 
less  than  exports  from  other  countries  like  the  US,  China  or  Brazil,  the  loss  for  European 
companies  estimated  from  the  application  of  this  licensing  regime  amounts  to  USD  147 
million  from  January  to  September  2011.  The  Commission  has  raised  this  issue  with 
Argentina  on  various  occasions  both  bilaterally  and  together  with  a  large  number  of  other 
countries in relevant WTO bodies.  

Following  interventions  by  the  Commission,  the  Argentine  government  has  shown  some 
limited readiness to find solutions on a case-by case basis. This has somewhat contributed to 
alleviating  the  most  acute  cases  for  European  companies.  The  problem,  however,  remains 
very  serious  in  particular  because  Argentina  has  forced  companies  into  import/export 
compensation  plans,  whereby,  for  every  peso  imported,  companies  have  to  export  the  same 
monetary  amount  thus  seriously  distorting  business  decisions.  Given  the  seriousness  of  the 

13  

14  

DG  Trade,  Eighth  Report  on  Trade  Restrictive  Measures  –  October  2011-September  2011,  October 
2011 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2011/october/tradoc_148288.pdf 
The  extended  scope  now  also  includes  some  cars  and  parts  thereof,  motorcycles,  bicycles  and  parts 
thereof, textiles, metallurgical products and some electric products. 

10

 
 
                                                 
 
 
situation,  the  Commission  is  examining  all  possible  options,  including  launching  a  WTO 
dispute settlement case. This also includes consultations with other countries affected by this. 

The situation also worsened as regards access to government procurement in Brazil. In 2010, 
Brazil  introduced  a  horizontal  25%  preference  margin  in  its  national  public  procurement 
law  which  was  immediately  applied  to  the  ICT  sector.  The  issue  was  raised  on  several 
occasions, such as the Joint Committee, in the course of 2011. Nevertheless, in the meantime, 
the  Brazilian  government  announced  that  the  preference  margins  will  be  applied  to  health, 
communication and high-tech equipment as well.  

All  barriers  mentioned  in  this  section  deserve  particular  attention  for  enforcement  action  in 
2012. The Commission will vigorously work on these barriers and further step up action at all 
levels,  including  –  where  appropriate  -  at  bilateral  summits,  through  FTA  negotiations  or 
dispute settlement procedures so as to ensure tangible progress can be registered by the time 
of the next report in 2013.  

3. 

NEW SIGNIFICANT BARRIERS IN OUR TRADE RELATIONS  

In addition to the barriers identified in the TIBR 2011 as unsolved, a number of new market 
access barriers emerging in 2011 merit being included in the list of priorities for enforcement 
action for 2012.  

China undertook important developments concerning investment, also in conjunction with the 
adoption of the 12th Five Year Plan which outlined priorities for industrial development to be 
achieved  in  the  following  five  years.  In  this  context,  China  adopted  a  national  security 
review mechanism for mergers and acquisitions involving foreign investors in February 
2011,  whereby  China  could  block  foreign  acquisitions  on  the  ground  of  national  security 
considerations.  Judging  from  the  text  of  the  measure  and  the  provisional  indicative  list  of 
sectors that could potentially be included in the scope of this mechanism, it appears that the 
notion of national security is very broad and could extend to economic policy considerations. 
The  sectors  considered  important  for  national  security  include  some  going  beyond  "classic" 
notions  of  security  related  sectors  such  as  defence  or  energy  by  including,  for  instance, 
medical devices mail, delivery, warehousing, and retail and wholesale services. 

Another issue of concern are Chinese export financing conditions and subsidies. China uses 
export  credits  not  in  conformity  with  the  OECD/WTO  disciplines  to  boost  its  national 
champions'  exports  in  capital-intensive,  often  high-tech  sectors.  This  increasingly  poses 
serious challenges for very large, global and competitive EU companies and threatens sectors 
that are significant for the EU's economy, not only in third markets, but also in Europe itself. 
In  addition,  many  industries  are  subsidised  in  a  non-transparent  way,  including  through  the 
activities  of  state-owned  enterprises  (SOEs)  and  banks,  as  well  as  through  the  provision  of 
subsidised  land,  materials  and  energy.  This  issue  is  not  new.  Nevertheless,  action  to  tackle 
these anti-competitive practices must be intensified and these issues need to be systematically 
raised  at  the  highest  level  given  the  implications  these  practices  have  in  terms  of  hindering 
market access in many sectors, as well as of distorting competition on international markets. 

