REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on Trade and Investment Barriers 1 January 2017 - 31 December 2017
Date: 2018-06-26
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, common commercial policy, foreign trade, free-trade agreement, investment abroad, liberalisation of trade, market access, protectionism, third country, trade restriction

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 26.6.2018  COM(2018) 489 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on Trade and Investment Barriers  1 January 2017 - 31 December 2017  
 
 
INTRODUCTION  

As  part  of  the  EU’s  Market  Access  Strategy,  this  eighth  edition  of  the  Trade  and 
Investment  Barriers  Report  analyses  the  barriers  reported  by  European  business  and 
Member States to the Commission through our Market Access Partnership amongst the 
Commission,  Member States and European business1 and  also provides an overview of 
those which were lifted in 2017. 

This  Partnership  has  proven  invaluable  to  gather  information,  prioritize  and  define  a 
common strategy to successfully remove barriers faced EU exporters. Capitalising on this 
experience  and  mindful  of  the  rise  in  protectionism,  the  Commission  announced  in  its 
''Trade  for  All''2  communication  an  ''enhanced  partnership''  to  reinforce  the  existing 
efforts and to extend them beyond the removal of obstacles to trade and investment to the 
implementation of Free Trade Agreements ("FTAs")3.  

Concerning the  traditional  market  access  component  of  our  ''enhanced  partnership'',  we 
have  reinforced  our  efforts  in  three  ways:  strengthened  coordination  among  EU 
institutions  and  stakeholders;  better  prioritisation  of  barriers;  and 
improved 
communication  and  awareness-raising.  To  improve  communication,  last  year’s  report 
was refocused to address squarely the barriers that matter most to EU companies: those 
they  have  identified  as  directly  affecting  them  in  third  countries4.  Building  on  the 
positive feedback received, this year's report continues this approach, and examines the 
most  relevant  barriers  affecting  EU  exports  to  57  third  countries5  as  raised  by  our 

1   The  Market  Access  Partnership  was  set  up  in  2007  to  deepen  the  cooperation  between  the 
Commission,  Member  States  and  EU  business  both  in  Brussels  and  locally.  It  is  based  on  monthly 
meetings of the Market Access Advisory Committee and sectorial Market Access Working Groups in 
Brussels  and  regular  meetings  of  the  Market  Access  Teams  or  Trade  counsellors'  meetings  in  third 
countries. 

2   http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october/tradoc_153846.pdf  

3   A new report on FTA implementation was adopted in 2017 in this context. The next report is foreseen 

later in 2018. 

4   This  approach  marks  a  shift  from  the  analyses  of  general  protectionist  trends  examined  in  previous 

editions up until 2016. 

5   Algeria,  Angola,  Argentina,  Armenia,  Australia,  Bangladesh,  Belarus,  Bolivia,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina,  Brazil,  Cameroon,  Canada,  Chile,  China,  Colombia,  Dominican  Republic,  Ecuador, 
Egypt,  Hong  Kong,  India,  Indonesia,  Iran,  Israel,  Japan,  Kazakhstan,  Lebanon,  Malaysia,  Mexico, 
Moldova,  Morocco,  Mozambique,  New  Zealand,  Nigeria,  Norway,  Oman,  Pakistan,  Paraguay,  Peru, 
Philippines,  Russian  Federation,  Saudi  Arabia,  Serbia,  Singapore,  South  Africa,  South  Korea, 
Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, UAE, USA, Uganda, Ukraine, Uruguay, Venezuela 
and Vietnam. 

1 

 
 
 
                                                 
companies and recorded in the EU's Market Access Database 6. The analysis of measures 
impacting EU businesses confirms the continued rise in protectionist trends observed in 
previous years.  

The  first  section  of  this  report  presents  a  numerical  analysis,  per  country,  per  type  of 
barrier  and  per  sector,  of  the  total  stock  of  396  active7  trade  and  investment  barriers 
registered in the database and of the 67 new barriers recorded in 2017. 

The second part provides a more detailed analysis of the new barriers reported in 2017  
(1  January  –  31  December  2017),  describing  specific  trends  in  various  countries  and 
sectors and assessing potentially affected trade flows.  

The third section elaborates on the tools used in our Market Access Strategy to address 
these barriers and reviews the 45 barriers successfully resolved in 2017. It also analyses 
the  economic  impact  of  the  resolved  barriers  on  the  basis  of  potentially  affected  trade 
flows and of economic modelling. Last, some major resolved barriers are also described 
in more detail. 

I. 

  OVERVIEW OF TRADE AND INVESTMENT BARRIERS  

This chapter provides a numerical analysis of trade barriers in third countries and related 
trends, as reported in the EU's Market Access Database, which collects barriers flagged 
by EU companies and tracks actions taken to remove them.  

It is important to note that the database (and this report) do not provide a comprehensive 
overview of all trade hurdles faced by EU economic operators8. Companies may decide 
not to report certain barriers because they hope to resolve them or avoid their effects.  

6   The  market  access  database  (http://madb.europa.eu/madb/indexPubli.htm)  gives  information  to 
companies  exporting  from  the  EU  about  import  conditions  in  third  country  markets.  This  includes 
information  on  trade  barriers,  but  also  on  tariffs  and  rules  of  origin,  procedures  and  formalities  for 
importing  into  third  countries,  sanitary  and  phytosanitary  (SPS)  measures,  statistics,  and  on  specific 
export-services 
Helpdesk 
(http://exporthelp.europa.eu/thdapp/index.htm) also provides information on conditions for importing 
from  trade  partners  into  the  EU  (including  applicable  tariffs  and  requirements,  preferential 
arrangements, and quotas and statistics). 

Conversely, 

provided 

Export 

SMEs. 

EU's 

the 

to 

7  

"Active" barriers mean that the barriers are actively followed-up in the Market Access Partnership (as 
opposed to resolved barriers). 

8   Cf. for example, the recent joint report of the International Trade Centre (ITC) and the Commission, 
"Navigating  Non-tariff  Measures:  Insights  From  A  Business  Survey  in  the  European  Union", 
December 
the 
overview  of  potentially  trade  restrictive  measures  described  in  the  context  of  the  previous  TIBR 
(http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/may/tradoc_154568.pdf; 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/june/tradoc_154665.pdf) or previous protectionism reports. 

(http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2016/december/tradoc_155181.pdf), 

2016 

2 

 
 
                                                 
Some companies may not be aware of the possibility to tackle barriers through the EU's 
market  access  work.  The  Commission  is  keen  to  ensure  maximum  awareness  in  this 
respect, especially among small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and has launched 
the ''Market Access Days'' initiative in Member States. This has proven useful for local 
businesses  to  gain  specific  information  on  how  they  can  report  barriers  and  how  the 
Commission  and  Member  States  can  design  and  implement  a  tailor-made  strategy  to 
resolve them. 

While  the  database  and  this  report  do  not  prejudge  the  (il)legality  of  the  recorded 
measures,  these  barriers  have  all  been  identified  as  problematic  for  EU  companies  and 
prioritized for further action in our market access work as they might be discriminatory, 
disproportionate or otherwise trade-restrictive.    

A. 

OVERALL STOCK OF TRADE AND INVESTMENT BARRIERS 

At the end of 2017, 396 active trade and investment barriers existed—a historical record. 
Set  against  372  barriers  at  the  end  of  20169,  this  figure  confirms  the  continued  rise  in 
protectionism affecting EU stakeholders. At the same time, it demonstrates the increasing 
success  of  our  Market  Access  Partnership  as  a  forum  to  identify  trade  barriers.  The 
database  allows  distinguishing  recorded  trade  barriers  per  third  country,  per  type  of 
measure and per sector. This report follows this breakdown. 

1. 

Barriers per third country 

Despite  the  fact  that  pledges  of  G20  leaders  to  reject  protectionism  were  once  again 
repeated at the G20 Summit held on 8 July 2017 in Hamburg10, the nine countries with 
the highest number of trade barriers still in place are all G20 economies (see table 1).  

The  highest  stock  of  barriers  has  been  observed  in  Russia  with  36  measures  recorded. 
China came second with 25 reported active barriers, while Indonesia came third, with a 
stock  of  23  measures  currently  in  place,  also  considerably  hindering  EU  export  and 
investment opportunities.  

Other  third  countries  with  10  or  more  trade  and  investment  barriers  registered  include 
India (21), Brazil (21) South Korea (20), Turkey (20), the United States (20), Australia 
(14), Thailand (12), Argentina (11) and Mexico (10).  

9 Tallying last year's measures (372) with 2017 figures (67 new and 45 resolved barriers) yields 394. The 
difference (2 barriers to reach 396) resides in the fact that 2 barriers which were split into 4—encoding 
different  aspects  of  the  barriers  separately.  As  of  2018,  the  Commission  will  record  barriers  in  this 
more granular fashion. Each different aspect of barriers will be recorded separately, allowing for more 
effective  monitoring of  each obstacle. This will  lead  to  a nominally higher number  of  "barriers" but 
will not alter trends. 