11

 
 
 
India is in the process of introducing a new National Manufacturing Policy (NMP), which 
was approved in October 2011 by the Union Cabinet of Ministers. The NMP still has to be 
approved  by  the  Parliament.  The  plan  mentions  measures  aimed  at  developing  indigenous 
manufacturing such as incentives - in the form of tax concessions and government subsidies - 
for  development  of  technology  and  preferential  purchases  by  government  agencies  of 
indigenously  developed  products  and  technologies.  Moreover,  the  government  will  consider 
the use of public procurement in specified sectors with stipulation of local value addition in 
such areas as solar energy equipment, electronic hardware, fuel efficient transport equipment 
and  IT  based  security  systems.  Although  the  NMP  is  still  in  draft  status,  its  provisions  are 
already  being  transferred  to  several  sectoral  plans.  The  Indian  Ministry  of  Communications 
and  Information  Technology  is  in  the  process  of  finalising  three  separate,  but  inter-related, 
national  policies  concerning  electronics,  information  technology  and  telecommunications 
which were issued in October 2011 for public comments. The Commission has already taken 
action  in  order  to  express  the  EU's  concerns:  Vice-President  Kroes  and  Commissioner  De 
Gucht  sent  a  letter  to  their  Indian  counterparts.  Moreover,  in  a  recent  visit  to  India,  Vice-
President Kroes discussed the issue with several concerned authorities.  

Finally,  some  new  measures  have  been  introduced  in  the  Mercosur  area,  with  Brazil  being 
particularly  active  during  2011.  On  15  September  2011,  Brazil  increased  the  tax  on 
industrial  products  (IPI)  for  manufactures  of  automotive  vehicles  and  trucks  that  do  not 
meet certain conditions of local production. In order to benefit from fiscal relief, 65% of the 
vehicles' components must be produced in Brazil; companies have to invest at least 0.5% of 
their  gross  sales  in  R&D  in  Brazil  and  must  carry  out  a  number  of  essential  manufacturing 
processes  in  Brazil.  The  measure  became  applicable  on  12  December  2011  and  is  meant  to 
remain in force until 31 December 2012. The Commission has already bilaterally raised this 
issue with Brazil and in relevant WTO bodies together with other  affected partners.  It will 
remain in contact with affected firms for appropriate further action in order to minimise the 
negative impact for EU firms.  

Brazil  also  tightened  its  procedures  for  imports  of  textiles  and  clothing  by  means  of 
stricter customs controls. Textiles and clothing imports are now passing through the grey and 
red customs procedures. This means that goods are subject to physical inspection and samples 
can be subject to laboratory tests. As a result, time for imports to be released could take as 
long as 90 days (+ 90 additional days if need be). Moreover, a higher number of certificates 
are being requested by customs authorities.  

Argentina  introduced  new  restrictions  in  the  reinsurance  services  sector.  In  February 
2011, the Argentine insurance regulator (Superintendencia de Seguros de la Nacion or SSN) 
issued  a  resolution  modifying  the  regulatory  framework  for  reinsurance.  Among  its  main 
provisions,  the  new  regulation  only  authorises  national  companies  or  locally-established 
branches  of  foreign  companies  to  provide  reinsurance  services  in  the  country.  By  way  of 
derogation, companies can request a waiver from this obligation when they can prove that the 
degree of risk cannot be covered in the local market. In May 2011, a new resolution slightly 
eased the regulatory framework by allowing cross-border supply of reinsurance services both 
for risks above USD 50 million and for retrocession services. Nevertheless, other important 
restrictions still remain in place, e.g. reinsurance abroad of life insurance and transfer abroad 
of more than 40% of premiums of local reinsurers are not allowed. 

12

 
 
 
4. 