10  G20  Leaders’  Declaration:  Shaping  an  Interconnected  World:  http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2017/2017-

G20-leaders-declaration.html  

3 

 
                                                 
Table 1: Geographical breakdown of trade and investment barriers in the MADB (* - G20 countries) 

25 

23 

21  21 

20  20  20 

36 

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

14 

12 

11 

10 

9  9 

8  8  8 

7  7  7  7  7 

6  6  6 

5  5  5 

4  4  4 

3  3  3  3  3  3 

2  2  2  2 

1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1 

A
u
s
t
r
a

l
i

a
*

C
h

i
l

e

T
h
a

i
l

a
n
d

M
e
x
i
c
o
*

A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a
*

I

n
d
a
*

i

U
S
A
*

T
u
r
k
e
y
*

B
r
a
z
i
l

*

S
o
u
t
h
K
o
r
e
a
*

i

C
h
n
a
*

I

n
d
o
n
e
s
i
a
*

R
u
s
s
i
a
n
F
e
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
*

P
h

i
l
i

i

p
p
n
e
s

l

A
g
e
r
i
a

l

M
a
a
y
s
i
a

E
g
y
p
t

i

N
g
e
r
i
a

S
w

i
t
z
e
r
l
a
n
d

S
o
u
t
h
A
f
r
i
c
a
*

U
r
u
g
u
a
y

i

V
e
t
n
a
m

C
a
n
a
d
a
*

M
o
r
o
c
c
o

P
a
k
i
s
t
a
n

I
s
r
a
e

l

J
a
p
a
n
*

E
c
u
a
d
o
r

T
u
n
i
s
i
a

P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y

V
e
n
e
z
u
e
a

l

l

C
o
o
m
b
a

i

i

T
a
w
a
n

U
k
r
a
n
e

i

l

B
e
a
r
u
s

L
e
b
a
n
o
n

N
e
w
Z
e
a
a
n
d

l

S
a
u
d

i

A
r
a
b
a
*

i

i

D
o
m
n
i
c
a
n
R
e
p
u
b

l
i
c

N
o
r
w
a
y

O
m
a
n

S
e
r
b
a

i

U
g
a
n
d
a

U
A
E

C
a
m
e
r
o
o
n

H
o
n
g
K
o
n
g

K
a
z
a
k
h
s
t
a
n

l

M
o
d
o
v
a

M
o
z
a
m
b
q
u
e

i

I
r
a
n

P
e
r
u

S
i
n
g
a
p
o
r
e

B
o

l
i
v
i
a

A
r
m
e
n
a

i

l

B
a
n
g
a
d
e
s
h

i

B
o
s
n
a
a
n
d
H
e
r
z
e
g
o
v
i
n
a

 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.  

Barriers per type of measure 

Table 2 shows that behind the border measures (216) are more important than traditional 
border  measures  (180).  Behind  the  border  measures  refer  to  restrictions  related  to 
services, investments, government procurement, intellectual property rights or unjustified 
technical  barriers  to  trade.    Russia  has  the  highest  number  of  such  measures  recorded 
(19), closely followed by China (17).  

Border  measures  are  restrictions  that  directly  affect  imports  and  exports,  typically 
through tariff increases, quantitative restrictions, certain sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) 
measures,  import  licensing  or  through  outright  trade  bans.  Russia  is  the  country  that 
recorded the highest number of such measures (17), followed by Indonesia, Turkey and 
the United States (11), with India at third place (9).  

Table 2: Breakdown of trade and investment barriers recorded in the MADB per 
type (number of measures) 

200

150

220

210

200

100

190

180 

216 

216 

180

170

160

50

0

180 

Border

Border

Behind the Border

Behind the Border

 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
B. 

TRADE AND INVESTMENT BARRIERS REPORTED IN 2017 

A record 67 new barriers in 39 third countries11 were registered in 2017. This may be the 
result of the reinforced communication and awareness-raising mentioned above. Yet the 
steady rise in protectionism remains undisputable. 

1. 

Barriers reported in 2017 per third country 

Table  3  provides  an  overview  of  the  geographical  breakdown  of  measures  recorded  in 
2017.    The  highest  occurrence  of  new  barriers  in  2017  was  reported  in  the  trade  and 
investment relations with China by a considerable margin (10), followed by Russia (6), 
confirming  the  protectionist  trends  already  identified  in  previous  years.  South  Africa 
resorted to four new barriers, while India and Turkey also resorted to three new barriers, 
respectively.  Lebanon,  Ecuador,  Japan,  the  Philippines,  the  United  Arab  Emirates, 
Tunisia and Venezuela resorted to two new barriers each. The remaining 27 new barriers 
were  recorded  for  other  third  countries.  It  is  also  worth  mentioning  that  the  Euromed 
region as a whole saw seven new barriers emerge in 2017 - pointing to a worrying trend 
described in more detail under Chapter II.A. 

Table 3: Geographical breakdown of barriers reported in 2017  

11  Algeria,  Argentina,  Australia,  Bolivia,  Brazil,  Canada,  China,  Colombia,  Congo,  Dominican 
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Lebanon, Mexico, 
Mozambique, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, 
South  Africa,  South  Korea,  Thailand,  Tunisia,  Turkey,  Ukraine,  United  Arab  Emirates,  Uruguay, 
Venezuela and Vietnam. 

* G20 countries 

** EUROMED countries. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                 
2. 

Barriers reported in 2017 per type of measure 

Table 4 provides an overview of the two main types of measures recorded in 2017.  The 
majority  of  the  barriers  registered  in  2017  were  border  measures  (36),  most  of  which 
hindered imports into third countries by way of increased SPS restrictions. In addition, a 
substantial  amount  of  new  tariffs,  quotas,  bans  or  burdensome  licencing  schemes  also 
emerged.   

As for behind the border measures (31), most of the recorded restrictions were adopted in 
the area of trade in goods, including unjustified regulatory barriers, internal tax measures 
and intellectual property rights.  In addition, two new barriers were recorded with regard 
to trade in services. 

Table 4: Breakdown of trade and investment barriers reported in 2017 per type 
(number of measures) 

36
36
35

35
35
30

34
34
25
33
33
20
32
32

15
31
31

10
30
30

5
29
29

0
28
28

36 
36 
36 

31 

31 
31 

Border
Border
Border

Behind the Border
Behind the Border
Behind the Border

3. 

Barriers reported in 2017 per sector 

Table 5 shows that the number of new measures registered throughout 2017 affected 12 
different  sectors  of  economic  activity,  while  additional  barriers  impacted  EU  exports 
horizontally.  

7 

 
 
 
 
Tables 5 and 6: Sectorial breakdown of  trade and investment barriers reported in 
2017 (number of barriers) 

Manufacture; 
22 

Agri-food, 31 

Services; 2 

Horizontal; 12 

23 

12 

8 

7 

5 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

The  highest  number  of  new  reported  barriers  was  recorded  for  the  agriculture  and 
fisheries  sector  (23),  followed  by  twelve  horizontal  measures  that  affected  several 
sectors. The wines & spirits sector saw eight new barriers, while the automotive and ICT 
& Electronics saw seven and five new barriers, respectively. Sectors such as chemicals 
(two); services (two); textiles & leather (two); wood, paper and pulp (two); aircraft (one); 
ceramics and glass (one); cosmetics (one) and toys (one) were also affected. 

Concerning  barriers  related  to  trade  in  services  –  similarly  to  all  other  barriers  –  the 
barrier  count  reflects the  number of  new obstacles directly reported to the Commission 
under  the  market  access  framework.  Considering  the  importance  of  this  sector  in  our 
market access work, the Commission is expanding the information tools on conditions to 
export services to third countries, which are particularly useful for our SMEs.  

8 

 
 
 
II.  MAIN NEW TRADE AND INVESTMENT BARRIERS REPORTED IN 2017  

This  chapter  provides  a thorough  analysis  of  new  barriers  in  the  five  trade  partners  for 
which three or more barriers were recorded in 2017, namely China, Russia, South Africa, 
India and Turkey. It also estimates the potentially affected trade flows.  

A. 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE NEW BARRIERS  

1. China 

China  remains  one  of  the  most  trade-restrictive  partners  for  the  EU.  For  years,  EU 
companies  have  faced  complex  barriers,  including  joint  venture  requirements,  market 
entry  restrictions,  obligation  of  technology  transfer  as  well  as  unjustifiable  technical 
regulations  –  along  with  systemic concerns  related to  massive  overcapacity  not  only  in 
traditional  sectors  like  steel  or  aluminium,  but  also  increasingly  in  high-tech  sectors. 
2017  has  seen  a  substantial  increase  in  obstacles,  with  ten  new  trade  barriers  recorded. 
While  two  of  these  issues  have  already  been  successfully resolved in  2017  and  will  be 
duly examined in the 'success stories' section of the report, a trend of rising obstacles can 
clearly be identified. 

One of the main sectors affected by these measures is the ICT & electronics sector. Two 
of  the  three  new  barriers  reported  in  this  sector  concern  the  most  prominent  of  the 
numerous cybersecurity and encryption related measures China has been developing.   

China's  new  Cybersecurity  Law  entered  into  force  on  1  June  2017.  Dozens  of 
implementing  measures  in  the  form  of  administrative  requirements,  guidelines  and 
standards are currently being developed to operationalise this law. Whilst cybersecurity 
in  itself  is  a  legitimate  policy  objective,  the  concept  of  cybersecurity  applied  by  China 
has an excessive reach, covering economic and industrial policy considerations. Together 
with  vague  rules  that  generate  significant  uncertainty,  this  constitutes  a  major  trade 
barrier  not  only  for  ICT  companies,  but  also  for  other  EU  businesses  which  use  these 
products.  

In  addition,  China’s  State  Cryptography  Administration  (“SCA”)  published  a  draft 
Encryption  Law  on  13  April  2017,  covering  areas  encompassing  research  and 
commercial  use,  import,  export  as  well  as  certification.  Among  other  issues,  the  EU  is 
concerned that regulation might also apply to products beyond those with a core function 
of providing encryption. The Commission trusts that China will take the EU’s comments 
into account before finalising the law. 

the 

customs 

re-classification 

Furthermore, 
(MCO) 
semiconductors  has,  in  effect,  led  to  the  re-introduction  of  customs  duties  on  ITA-
products  that  were  previously  duty  free,  negatively  impacting  the  innovative  EU 
semiconductor industry. It is worth noting that the semiconductor industry is also one of 
the ten strategic high-tech sectors covered by the Made in China 2025 industrial policy 

of  multi-component 

9 

 
 
initiative, a strategy that entails considerable opportunities but also serious challenges for 
European industry. 

Concerning  other  sectors,  a  number  of  non-tariff  measures  in  the  form  of  complex 
technical  requirements  and  revised  standards  are  also  set  to  affect  amongst  others  the 
European  wood,  leather,  paper  &  pulp  industry.  The  Chinese  authorities  have  recently 
put in place a broad-ranging waste import ban on 24 products that has entered into force 
on  1  January  2018;  in  addition,  China  has  also  adopted  a  revised  set  of  standards  on 
another 34 products which has been applied since 1 March 2018. These standards cover 
in particular wood pulp, polymers, metal wastes as well as ores and plastics. 

With  regard  to  the  automotive  sector,  the  Ministry  of  Industry  and  Information 
Technology  recently  released  a  new  regulation  requiring  New  Energy  Vehicle  (NEV) 
manufacturers  to  "master  the  development  and  manufacturing  technology"  for  the 
complete NEV. Foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) might be required to 
disclose their entire key technologies to their Chinese joint venture partners, potentially 
constituting a forced transfer of technology.  

China  has  also  introduced  new  restrictions  on  additives  used  in  materials  that  may 
come in contact with food. The revised standards automatically rendered non-compliant 
a  large  but  unspecified  range  of  products,  from  fittings,  pipes  and  lids  to  packaging 
materials, inks and paper to entire machinery that may be used anywhere in the food and 
feed chain, from a milking machine to a conveyor belt in a supermarket. The horizontal 
nature  of  this  barrier  is  set  to  cause  important  trade  disruptions  to  a  wide  swathe  of 
sectors. 

Even  though  positive  developments  have  been  reported  regarding  China's  regulatory 
framework for medical devices (see below), two new challenging measures were adopted 
in the sector. In April 2017, China's Ministry of Finance and National Development and 
Reform Commission cancelled medical devices registration testing fees.  The measure 
negatively impacted the availability of testing services critical to the registration process 
for new devices in China resulting in significant costs and delays for EU companies. In 
September  2017,  China  set  up  a  national  program  to  set  prices  of  certain  devices 
whereby manufacturers were required to submit an extensive amount of information in a 
very  short  timeframe.  For  the  purpose  of  this  report,  both  measures  have  not  been 
considered as new barriers but rather as additional irritants within a complex regulatory 
environment for the health sector in China. 

While  addressing  the  new  barriers  recorded  in  2017,  the  EU  is  also  undertaking  all 
necessary actions that can contribute to the removal of the 25 existing barriers recorded 
in the Commission's Market Access Database (MADB). The EU has raised these barriers 
with China at the various WTO Committees as well as at bilateral fora ranging from the 
Trade  and  Investment  Policy  Dialogue  and  the  Economic  and  Trade  Working  Group. 
However,  the  prospects  for  the  emergence  of  new  barriers  remain  significant.  For 
example, China has indicated its intention to introduce new certification requirements for 

10 

 
low risk food products as well as revised standards and new specifications for wine and 
wine  products.  These  are  likely  to  create  important  disruptions  to  European  producers.  
These  developments  require  additional,  resourceful  efforts  to  better  address  market 
access  issues  vis-à-vis  China—including  leveraging  our  cooperation  in  different  policy 
areas. 

2. 

Russia 

Despite recovering from a two-year recession, Russia continued to resort to trade barriers 
in  2017  to  protect  its  local  industry,  confirming  trends  observed  in  previous  reports. 
Russia  recorded  the  second-highest  number  of  new  barriers  in  2017  (six),  raising  the 
stock of existing barriers for this country to 36—the jurisdiction with the highest number 
of trade barriers. The car sector, if not concerned by any specific new measure in 2017, 
remains particularly targeted by trade and investment barriers. 

Since  January  2017  Russia  has  further  limited  the  access  of  foreign  companies  to 
Russian State-Owned Enterprises' (SOEs) purchases. After a first restriction in place 
since 2015, Russia  has adopted a new  measure establishing a 15%  price preference for 
domestic companies (for goods and services) when tabling a bid in commercial purchases 
procured  by  SOEs  (i.e.  not  concerning  government  procurement).  Furthermore,  in  the 
last  days  of  2017,  the  Russian  government  adopted  a  law  authorising  local  content 
requirements in SOE purchases of aircraft and ships. 

These additional restrictions come on top of the numerous measures restricting access of 
foreign companies to government procurement. As in the past years, in 2017 Russia has 
added  several  sectors  in  the  scope  of  the  restrictions  related  to  government 
procurement,  namely  radio-electronic  products  (scope  extended  in  July  2017  adding 
equipment for the GLONASS air navigation system and electronic signalling devices for 
traffic  safety)  and  furniture.  The  unsatisfactory  offer  tabled  in  June  2017  by  Russia  to 
join the WTO’s Government Procurement Agreement added to the EU’s concern in this 
important area. 

Export  restrictions  featured  highly.  The  export  ban  on  raw  hides  and  skins,  in  place 
since October 2014, has been yet again extended until April 2018. Also, Russia decided 
to  introduce  severe  restrictions  for  birch  log  exports.  A  draft  Decree  published  in 
November  2017  established  export  quotas  for  birch  logs,  limited  to  a  period  of  six 
months.  The  volume  of  the  export  quotas  amounts  to  567.000  m³,  a  reduction  by 
approximately  one  third  of  Russia's  average  export  volume  over  the  period  2014-2016. 
The  implementation  of  the  quotas  will  not  start  before  the  second  half  of  2018. 
According  to  the  local  authorities,  the  measure  is  squarely  aimed  at  protecting  the 
domestic  wood  market  and  encouraging  domestic  wood  processing  (i.a.  plywood 
producers).  

Discriminatory treatment between domestic and imported wines through a complex new 
system of tax excise rates constitutes another trade irritant introduced by Russia in 2017 

11 

 
affecting the European wines & spirits sector. Excise rates for wines with geographical 
indications (GIs) and wines with protected appellations of origin shall apply to domestic 
(Russian)  wines  only.  If  interpreted in  isolation,  the  provision  would  indeed  imply  that 
GI  wine  is  to  be  produced  in  Russia  from  Russian  grapes,  which  would  constitute  a 
discrimination against imported wines. 

Another new barrier that Russia put in place last year is the obligation to use  Russian-
flagged vessels for transport of hydrocarbons and coal in the Northern Sea Route. The 
Northern Sea Route lies east of Novaya Zemlya and runs along the Russian Arctic coast 
until  the  Bering  Strait  (within  Russia's  Exclusive  Economic  Zone).  Melting  Arctic  ice 
caps  are  likely  to  increase  traffic  in  and  the  commercial  viability  of  the  Northern  Sea 
Route. 

In  addition,  Russia's  non-compliance  with  international  standards  through  SPS  import 
restrictions poses huge challenges to the European agriculture & fisheries sector. Russia 
maintains  a  particularly  non-transparent  and  burdensome  system  for  authorising  animal 
origin  food  producing  establishments  to  export  to  the  country,  frequently  applying 
disproportionate  restrictions  to  already  authorised  ones  and  requiring  cumbersome 
individual inspections compulsory for new ones. As Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan and 
Kyrgyzstan in practice follow the lists of agri-food establishments authorised for exports 
to Russia, the above situation affects EU food exports to those countries too.  

In  addition,  Russia  refuses  to  lift  restrictions  on  eleven  voivodships  of  Poland  that  had 
highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreaks despite the fact that, according to 
OIE  rules,  the  entirety  of  Poland  regained  its  HPAI  freedom  in  July  2017.  For  HPAI 
restrictions to be lifted, the Russian authorities require inspections of all individual meat 
processing establishments producing the exported birds.  

Finally,  the  Russian  authorities  recently  rolled  out  an  extensive  SPS-related  measure 
through  its  New  Eurasian  Economic  Union  Common  Phytosanitary  requirements. 
This  regulation  establishes  disproportionate  and  discriminatory  requirements  for  import 
and  movement  of  controlled  goods  into  and  on  the  territory  of  the  EAEU  –  thus  also 
affecting  exports  to  Belarus,  Armenia,  Kazakhstan  and  Kyrgyzstan.  The  new  rules 
require  places  of  production  to  be  declared  free  from  a  series  of  plant  pests  also  for 
certain low risk products. It appears that the new requirements will in practice apply only 
to  imports  and  not  to  the  local  products  Furthermore  the  new  rules  may  result  in  the 
establishment of a positive listing of authorised exporters, after inspection as is the case 
for food of animal origin. 