A TENDENCY TOWARDS TRADE-RESTRICTIVE INDUSTRIAL POLICIES 
IN EMERGING ECONOMIES 

From  analysis  of  the  broader  context  of  the  barriers  reported,  it  emerges  that  measures  are 
often  part  of  national  industrial  plans  containing  discriminatory  provisions  against  foreign 
products,  services  and  investment.  This  reflects  a  general  tendency  that  has  appeared  in  the 
course of the past two years, notably in emerging economies. Between 2008 and 2009, at the 
beginning of the financial and economic crisis, many countries resorted to public intervention 
in order to counter the negative effects on demand. Yet, in a number of cases, those measures 
did have a potential distortive effect on trade. To a certain extent, those measures were aimed 
at protecting sectors which were particularly suffering from the negative effects of decreasing 
global demand. Generally, there was a clear relationship between the crisis and the measures 
introduced,  which  were  in  fact  meant  to  remain  in  force  only  temporarily  while  waiting  for 
the economy to pick up.  

However, the recent wave of trade-restrictive measures, notably in emerging economies, is of 
a different nature. The measures are no longer crisis-related since these countries have solidly 
recovered  from  the  crisis  and  have  been  witnessing  high  growth  rates  (at  least  since  2010). 
Consequently,  the  measures  concerned  are  not  of  a  temporary  nature,  but  are  embedded  in 
national industrial plans that are here to stay for longer periods and are aimed at structurally 
changing  the  production  pattern  of  national  economies  building  on  potential  comparative 
advantages. It is unquestionably a right of emerging economies to adopt industrial policies in 
order  to  structurally  change  and  improve  their  production  patterns;  however,  these  policies 
should be solidly based on the principles of non-discrimination and a level-playing field. 

China  has  a  long  tradition  of  favouring  national  industrial  development  on  the  basis  of 
discrimination  against foreign operators and  unfair competition. This is also reflected in the 
12th  Five  Year  Plan  adopted  in  March  2011.  The  Plan  represents  a  qualitative  shift  from 
what  was  considered  an  'expansionist'  model  of  development  to  one  aiming  at  industrial 
consolidation, energy efficiency, increased productivity and an emphasis on quality upgrading 
with an overall objective of moving up the value chain of manufacturing and making China's 
growth more sustainable. In addition the 12th Five Year Plan places an even greater emphasis 
on the strengthening of the services sector indicating a further shift in China's policy.  

Against this background, China is likely to continue providing support to selected "strategic 
industries"  (e.g.  clean  energy,  electrical  vehicles,  ICT  and  broadband, 
emerging 
pharmaceuticals  industries),  including  through  steering  investment  (often  in  the  form  of 
mandatory requirements for technology transfer) and financing. The 12th Five Year Plan and 
the  provisions  of  the  investment  catalogue  have  already  been  reflected  in  several  sectoral 
plans  at  central  as  well  as  provincial  levels.  As  regards  plans  established  at  central  level 
recently, the 12th Five Year Plan on National Scientific and Technological Development was 
issued, which is built up around the principle of enhancing independent innovation capacities. 
Moreover, there were indications that the new electrical vehicles plan being developed by the 
Ministry of Industry and Information  Technology (MIIT) would mandate forced technology 
transfer requirements in joint ventures where foreign investors would hold a minority share. 
Moreover, concerns were voiced that the MIIT would introduce the requirement that by 2015 
all  electric  cars  sold  in  China  would  have  to  be  Chinese  brands.  Recently  however,  the 
Chinese  provided  assurances  that  they  do  not  intend  to  maintain  measures  mandating  the 
transfer  of  technology  or  any  requirement  for  foreign-invested  companies  to  establish 

13

 
 
 
domestic brands in China. In light of these positive signals and the positive steps taken on the 
issue of indigenous innovation, the Commission encourages China to promote innovation in 
respect of such principles as levelling the playing field and protection of intellectual property. 
At the same time, however, subsidies and export financing are still there to play a big role in 
fostering the innovative industrial development of the country. 

The National Manufacturing Policy (NMP) recently introduced by India is another case of 
industrialisation policy partially based on discriminatory principles. This plan sets the target 
of  reshaping  the  economic  and  employment  landscape  of  India  by  enhancing  the  share  of 
manufacturing  in  GDP  from  16%  to  25%  by  2022,  with  a  focus  on  indigenous  production.   
As set out above (section 3), the plan combines elements of preference for domestic products 
in government procurement and local content requirements in purchases of private operators, 
with  tax  concessions  and  government  subsidies  benefitting  the  development  of  indigenous 
technologies. It will therefore be crucial to carefully monitor the implementation of NMP and 
the relevant sectoral plans15 in terms of compatibility with international rules.  