The EU has remained open to discussion, contacting the Russian Federation for bilateral 
meetings,  sharing  information  and  assessments  of  the  problems  observed.  The  EU  has 
also  favoured  the  WTO  framework  (e.g.  various  committees,  Council  for  Trade  in 
Goods)  to  raise  market  access  restrictions.  When  necessary  the  EU  has  also  used  the 
WTO's  dispute  settlement  mechanism  to  make  Russia  respect  its  WTO  commitments 
(e.g. in the recent case on pork ban due to African Swine Fever). 

12 

 
3. 

South Africa 

Though South Africa has not been a focus of previous reports, an increasing number of 
protectionist barriers affecting trade and investment are being put in place. The country 
resorted to four new barriers in 2017, bringing the overall barrier count to eight.  

In recent months, the South African authorities unveiled their Preferential Procurement 
Regulations - a horizontal local procurement target of 75% affecting multiple sectors.   

On agriculture and fisheries, South Africa introduced several  SPS measures following 
avian influenza outbreaks in the EU. Since the 2016 HPAI outbreak, eight out of ten EU 
Member States exporting poultry to South Africa remain banned despite the fact that they 
have since been declared HPAI-free in accordance with the international standards of the 
World Organisation for Animal Health. South Africa claims that new country inspections 
are needed before trade is allowed. The objective of such inspections is not clear, given 
that the influenza episodes have been stamped out. 

The  difficulty  to  export  Cognac  due  to  different  legislation  on  Appellations  of  Origin 
and GIs is an important barrier for the wines & spirits sector. South Africa's Liquor Act 
puts  cognac  in  the  same  category  of  brandy,  which  has  different  aging  and  alcohol 
volume requirements, thus making its export a complex – and in some cases, impossible - 
process. 

With  regards  to  the  ICT  &  electronics  sectors,  a  new  set  of  standards  and  technical 
regulations  amalgamated  under  the  Electromagnetic  Interference  and  Compatibility 
Conformity  Assessment  Procedure  is  set  to  create  important  trade  disruptions  for 
European exporters. The new rules impose a conformity assessment procedure based on 
third  party  approval,  a  procedure  that  is  stricter  than  necessary  to  give  the  importing 
member adequate confidence that low-risk appliances conform to the applicable technical 
regulations or standards. 

The EU keeps engaging with its South African counterparts under the WTO framework, 
namely the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures 
(SPS) Committees as well as in the context of the Economic Partnership Agreement and 
at technical level in order to address market barriers to trade.  

4.  

India 

India resorted to three new barriers in 2017, bringing the overall barrier count to 21 and 
confirming protectionist tendencies identified last year. Restrictions were adopted in the 
area of testing requirements, import bans as well as internal taxation.   

On 1 September 2017, India introduced a de facto in-country testing requirement for 
imported toys with immediate effect. This was not notified to the WTO under the TBT 
Agreement and also not subject to the appropriate stakeholder consultations in India. The 
issue was addressed at the last EU-India Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures / Technical 
Barriers to Trade Working Group (SPS/TBT WG) in November 2017 and during various 
follow-up  meetings  with  the  relevant  authorities  in  India,  Brussels  and  Geneva.  India 
notified the measure in December, 3 months after its implementation date. 

13 

 
Second, India resorted to a new import ban covering a wide range of products relating to 
the textiles & leather sector, which include reptile leather; raw mink; fox and chinchilla -
furskins as well as tanned mink skins - all without prior consultation. These imports are 
subject to the Wild Life Protection Act 1972 and the Convention on International Trade 
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). EU exporters, though, comply 
with CITES requirements, and the totality of the furskins exported to the country derive 
from  farmed  animals  raised  under  the  highest  welfare  standards.  A  letter  was  sent  in 
April  2017, co-signed  by  the  ambassadors  of  the  EU  and  other  like-minded  partners  to 
India and the issue was repeatedly raised at the EU-India Sub-Commission on Trade in 
July,  at  the  EU-India  SPS/TBT  WG  in  November  and  in  numerous  contacts  with  the 
Indian authorities, including under the EU Investment Facilitation Mechanism. A reply to 
the joint letter is yet to be received. 

Finally,  India  resorted  to  certain  tax  measures  and  other  import  measures  applied  at 
State  level  on  imported  wines  &  spirits.  Various  discriminatory  States'  measures  were 
raised again in the framework of the EU-India Sub-Commission on Trade.  

In  addition  to  these  new  barriers  covered,  negative  developments  in  existing  barriers 
require further attention. 

In  2014,  India  re-introduced  customs  duties  on  certain  ICT  products  such  as  3G 
telecom equipment. Notwithstanding demarches from the EU side, including letters from 
the Head of the EU Delegation to the Indian Minister and bilateral meetings such as the 
EU-India  Sub-Commission  on  Trade,  India  not  only  did  not  address  this  measure  but 
continued to engage in further protectionist measures concerning the ICT sector in 2017. 
Duties  were  re-introduced  (and  in  some  cases  further  increased)  for  products  including 
all base-stations, mobile phones and their parts, digital cameras, converters, switches and 
ink cartridges. India is a member of the Information Technology Agreement (ITA-1) thus 
having committed to keep the majority of these tariff lines duty-free. The issue has been 
raised in several letters, at the EU-India Sub-Commission on Trade, in the WTO bodies 
and  in  contacts  with  the  Indian  authorities,  including  under  the  EU  Investment 
Facilitation Mechanism. The EU is currently assessing all options to address this matter. 
The recent announcement in the Indian Union budget for FY 2018-19 to further increase 
duties for ICT products, as well as in other sectors such as automotive parts and textiles 
signal further protectionism.  

Regarding  the  medical  devices  industry,  in  August  2017  prices  were  slashed  for  knee 
implants by emergency action by the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA), 
instead  of  waiting  for  the  government  to  bring  the  devices  under  the  National  List  of 
Essential Medicines as it did in previous cases. The EU continues to raise concerns with 
Indian  authorities  including  in  the  framework  of  the  EU-India  Sub-Commission  on 
Trade,  the  EU-India  Pharmaceuticals,  Biotechnology  and  Medical  Devices  Working 
Group  and  in  contacts  with  the  Indian  authorities,  including  under  the  EU  Investment 
Facilitation Mechanism. 

14 

 
The  EU  has  consistently  taken  actions  to  tackle  both  the  new  and  the  existing  barriers 
recorded in the MADB for India. The Commission regularly raises these issues with the 
Indian  authorities  in  all  available  bilateral  and  multilateral  fora,  such  as  the  EU-India 
Sub-Commission on Trade or the EU-India SPS/TBT Working Group and the different 
WTO Committees. 

5. Turkey  

Over the past few years, Turkey has maintained several trade barriers which are contrary 
to its obligations under the bilateral trade framework of the EU-Turkey Customs Union, 
such as burdensome customs procedures or additional duties on imports of third country 
origin goods. In 2017 Turkey introduced three further trade-restrictive measures, raising 
the overall number of reported trade barriers to 20. 

One  of  these  new  barriers  consists  in  Turkey's  discriminatory  treatment  between 
Turkish  and  EU-produced  tractors.  The  Directive  for  Production,  Modification  and 
Assembling of Vehicles  foresees that, as  of January  2018, EU-produced tractors  would 
need to meet stricter engine emission requirements than those produced locally. 

Turkish authorities are also implementing export tax measures on hides, skins and wet-
blue leathers. This measure adds up to the already difficult situation of the EU`s tanning 
industry, which suffers from shortage of access to raw materials worldwide. 

A third new trade barrier relates to Turkey`s existing regime of “additional duties” on 
imports  originating  in  third  countries.  Beyond  the  ever  increasing  scope  of  such 
additional  duties  over  recent  years,  in  2017  Turkey  introduced  so-called  “additional 
liabilities”  (by  Decision  2017/10926  of  11  September  2017).  These  are  compensatory 
levies that raise the level of the EU`s Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) tariffs to 
the level of Turkey`s existing applicable duties for imports of several countries to which 
Turkey should normally apply the EU’s GSP tariffs – whenever those goods are imported 
into Turkey via the EU.  

Moreover,  also  in  relation  to  the  additional  duties,  Turkey  introduced  a  new  layer  of 
complication for EU exporters to Turkey that sell goods originating in third countries, by 
requesting  exporter  declarations  (or 
to  bear 
responsibility  for  the  EU  origin  of  the  products  they  are  exporting,  despite  the  free 
circulation provisions under the Customs Union (Communiqué 2017/4 of the Ministry of 
Economy of 30 December 2017, effective as of 1 March 2018).  

longer-term  supplier  declarations) 

It should also be noted that further negative developments have taken place regarding a 
previously  registered  barrier  in  the  pharmaceutical  sector.  The  64th  Action  Plan  of  the 
Turkish  Government  included  delisting  of  imported  pharmaceutical  products  from  the 
reimbursement  list,  subject  to  compliance  with  specific  localisation  requirements.  This 
effectively implies exclusion from the market since February 2018.  

15 

 
The  Commission  will  continue  to  address  these  and  other  trade  irritants,  with  the 
objective to prevent further escalation of protectionist measures, increase market access 
for  European  companies  and  improve  the  overall trade  and investment environment.  In 
particular, the Commission raised existing barriers on the occasion of the Custom Union 
Joint  Committee  with  Turkey.  Given  the  importance  of  the  Turkish  market  for  EU 
businesses, some of these new barriers have also been discussed at the highest political 
level.  

Emerging trend: contagion effect in Euromed? 

Protectionism in the Euromed region as a whole is on the rise, with a certain mimicking 
of  barriers  across  different  countries.  Aggravated  trade  deficits,  caused  partly  by  low  oil 
and  gas  prices,  have  led  to  the  rise  of  barriers  in  the  region  reaching  33  overall  (Algeria, 
Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia), with Egypt, Algeria and Israel accounting for 
the highest number.  

7 new barriers have been registered in 2017, in Lebanon (two), Tunisia (two new barriers), 
Israel (one) and Algeria (one). While Egypt has also introduced one new barrier in 2017, it 
has  a  series  of  long-standing  barriers  hampering  EU  exports.  The  most  prominent  is  the 
mandatory  registration  of  exporters,  which  is  implemented  in  a  non-transparent  and 
cumbersome way with significant affects across many sectors.  

Algeria has been introducing a series of trade restrictive measures since 2015, the most 
important being a system of non-automatic import licences on several products, including 
vehicles, cement, steel, and ceramics. The system is accompanied by the setting of quotas 
to imports—a serious obstacle to our trade. The EU addressed the issue in all fora (e.g. 
Association  Council,  Association  Committee,  Trade  Sub-Committee)  and  in  high  level 
meetings. Notwithstanding those efforts, the Algerian government established a new set 
of even more restrictive measures in 2017. The main elements of the new system, which 
was approved in December 2017 and has been applied since 1 January 2018, are:  

- Temporary import ban on 851 products (mainly agricultural and prepared agricultural 
products) which accounted for ca. €1.0 billion of EU exports in 2016  

- Increase of custom duties on 129 products, which accounted for ca. € 0.5 billion of EU 
exports in 2016.   

- Maintaining the import licencing system for cars (while eliminating licensing for other 
products).  

Israel  has also  introduced new requirements on nutritional labeling in December 2017. 
Those  requirements  are  not  in  line with  the  established  international  practices  and  may 
create  discriminations  against  imported  products  due  to  the  increased  packaging  and 
labelling  costs.  The  EU  submitted  its  opinion  to  the  WTO  Technical  Barriers  to  Trade 
(TBT)  Committee  in  May  2017  and  exerted  continued  pressure  on  Israeli  authorities. 
This  led  to  the  approval  by  the  Israeli  Parliament  of  a  version  with  some  amendments, 
providing a much longer implementation period (two years) and excluding smaller size 
food  products  from  labelling  requirements.  Another  measure  under  preparation  is  a 
reform of the cosmetics legislation, aiming at aligning to the extent possible, the Israeli 
requirements  with  the  EU's  –  mainly  post-market  control.  The  EU  welcomed  Israel's 
intention to move towards harmonisation with the EU Cosmetics Regulation but outlined 
several key concerns in the Israeli legislation which would have a negative impact on the 

16 

 
market access conditions of EU operators in Israel. The reform is still under discussion in 
the  Israeli  Parliament.  The  EU  is  actively  involved  in  discussions  with  the  Israeli 
counterpart. 

Lebanon has also adopted a new barrier in 2017, with the revocation of the exemption 
from customs duties granted since 2013 to imports of hydrocarbons from the EU. On 4 
April  2017, the  Lebanese  Customs'  Council  decided,  in  the framework  of  a  revision  of 
the fiscal laws, to cancel the exemption from customs duties that had been granted to EU 
exports of oil/petroleum products without prior consultation. The Lebanese government 
has  also  approved  increased  taxes  on  imports  of  certain  products  including  alcoholic 
beverages—in  contravention  of  the  EU-Lebanon  Association  agreement.  Thanks  to 
intensive dialogue with the Lebanese authorities, the EU was able to ensure an exemption 
for its exports from the implementation of this measure.    

While less acute, some protectionist tendencies have emerged in Tunisia. Issues include 
technical and administrative difficulties met by EU exporters of pharmaceutical products, 
tyres  and  ceramic  tiles.  As  of  spring  2017,  the  Tunisian  authorities  were  under  public 
pressure  to  adopt  import-restrictive  measures  to  stem  the  trade  and  current  account 
deficits. This was done through burdensome customs procedures, in particular the request 
for  EU  customs  to  provide  a  declaration  on  exports  to  Tunisia,  and  systemic  technical 
controls  in  ports  on  an  extended  list  of  products,  and  the  increase  in  tariffs  on  "non-
essential" consumer products, including agricultural and processed products not covered 
by  the  Association  Agreement.  The  Commission  is  following  the  issue closely  and  has 
been pursuing a resolution of these issues through regular dialogue, in the framework of 
the  Sub-Committee  Meetings,  and  in  view  of  the  negotiations  of  the  Deep  and 
Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA.) 

Faced  with  this  regional  challenge,  our  approach  is  to  step  up  the  use  of  all  available 
tools—technical and political, to achieve a maximum degree of market access. While we 
will  continue  to  work  with  Euromed  countries  to  address  economic  challenges,  the 
provisions of the Association Agreements and the WTO agreements must be respected as 
compliance is in the interest of all parties involved. Trade barriers will not enhance, but 
rather undermine, competitiveness of business in the region. 

ESTIMATING  THE  ECONOMIC  IMPACT  OF  NEW  MARKET  ACCESS 

B. 
BARRIERS  

This  exercise  is  challenging  as  it  is  difficult  to  assess  how  much  barriers  (particularly 
non-tariff ones) affect exporters’ costs and behaviour. Available economic data on costs 
increases due to registered barriers remains partial.  Another important distinction to bear 
in  mind  is  that  non-tariff  barriers  are  characterized  by  different  degrees  of  restrictions. 
Other  than  with  outright  bans,  most  trade-restrictive  measures  do  not  eliminate  trade 
altogether,  but  rather  reduce  it.  Moreover,  restrictions  regarding  the  same  products  or 
services may overlap - so additional barriers may not necessarily mean additional impact, 
nor removal of one barrier implies automatic improvement in market access.  

17 

 
 
 
Analysing the trade flows linked to the new barriers raised in 2017 is a first step to help 
assess  the  importance  of  the  EU's  market  access  work.  The  methodology  is  based  on 
bilateral  EU  export  figures  for  the  relevant  Harmonised  System  (HS)  tariff  codes:  of 
course,  barriers  do  not  necessarily  eliminate  all  exports—so  these  figures  are  to  be 
understood  as  a  theoretical  maximum  impact.  They  signal  an  order  of  magnitude,  a 
general  indication  of  the  importance  of  the  underlying  exports  potentially  affected  by 
barriers.  The  examination  of  the  possible  impact  of  these  measures  is  one  factor  taken 
into account by the Commission as it sets its market-removal priorities.  

This  method  was  applied  to  47  of  the  67  new  barriers  recorded  in  2017,  excluding 
services, horizontal and other measures of difficult quantification. The calculation shows 
that  the  new  trade  barriers  recorded  in  2017  potentially  affect  EU  exports  worth  up  to 
€23.1 billion. This roughly corresponds to 1.2% of all 2017 EU exports.  

This  is  in  the  same  order  of  magnitude  as  in  2016  –  when  €  27  billion  exports  were 
potentially  affected,  and  confirms  a  widening  of  protectionist  measures.  In  industrial 
sectors,  measures  introduced  by  three  countries  account  for  around  two  thirds  of  the 
exports  potentially  affected  (China  €  7  billion;  the  United  Arab  Emirates  €  4.5  billion; 
Egypt € 3.1 billion). The sectors that in value terms face highest potential impact in 2017 
are  ICT  and  electronics  (almost  €  10  billion),  textiles  &  leather  (€  8.3  billion)  and 
chemicals (€ 3.1 billion). In the agri-food sector, roughly half of the value of trade flows 
potentially  affected  by  restrictive  measures  is  due  to  Chinese  policies while  another  30 
percent is affected by Russian policies. 

The significant level of trade potentially affected by the imposition of new market access 
barriers  underlines  yet  again  the  importance  of  the  EU's  Market  Access  Strategy  to 
monitor, prioritize and address trade-restrictive measures with the most appropriate tools. 

III.    MAIN TRADE AND INVESTMENT BARRIERS RESOLVED IN 2017  

This  chapter  analyses  the  45  barriers  totally  or  partially  resolved  during  2017,  the 
European Commission's strategy and the resulting benefits for our companies. 

A. 

EU STRATEGY TO ADDRESS TRADE AND INVESTMENT BARRIERS 

In  the  wake  of  rising  protectionism  in  today’s  transactional  world,  our  daily  work  to 
remove  trade  barriers  becomes  ever  more  prominent.  To  that  end,  the  Commission  has 
reinforced the EU’s Market Access Strategy, with strengthened coordination among EU 
institutions  and  stakeholders,  better  prioritisation  of  barriers  and 
improved 
communication  and  awareness-raising.  These  efforts  resulted  in  20  barriers  resolved  in 
2016, and 45 barriers successfully tackled in 2017—a record number.  

The  previous  section  has  underlined  the  many  tools  that  are  brought  to  bear  in  this 
endeavour.  There  is  a  stream  of  diplomatic  work,  where  the  European  Commission, 

18 

 
 
EEAS,  EU  Member  States  and  industry  collaborate  closely  through  the network  of  EU 
delegations and Member States' embassies in third countries, in Brussels and in European 
capitals.  This  encompasses  a  wide  variety  of  activities—ranging  from  technical  trade 
projects  to  formal  demarches,  from  discussion  in  formal  political  structures  (dialogues, 
committees),  High  Level  Missions  of  Commissioners,  to  ministerial  and  presidential 
actions. Wherever this enhances the effectiveness of our work, action is coordinated with 
like-minded partners.  