National  industrialisation  plans  have  also  been  recently  adopted  in  Brazil  and  Argentina.  In 
Brazil, for instance, the "Plano Brasil Maior" was adopted in August 2011 as a general plan 
aimed at fostering industrial development of the country. Problems arise to the extent that the 
plan's  specific  measures  foresee  such  instruments  as  indirect  subsidization  or  fiscal 
exemptions benefitting specific manufacturing sectors (e.g. textile and footwear, mobile and 
software  industry,  among  others).  One  element  of  the  Plano  Maior  is  extension  of  the  25% 
preference  margin  in  government  procurement  to  the  ICT  sector,  which  is  likely  to  be 
extended to other sectors such as health, defence, communications and high-tech equipment.  

Argentina's  trade  policy  has  been  characterised  over  the  last  years  by  moves  towards 
"managed  trade"  and  import  substitution  policies,  including  through  measures  affecting 
import and export – and NALs are certainly at the core of this policy - reflecting short-term 
solutions  to  underlying  macroeconomic  problems.  Parts  of  the  recently  introduced 
"Industrial Strategic Plan 2020" reflect the attempt of Argentina to develop a longer term 
vision  on  such  sectors  as  automotive,  capital  goods,  footwear,  agricultural  machinery, 
construction  materials,  medicines,  chemicals  and  textiles,  but  also  confirm  the  import 
restricting elements described above. There is a therefore a danger that measures such as non-
automatic import licensing remain in place in the future as part of a broader industrialisation 
policy based on import substitution.  

Besides national development plans, individual trade-distortive measures are adopted with the 
aim  of  fostering  industrial  development  also  stand  out  in  many  countries.  Most  of  the 
measures  that  are  indicated  as  priorities  in  this  report  indeed  belong  to  this  industrialisation 
pattern. Local content requirements, often in connection with investment and government 

15  

Besides the draft National Telecom Policy Plan (section 3), another relevant one is the Jawaharal Nehru 
National  Solar  Mission  (National  Solar  Mission)  adopted  in  2008,  which  appears  to  condition 
investment  in  certain  projects  to  develop  solar  energy  infrastructure  on  “domestic  content 
requirements,"  entailing  that  certain  solar  equipment  used  by  developers  in  such  projects  have  to  be 
manufactured  in  India.  Moreover,  India  would  offer  subsidised  rates  when  purchasing  solar  power 
generated  by  projects  under  the  National  Solar  Mission;  nevertheless,  developers  may  only  get  these 
subsidized  rates  if  it  complies  with  the  local  content  requirements  of  the  plan.  Still  in  the  field  of 
renewable energy, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy published draft guidelines in September 
2011  requiring  suppliers  of  wind  turbine  generators  of  a  capacity  in  excess  of  15  MW  to  set  up 
manufacturing facilities in India, thereby effectively excluding foreign suppliers.  

14

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
procurement, appear to be one of the most used kinds of trade-distortive instruments in the 
context of industrialisation. Besides the Indian National Manufacturing Policy and the related 
sectoral plans, another relevant measure in this respect is the so-called localisation initiative 
for the automotive sector in Russia, whereby foreign investors have to gradually implement 
local production thresholds using a defined proportion of local contents. This measure will be 
phased  out  by  2018,  following  Russia's  accession  to  the  WTO.  Among  the  new  measures, 
Brazil's application of the tax on industrial products for automotive sector entails local 
production requirements in order to benefit from a 30% reduction of the tax.  