Under the WTO framework, regular committee work detailed in the previous section is 
complemented by the Commission's activity in the context of the Dispute Settlement—a 
precious tool to address trade barriers. While no new cases were initiated in 2017, WTO 
Panels  ruled  in  favour  of  the  EU  in  2  cases  (in  DS  472  regarding  certain  Brazilian 
measures concerning taxation and charges affecting several economic sectors and in DS 
479 on Russia’s anti-dumping duties on Light Commercial Vehicles from Germany and 
Italy).  In  one  case  regarding  Russia's  sanitary  policies  on  the  import  of  pig,  pork  and 
certain pig products, EU claims were also upheld by the WTO Appellate Body (DS 475) 
and the report adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body. Finally, in the context of 
DS  485  regarding  Russia  tariff  treatment  of  certain  agricultural  and  manufacturing 
products, in June 2017 Russia confirmed that it had brought the tariffs on these products 
down to the level to which Russia committed in its WTO Schedule, as requested by the 
EU. 

The Commission will also not hesitate to deploy bilateral dispute settlement as provided 
for in its Free Trade Agreements. This possibility is analysed on an on-going basis.   

In 2017, the Commission has also successfully made use, at the request of exporters, of 
the  procedure  foreseen  by  Trade  Barrier  Regulation12  initiating  on  7  July  2017  an 
examination against  a Turkish measure providing for an import licensing requirement13 
for  a  certain  product.    This  underlines  the  potential  of  an  instrument  seldom  used  by  EU 
stakeholders to address a particular type of trade barrier.  

Besides the aforementioned tools, the Commission pursues an ambitious trade agenda – a  
priority  highlighted  by  President  Juncker  in  his  State  of  the  Union  Address  and  the 
subsequent trade package presented in September 2017 by Commissioner Malmström –, 
aimed  at  increasing  effectiveness,  transparency  and  values.  This  strategy  is  reflected  in 
the  further  comprehensive  agreements  with  third  countries,  which  provide  increasingly 
effective  frameworks  to  tackle  market  access  barriers.    In  2017,  the  provisional 
application of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada (CETA) 

12   Regulation (EU)  2015/1843 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 2015 laying 
down Union procedures in the field of common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of 
the Union's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of 
the World Trade Organization (O.J. L. 272, 16.10.2015, p.1).   

13   See below page 30 

19 

 
                                                 
started, negotiations on the Economic Partnership Agreement with Japan were concluded 
and progress was achieved in talks on the modernisation of the EU – Mexico FTA and in 
the MERCOSUR FTA. Negotiations are on-going with other countries such as Indonesia 
and  the  Commission  has  also  requested  the  Council  for  negotiating  directives  for  trade 
agreements with Australia and New Zealand.  Barriers identified under our market access 
work  are  channelled  in  directly  to  these  FTA  negotiations  to  ensure  that  market  access 
priorities are effectively addressed. In view of the Commission’s increased emphasis on 
FTA implementation, the Commission also keeps reinforcing discussions with its market 
access  partners  in  order  to  address  barriers  in  countries  where  FTAs  are  in  force. 
Implementation  structures  established  by  FTAs  significantly  contribute  to  eliminating 
specific  trade  barriers  and  provide  a  regular  framework  for  discussing  market  access 
issues.  

In  addition,  the  EU  has  introduced  in  2017  an  overarching  European  Economic 
Diplomacy initiative, which brings together all strands of our policy (from environmental 
policy to transport, from energy to competition, from development to industrial policy) to 
support  our  key  economic  priorities  with  each  and  every  one  of  our  trade  partners. 
Market access is always one of these key priorities, and thus benefits from this initiative.  

B. 

1. 

OVERVIEW OF THE BARRIERS RESOLVED IN 2017 

Barriers resolved in 2017 per third country 

Due to the increased and combined efforts of all stakeholders in our market access work, 
a  total  of  45  barriers  have  been  totally  or  partially  resolved  in  2017,  which  shows  a 
significant increase compared to the previous year. 

Table  7  illustrates  the  third  countries  where  barriers  were  most  successfully  tackled. 
China  came  first  on  the  list  with  7  barriers  resolved  during  2017,  followed  by  Brazil, 
Turkey and Canada (three each). Also in Argentina, India, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and the 
United Arab Emirates, two registered barriers were resolved.   

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7: Geographical breakdown of barriers resolved in 2017 (* - G20 countries) 

7 

3  3  3 

2  2  2  2  2 

1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1 

N
A
W
A
T

I

E
A
U

*
A
S
U

O
G
N
O
C

G
N
O
K
G
N
O
H

Q
A
R

I

*
N
A
P
A
J

A
I
S
Y
A
L
A
M

I

*
O
C
X
E
M

A
U
G
A
R
A
C
N

I

U
R
E
P

I

S
E
N
P
P
I
L
I
H
P

*
A
I
S
S
U
R

E
R
O
P
A
G
N
I
S

D
N
A
L
I
A
H
T

I

E
N
A
R
K
U

R
O
D
A
U
C
E

Y
A
W
R
O
N

N
O
N
A
B
E
L

I

A
B
M
O
L
O
C

N
A
T
S
H
K
A
Z
A
K

I

*
A
B
A
R
A

I

D
U
A
S

I

*
A
D
N

I

*
A
N
H
C

I

*
L
I
Z
A
R
B

*
Y
E
K
R
U
T

*
A
D
A
N
A
C

*
A
N
I
T
N
E
G
R
A

2. 

Barriers resolved in 2017 per type of measure 

It is useful to analyse how effective the EU was in tackling different types of measures 
last year. Table 8 shows that our strategy has contributed to the resolution of double-digit 
numbers  of  barriers  both  at  and  behind  the  border,  confirming  the  effectiveness  of  our 
toolbox  when  tackling  different  types  of  barriers.  Contrary  to  last  year,  2017  has 
registered a considerable increase in the resolution of border measures (34) compared to 
behind the border measures (11).  Most border measures successfully addressed relate to 
SPS  matters,  which  resulted  from  joint  targeted  actions  (Commission,  EU  Member 
States,  EU  Delegations,  EU  exporters)  in  20  key  priority  countries,  while  the  other 
resolved barriers constituted import bans or customs issues. 

For the eleven behind the border measures, most positive outcomes were achieved in the 
area of regulatory or taxation measures for trade in goods (10), while one services issue 
was also successfully resolved. 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 8: Sectorial breakdown of barriers resolved in 2017 as recorded in MADB 
(number of measures) 

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

34 

11 

Border

Behind the Border

3. 

Barriers resolved in 2017 per sector 

Table 9 provides an overview of the main economic sectors in which the barriers were 
resolved in 2017.  Agriculture and fisheries came on top of the list, as 27 measures were 
(partially  or  totally)  resolved14.  The  second  sector  in  line  was  wines  and  spirits,  which 
also presented three resolved barriers during the same period. Iron, steel and non-ferrous 
metals  as  well  as  wood,  paper  and  pulp,  each  accounted  for  two  resolved  barriers. 
Further,  individual  barriers  were  resolved  in  several  other  sectors:  aircraft,  automotive, 
ceramics  and  glass,  ICT  and  electronics,  machinery,  medical  devices,  pharmaceuticals, 
services and textiles and leather. Finally, two horizontal barriers were also solved, those 
being coverage of municipal entities in Colombia and investment thresholds in Canada.   

14One  peculiarity  of  SPS  barriers  is  that  third  countries  may  remove  barriers  Member  State  per  Member 
State, as they do not always consider the EU as one single entity for SPS issues. Progress is therefore 
partial, but nonetheless important. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 9: Sectorial breakdown of barriers resolved in 2017 as recorded in MADB 

27 

3 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

C. 

QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS OF BARRIERS RESOLVED IN 2017 

This section provides a more in-depth analysis of the barriers resolved in the nine trade 
partners for which the highest number of resolved barriers (and at least two barriers) was 
recorded in 2017: China, Brazil, Canada, Turkey, Argentina, India, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan 
and the United Arab Emirates.  

1. 

China  

China is still one of the countries that resorts most to market access barriers in both terms 
of overall stock (25) and new barriers identified in 2017 (ten). However, some positive if 
mostly  incremental  steps  could  also  be  identified  in  2017,  showing  that  the  EU  barrier 
removal strategy produces results even in the most challenging environments. 

Progress has been achieved in the area of SPS. Regarding, food and drink products that 
are  not  currently  required  to  be  accompanied  by  official  certification,  the  EU  has 
achieved  a  2  year  delay  in  the  implementation  of  a  piece  of  legislation  which  would 
entail  the  certification  of  low-risk  food  products.  The  Commission  will  continue  to 
follow  up  as  concerns  regarding  the  measure  remain,  notwithstanding  the  welcomed 
delay in the implementation. 

23 

 
 
 
 
Also,  within  the  same  sector,  since  year  2000,  the  Competent  Authority  of  China  has 
kept an import ban in place on EU bovine/ovine products and beef/ovine due to bovine 
spongiform  encephalopathy  (BSE)  and  Transmissible  Spongiform  Encephalopathy 
(TSE).  However,  the  EU  has  contributed  to  lift  BSE-related  country  bans  for  some 
Member States. 

In September 2017 several types of mould cheese were blocked by China Inspection and 
Quarantine officers. Following bilateral discussions with Chinese authorities, the ban was 
lifted.  

A positive development was also recorded in the medical devices sector. In October 2017 
China has extended the number of devices to be exempted from clinical trials in China. 
While  Chinese  Order  650 requires  manufacturers  to  conduct  in-China  clinical  trials  for 
the  registration  of  certain  categories  of  medical  devices  in  China,  this  decision  will 
significantly  reduce  the  time  and  costs  of  registration  and  improve  market  access  to 
China for the newly listed devices. 

Similarly,  in  the  pharmaceutical  sector,  China  updated  in  February  2017  its  National 
Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) for the first time in eight years. The new list includes 
15  per  cent  more  drugs  than  in  the  2009  version.  This  new  list  represents  concrete 
progress in improving access to the Chinese markets for new drugs. 

Regarding  the  automotive  industry,  some  progress  has  been  achieved  as  in  September 
2017,  China  announced  that  the  entry  into  force  of  the  recent  New  Energy  Vehicle 
(NEV)  quota  policy  would  be  delayed  by  one  year  to  2019.  The  postponement  of  the 
implementation will give breathing space for the European automotive manufacturers in 
China. 

Finally, the aircraft sector also registered certain positive developments. In the last years, 
the  Civil  Aviation  Administration  of  China  (CAAC)  stopped  issuing  the  necessary 
certificates allowing imports of small aircraft into China. However, in 2017 the European 
Union  and  China  agreed  to  strengthen  their  aviation  cooperation  by  concluding 
negotiations  of  a  Bilateral  Civil  Aviation  Safety  Agreement  (BASA).  This  agreement 
will  remove  the  unnecessary  duplication  of  evaluation  and  certification  activities  for 
aeronautical  products  by  the  Civil  Aviation  Authorities,  and  therefore  reduce  costs  for 
the  aviation  sector.  While  the  agreement  is  yet  to  enter  into  force,  China  has  already 
issued the related notifications for the acceptance of application of certain EU aircraft – 
the  EU  looks  forward  to  the  working  together  closely  with  the  Chinese  authorities  to 
finalise the unblocking of approvals as soon as possible. 

2. 

Brazil 

Brazil  is  part  of  the  MERCOSUR  bloc  with  which  the  EU  is  negotiating  a  free  trade 
agreement as part of the Association Agreement negotiations. 

24 

 
Brazil being the largest economy of Latin America and the EU its main trading partner, 
market  access  issues  are  of  great  importance  in  the  region.  The  trend  in  market  access 
terms  has  been  generally  positive  since  three  barriers  have  been  (partially  or  totally) 
resolved.  

Regarding  the  agriculture  and  fisheries  sector,  new  legislation  was  issued  and  its 
implementation  is  still  on-going,  which  eases  European  market  access  even  though  the 
barrier  is  not  completely  resolved.  This  legislation  includes  provisions  allowing  all  EU 
Member  States  already  exporting  to  add  more  establishments  to  the  lists  of  those 
approved to export to Brazil (without audits); extend the approval to other areas/animal 
species (when the system has already been considered as equivalent) and to provide a list 
on low risk products, which is still to be defined by Brazil. These measures reduce the 
backlog  of  audits,  which  is  a  recurrent  systemic  issue.  In  addition,  some  positive  steps 
have  been  taken  by  Brazilian  authorities  to  fix  17  pending  applications  for  fruit  and 
vegetables, a sign of commitment in the context of Mercosur negotiations. 

Progress  was  also  partially  achieved  regarding  wines  and  spirits,  the  Brazilian  Agency 
for  Sanitary  Control  (ANVISA)  adopted  a  new  regulation  on  allergenic  labelling  in 
foodstuff  products.  This  new  requirement  was  mandated  for  foodstuff,  beverages, 
additives  and  ingredients  used  in  food  processing  and  alcoholic  beverages  containing 
cereals  (wheat,  rye,  barley,  oats  and  hybrids),  which  would  have  to  be  labelled  with  a 
warning  message.  Following  several  demarches  from  the  Commission,  in  early  2017, 
ANVISA  has  finally  confirmed  the  exemption  of  allergen  labelling  for  spirit  drinks 
distilled from cereals. 

Finally, another barrier has been tackled related to machinery. The Regulatory Standard 
(Norma  Regulamentadora)  no.  12  (NR  12)  is  a  regulation  setting  safety  standards  in 
different  areas  of  employment,  including  obligations  applicable  in  the  same  way  to 
exporters, producers and users of machinery and industrial equipment, which impose far-
going requirements. The Ministry of Labour finally introduced a technical note stating in 
the conclusion that imported machines constructed in accordance with ISO13849 should 
not be considered as being non-compliant with NR12. Consequently, this allows market 
access to the EU machinery industry which uses ISO13849.  

3. 

Canada 

The  Comprehensive  Economic  and  Trade  Agreement  between  the  EU  and  Canada 
provisionally entered into force on 21 September 2017. The agreement has resulted in the 
continued  improvement  of  trade  relations since  it also  provides  a  framework  that  helps 
tackle  market  access  issues.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  resolution  of  three  barriers  has 
already been confirmed in 2017. 

In  terms  of  horizontal  barriers,  the  law  governing  foreign  investments  (Investment 
Canada Act) in Canada allows the Canadian government to examine foreign investments 
which surpass a certain level. Following the entry into application of CETA, the review 

25 

 
threshold  is  1.5  billion  Canadian  dollars  in  enterprise  value  for  investments  to  acquire 
control  of  a  Canadian  business  made  by  "trade  agreement  investors"  that  are  not  state-
owned enterprises. This threshold will be adjusted annually based on growth in nominal 
GDP thanks to the provisions contained in CETA.  

Regarding  agriculture  and  fisheries,  another  barrier  was  solved  since  Member  States 
were unable to export from storage centres located in other provincial control units than 
where the manufactures were based. Nevertheless, the EU and Canada agreed to amend 
the harmonised export certificate. Also related to agriculture and fisheries, the previously 
existing import system on wheat and barley, which was operated by the Canadian Wheat 
Board  by  4  tariff  rate  quotas  (TRQ),  has  now  been  eliminated  following  the  entry  into 
force of CETA.  

Furthermore, under CETA, Canada has committed to discuss any issues related to wines 
and spirits to find mutually agreed solutions with the EU. This includes provincial mark-
ups applied on domestic wines and wine bottled in Canada in private wine outlets.   

4. Turkey 

EU-Turkey  trade  relations  are  based  on  a  Customs  Union  Agreement  that  entered  into 
force  in  1995.  Turkey  is  a  country  that  accounts  for  an  extensive  list  of  barriers  as  an 
overall, namely a total stock of 20 registered in the database. However, two barriers have 
been successfully tackled. 

Regarding  mining,  Turkish  authorities  have  lifted  the  restrictions  on  copper  scrap  and 
aluminium  scrap  and  have  removed  them  from  the  list  of  goods  which  are  subject  to 
export registration.  

Furthermore,  another  barrier  has  been  partially  addressed  in  the  wood,  paper  and  pulp 
sector.  Through  the  publication  of  Communiqués,  Turkish  authorities  regularly  include 
different products in the scope of Turkey's import surveillance certificate regime, which 
consists in a requirement to obtain a surveillance license prior to the import of different 
products  if  their  price  is  below  a  certain  threshold  defined  by  the  authorities.  After  a 
Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR) investigation on import surveillance of uncoated wood 
free  paper  conducted  by  the  Commission,  Turkey  removed  this  category  of  paper 
products from the scope of its import surveillance scheme as of 7 December 2017. (It is, 
however, noted that several products in other sectors remain subject to that scheme.) 

5. Argentina 

Argentina is also part of the MERCOSUR bloc with which the EU is negotiating a free 
trade agreement as part of the Association Agreement negotiations. Progress in terms of 
market access has been achieved as two barriers have been tackled in 2017.  

Regarding  SPS  measures,  Argentina  removed  the  Porcine  Reproductive  &  Respiratory 
Syndrome  (PRRS)  free  requirement  from  its  certificate,  which  eases  meat  producers' 

26 

 
access  to  the  Argentinian  market.  With  regard  to  services,  it  should  be  noted  that 
Argentina has terminated its importer sworn declaration for services (DJAS), which had 
been established by General Resolutions in 2012 and 2013.  

6. India 

As described in previous sections, India has continued to embark on a protectionist trend 
with  three  new  barriers  in  2017.  Despite  these  developments,  the  EU  has  managed  to 
(partially) solve two barriers during 2017 both of them regarding the SPS sector. 

As far as pork products are concerned, a health certificate has been agreed with several 
Member States easing their access since Indian authorities accepted to no longer request 
that pork products (e.g. hams) could only be exported to India if the meat was  deboned 
before  curing/drying.  India  had  also  set  up  restrictions  on  imports  of  plants  and  plant 
products relating to fumigation treatments. India approved the imports of fruits and wood 
with alternative treatments (cold and hot treatments, respectively), and announced that it 
would  be  notifying  it  to  the  WTO  SPS  Committee.  However,  some  of  the  announced 
notifications are still missing. 