Standardisation and conformity assessment requirements also appear to be a frequently-
used instrument to foster industrial development. The approach of China to standard-setting 
is  a  case  in  point.  In  spite  of  the  high  ambitions  in  terms  of  industrial  development  and 
innovation,  China  still  has  a  very  domestically-based  approach  to  standards  setting  and 
technical requirements16. This represents a serious market access barrier effectively shielding 
domestic  industry  from  foreign  competition.  The  ambitious  goals  set  in  the  12th  Five  Year 
Plan of becoming world leader in certain products or sectors will require China to change its 
behaviour  and  become  more  integrated  into  the  international  framework  of  standardisation 
and  technical  rules.  The  case  of  IT  security  in  China  is  an  example  of  how  the  current 
approach  to  technical  regulation  and  conformity  assessment  seriously  hinders  access  to  the 
Chinese market. On the basis of national security concerns, China has developed conformity 
assessment procedures requiring overly burdensome testing and procedures which, in most of 
the  cases,  must  be  performed  by  national  laboratories.  Moreover,  in  order  to  obtain  the 
necessary certifications to enter the Chinese market, disclosure of proprietary information and 
the use of domestic technology are mandatory requirements.  

The  same  approach  is  being  followed  by  India  in  the  telecommunication  sector,  since  the 
original  proposal  of  security  measures  for  telecom  equipment,  which  were  subsequently 
modified,  contained  the  requirement  of  source  codes  disclosure  in  order  to  obtain 
certifications. The revised proposal does represent an improvement from previous proposals; 
yet, it still provides for mandatory testing in Indian laboratories and other burdensome testing 
requirements.  Additionally,  the  recent  draft  National  Telecommunication  Policy  encourages 
the  development  of  national  standards  and,  especially  for  security-related  aspects,  the  draft 
makes reference to the development of an Indian-specific way to technical requirements and 
standards setting. 

Finally, the most straightforward way of protecting local production is by restricting imports 
of competing products, as well as exports, notably of raw material, in order to lower costs for 
domestic  manufacturing.  As  regards  export  restrictions,  there  is  a  general  upward  tendency 
and, in fact, the WTO qualified  this as one  of  the most worrying tendencies in trade of last 
year.  

The examples set out above testify to the growing importance of trade-restrictive measures as 
elements  of  national  industrialisation  policies.  This  is  a  cause  for  serious  concern  since 
measures taken in the context of such plans are likely to be structural and to stay for a longer 
period of time. The Commission will monitor these developments very thoroughly and take 
appropriate action. 

16  

There  are,  for  instance,  restrictions  in  relation  to  the  participation  of  foreign-invested  companies  in 
several sectors, ICT being one of them.  

15

 
 
                                                 
5. 

CONCLUSION 

Ensuring access for European companies to third country markets is a central element of the 
external  dimension  regarding  European  policy  for  growth.  By  negotiating  FTAs,  engaging 
strategic partners in high level fora and vigorously enforcing the rights under multilateral and 
bilateral  agreements,  EU  trade  policy  makes  an  important  contribution  to  the  Europe  2020 
objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.  

This report shows what focused action at different levels, including at the political level where 
necessary,  can  achieve  in  terms  of  removing  barriers  in  third  country  markets.  Moreover, 
concerted action of the Commission and the Member States can make a decisive difference. 
Where important economic interests are at stake, the Commission and Member States should 
not shy away from using all available means to pursue the EU's interests in a well coordinated 
manner.  In  this  context,  the  European  Council  called  repeatedly  for  improved  synergies 
between  the  European  Union  and  national  levels,  consistent  with  the  provisions  of  the 
Treaties,  for  enhanced  coordination  between  institutional  actors,  for  better  integration  of  all 
relevant  instruments  and  policies,  and  for  summit  meetings  with  third  countries  to  be  used 
more  effectively.  The  Commission  and  the  Member  States  should  thus  continue  reinforcing 
respective  actions  in  a  coordinated  manner  also  by  strengthening  the  instruments  of  the 
Market Access Partnership and by vigorously following up on the TIBR. Moreover, when the 
EU's partners do not respect their international obligations, recourse to dispute settlement and 
well-targeted retaliation, when necessary, will be on option.  

The  lessons  learned  from  the  cases  presented  in  this  report  are  clear:  there  are  no  easy 
solutions  to  many  of  the  barriers  encountered  by  European  companies  in  third  country 
markets.  Removal  of  these  barriers  requires  persistent  and  concerted  action  by  the 
Commission and Member States. This work may not always be visible to the general public 
but it has a very concrete and tangible impact for European companies and citizens.  

16