Moreover,  regarding  iron  and  steel  products,  it  should  be  noted  that  in  February  2017, 
India's Steel Secretary announced that minimum import prices on iron and steel, which 
had been previously in place, would no longer be extended on 19 products. 

7. Saudi Arabia 

Saudi  Arabia  and  the  other  five  countries  of  the  Gulf  Cooperation  Council  (Bahrain, 
Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE) represent an important region from a trade point of 
view. Two barriers have been solved in Saudi Arabia in the course of 2017, both of them 
on the agriculture and fisheries sector. 

Saudi  Arabia  had  import  restrictions  of  bovine  and  sheep  meat  due  to  Bovine 
Spongiform  Encephalopathy  (BSE).  However,  this  ban  was  lifted  for  certain  Member 
States during 2017. Also, a similar ban had been registered regarding imports of poultry 
and  poultry  products  due  to  Highly  Pathogenic  Avian  Influenza  (HPAI).  This  ban  was 
also lifted for certain Member States in 2017. 

8. Taiwan 

The EU managed to tackle two barriers during 2017 which will benefit EU business in 
Taiwan. 

Both  barriers  were  related  to  the  agriculture  and  fisheries  sector.  Taiwan  used  to  have 
multiple  applications  from  the  EU  for  exports  of  animals/plants  and  their  products 
pending  for  years  without  any  indication  when  the  process  would  be  finalised. 
Fortunately, Taiwan sped up the process during 2017 and market access has been granted 
to certain Member States. Also, Taiwan has lifted its ban on bovine products from certain 

27 

 
Member States due to BSE after increasing joint effort of the Member State governments 
and the European Commission to engage with the Taiwanese authorities, academia and 
wider public in a dialogue over several years to explain the EU's comprehensive, multi-
layered control systems that meet very high standards. 

9. United Arab Emirates (UAE) 

The United Arab Emirates represent an important region from a trade perspective. Thus, 
the  Commission  has  made  great  efforts  to  tackle  market  access  barriers;  two  of  them 
have successfully been resolved in 2017. 

Regarding  the  agriculture  and  fisheries  sector,  a  temporary  ban  on  imports  of  poultry 
and poultry products due to HPAI was lifted for certain Member States. 

As  for  electronics,  the  UAE  provided  guidelines  and  a  presentation  which  granted  an 
exception  from  the  scope  of  application  of  the  measures  for  11  products  for  general 
lighting  equipment  currently  covered  under  an  UAE  Cabinet  Decision  of  2012,  which 
restricted  the  use  of  certain  hazardous  materials  in  electronic  equipment  (similar  to  the 
EU’s legislation on RoHS under Directive 2011/65/EU). 

D. 

IMPACT OF THE BARRIERS RESOLVED 

In  this section, we first repeat  the analysis performed before by identifying trade flows 
linked to barriers resolved in 2017. Trade flows potentially affected by the removed trade 
barriers were € 8.2 billion, This is almost double the figure for last year (€ 4.2 billion). 
45  percent  is  represented  by  EU  exports  to  China  followed  by  EU  exports  to  Brazil 
(almost 13 percent) and India (almost 6 percent). Industrial sectors account for the vast 
majority of these flows. Medical devices and machinery account for 34 percent of trade 
potentially  affected  (corresponding  in  value  terms  to  €  3.6  billion  and  €  2.1  billion 
respectively). Resolved agri-food barriers account for € 1 billion. 

As  of  this  year,  this  report  includes  a  refined  analysis  based  on  an  econometric  model 
which  is  able  to  assess  how  much  the  trade  flows  with  the  partner  countries  that  have 
imposed a barrier have changed after its removal. In order to do so, a regression analysis 
has been used to quantify the impact of the removal of barriers on EU exports15.  

The methodology used is conservative and may underestimate the trade impacts, but we 
have  focused  only  on  the  barriers  completely  removed,  and  have  not  included  more 
complex services and horizontal barriers. We have analysed the effects of this reduced set 
of  barriers  removed  between  2014  and  201616.  This  has  been  done  for  comparison 

15 More specifically, we adopted a Difference-in-Difference methodology and analysed the impact on trade 
flows  only  between  the  EU  and  the  countries  that  has  imposed  the  barrier  on  the  specific  products 
involved. 

16 The analysis does not cover the (record) number of barriers removed in 2017 as we need at least one full 
year of data after barrier removal to establish the impact on trade. 

28 

 
                                                 
purposes to the last such analysis the Commission performed in 2015, which covered up 
to  2013.  But,  as  a  result,  it  excludes  the  positive  impact  on  trade  of  barriers  removed 
thanks to the Market Access Strategy before 2014.  

Results  show  that  the removal  of  this  subset  of  barriers  is  associated  with  a  significant 
increase of EU exports. The estimates point to an average increase in trade of about 56% 
after  the  removal  of  the  barriers.  This  implies,  in  value  terms,  that  removal  barriers 
generated  €  4.8  billion  additional  exports  on  a  yearly  basis.  This  is  in  the  order  of 
magnitude  of  the  benefits  of  many  of  our  FTAs.  For  example,  this  is  more  than  the 
combined impact of our FTAs with Colombia and Peru.   

The  analysis  using  the  same  methodology  in  2015  yielded  a  figure  of  €  2.4  billion 
additional exports—underlining that, as barriers increase, so do our enforcement efforts 
to ensure enhanced market opening. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

This  report gives  a general overview of trade  and investment barriers directly affecting 
EU  economic  operators,  as  they  have  been  reported  and  addressed  within  the  Market 
Access  Partnership,  the  joint  work  between  the  Commission,  Member  States  and 
business organisations.  

With  67  new  barriers  reported  and  45  tackled  in  2017,  the  Market  Access  Database 
currently stores a record number of 396 measures in third countries. Russia is still on top 
in terms of highest trade restrictions, closely followed by China, Indonesia and India. 

This  confirms  the  trend  already  identified  in  the  previous  year:  protectionism  is  on  the 
rise.  China  was  identified  as  the  partner  contributing  the  most  to  this  trend  (ten  new 
barriers), underlining the complex nature of bilateral trade relations. Russia (six), South 
Africa (four) were next in line, with two more countries (India and Turkey) introducing 
three  new  barriers  in  2017.  A  clear  regional  trend  was  also  observed,  with  seven  new 
barriers identified in the Euromed region. 

Overall, new barriers in third countries were imposed on 12 different sectors of economic 
activity, among which mainly the agriculture and fisheries sector, measures of horizontal 
nature  and  wines  and  spirits  featured.  The  trade  flows  potentially  affected  by  all  new 
barriers registered in 2017 were € 23.1 billion, corresponding to 1.2% of all EU exports 
globally in the same year. 

In  view  of  this  rise  in  protectionism,  the  EU  has  reinforced  its  market  access  actions, 
institutions  and  stakeholders,  better 
with  strengthened  coordination  among  EU 
prioritisation of barriers and improved communication. The EU has continued to rely on 
all vehicles available in its toolbox to resolve barriers, ranging from dispute settlement, 
use  of  the  Trade  Barriers  Regulation,  an  ambitious  agenda  for  trade  negotiations, 
diplomatic  demarches,  and  the  introduction  of  an  overarching  European  Economic 
Diplomacy  initiative.  The  Market  Access  Days  initiative  in  Member  States  has  also 

29 

 
allowed  the  Commission  to  raise  awareness  of  the  opportunities  offered  by  the  EU's 
market  access  work  for  local  businesses,  with  a  view  to  addressing  barriers  for  an 
increasing number of EU economic operators in third countries.  

With these efforts, the EU's market access work has delivered.  45 barriers were fully or 
partially  resolved in 13 different sectors  – among others aircraft, automotive, ceramics, 
ICT  &  electronics,  machinery,  pharma,  medical  devices,    textiles  &  leather,  agrofood, 
iron  &  steel,  wood,  paper  and    services,    –  as  well  as  horizontally.  27  of  the  resolved 
measures  belonged  to  the  agriculture  and  fisheries  sector  and  the  countries  with  the 
highest number of barriers were resolved were China, Brazil, Canada and Turkey. Trade 
flows  potentially  affected  by  the  removed  trade  barriers  were  €  8.2  billion,  where  45 
percent  was  represented  by  EU  exports  to  China  followed  by  EU  exports  to  Brazil 
(almost 13 percent). The vast majority of these flows benefited manufacturing.  

As of this year, this report contains a refined regression analysis to quantify the impact of 
the removal of barriers on EU exports. Conservative estimates indicate that the removal 
of barriers generates € 4.8 billion additional exports on a yearly basis. This is in the order 
of magnitude of the benefits of many of our FTAs—and twice as much as in 2015, the 
last time when a similar analysis was undertaken. 

This  underlines  that,  as  barriers  increase,  so  do  our  enforcement  efforts  to  ensure 
enhanced market opening. Implementation and enforcement are not only key priorities of 
the  European  Commission  -  they  are  more  important  than  ever  to  deliver  growth,  jobs 
and competitiveness to the benefit of our companies and citizens.  

In close cooperation with Member States and stakeholders, the Commission is committed 
to  further  strengthen  the  Market  Access  Partnership  and  to  adapt  its  toolbox  to  the 
increasingly  complex  environment  where  our  companies  operate.  Finding  more 
transactional  and  creative  ways  to  effectively  tackle  barriers  will  be  vital  to  continue 
opening markets and enhancing the opportunities for EU operators all over the world.  

30