REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on Implementation and Enforcement of EU Trade Agreements
Date: 2021-10-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: common commercial policy, international trade, third country, trade agreement, trade agreement (EU), trade dispute, trade policy, trade restriction

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.10.2021  COM(2021) 654 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on Implementation and Enforcement of EU Trade Agreements           {SWD(2021) 297 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

I. 

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2 

II.   Making full use of the opportunities provided by EU trade agreements ....................................... 7 

II.1  

Trading with preferential partners - main developments in 2020 .......................................... 7 

II.2  
Advancing implementation of EU trade agreements: Examples across the four regions (Asia, 
The Americas, Neighborhood and African Caribbean and Pacific countries) ................................... 10 

III.  

Supporting the take-up of trade agreements by small and medium-sized enterprises ........... 21 

IV.   

Addressing barriers and finding solutions ................................................................................. 27 

IV.1  

State of play of trade barriers and removal in a challenging year ........................................ 27 

IV.2 

 Facilitating complaints: The Single Entry Point .................................................................... 33 

V.  

Bilateral and multilateral enforcement of trade commitments: resolving disputes ................ 35 

V.1   Use of dispute settlement ..................................................................................................... 35 

V.2 

V.3 

Renewing the pools of arbitrators and experts in TSD ......................................................... 38 

 Responding to obstacles to dispute resolution .................................................................... 38 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2021 Annual Report on Implementation and Enforcement 

Introduction 

 I. 
This is the Commission’s first consolidated report on trade implementation and enforcement 
actions.  It  follows  the  appointment  on  24  July  2020  of  the  first  Chief  Trade  Enforcement 
Officer  (CTEO)  in  the  Commission,  to  oversee  and  steer  the  effective  implementation  and 
enforcement of EU trade agreements and arrangements, with an explicit mandate to report to 
the European Parliament as well as to the Council and the public. This Report, which will be 
published annually, is the main instrument for doing so.  

The shift towards an even stronger implementation and enforcement of trade commitments 
under  the  Commission  of  President  von  der  Leyen  stems  from  two  main  factors:  firstly, 
following a 10-year period of intensive, successful negotiations expanding the EU’s network 
of  preferential  trade  agreements,  the  EU  now  needs  to  increasingly  focus  on  their  full  and 
effective  implementation.  Secondly,  the  global  trade  policy  landscape  has  changed  very 
substantially  in  the  last  few  years,  with  new  challenges  emerging.  This  includes  structural 
imbalances, level playing field and market access issues, and the political use by EU trading 
partners of unjustified restrictive unilateral measures or even economic coercion, all of which 
the EU must address more assertively.  

Structure of the Report 

The Report covers four priority areas in implementation and enforcement:  

1.  Making full use of the opportunities provided by EU trade agreements (section II);  
2.  Supporting  the  take-up  of  trade  agreements  by  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises 

(section III);  

3.  Addressing barriers and finding solutions (section IV) and 
4.  Bilateral  and  multilateral  enforcement  of  trade  commitments:  Resolving  Disputes 

(section V).  

The Report presents the impact of the most economically significant EU trade agreements and 
actions  by  the  Commission  to  eliminate  trade  and  investment  barriers  in  third  country 
markets. It consolidates into a single report the former yearly report on the implementation of 
EU trade agreements1 and its staff working document, as well as the former yearly Trade and 
Investment  Barriers  Report  (TIBR)2.  It  contains  information  on  activities  undertaken  by  the 
Commission in partnership with Member States under the Market Access Strategy to improve 
market  access  and  help  SMEs  to  make  the  most  of  EU  trade  agreements,  and  demonstrates 
how  the  Commission  works  with  civil  society.  It  also  reports  on  trade  enforcement  actions 

1  First  report  issued  in  2017;  4th  and  last  report:  COM(2020)705  of  12  November,  available  at 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2020)705&lang=en  
2  First  report 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2020)236&lang=en  

last  report:  COM(2020)236  of 

  15  June,  available  at 

in  2010;  10th  and 

issued 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
taken  by  the  Commission  under  the  dispute  settlement  mechanisms  of  the  World  Trade 
Organization  (WTO),  in  bilateral  trade  agreements  and  under  the  EU’s  Trade  Barrier 
Regulation3.  Finally,  the  Report  provides  statistical  data  on  trade  and  investment  for  the  37 
main  EU  trade  agreements  for  2020  (goods)  and  2019  (services)  and  covers  significant 
developments up to the end of the second quarter of 2021.  

As  the  EU-UK  Trade  and  Cooperation  Agreement  only  entered  into  force  on  1  May  2021 
(provisionally applied as of 1 January), it will be covered by the 2022 edition of this Report. 

The  accompanying  Staff  Working  Document4  contains  additional  information  completing 
section  II.2  of  the  Report  on  each  of  the  37  major  EU  trade  agreements  that  applied  for  a 
substantial  period  of  time  in  2020.  The  Staff  Working  Document  also  has  information 
completing section IV.1 of the Report, notably a list of new barriers registered and those fully 
or partially resolved in 2020.  

Areas covered by separate reporting (unilateral tools) 

The following areas of implementation and enforcement are subject to  stand-alone reporting 
by the Commission:  

1.  The  use  of  trade  defence  instruments  in  case  of  dumped  or  subsidised  imports 
harming EU industry, or action to tackle counterfeit goods or other infringements of 
intellectual property rights (IPR) of EU companies abroad are covered by the annual 
Trade Defence Report5 and the Commission’s alternating biennial publications of the 
IPR report6 and Counterfeit and Piracy Watchlist7.  

2.  The Commission’s use of export and investment control policy tools,  notably the 
EU  Regulation  on  export  control  of  dual  use  items8  and  the  EU’s  Foreign  Direct 
Investment  screening  mechanism9  will  be  covered  by  reports  expected  for  mid-
November 2021, which will provide for the first time a detailed overview of the EU 

3 Regulation (EU) 2015/1843 laying down Union procedures in the field of the 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 (codification);  OJ L 272, 16.10.2015, p. 1–13 
4 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/159786.htm 
5 39th Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the EU’s Anti-
Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities and the Use of Trade Defence Instruments by Third Countries 
targeting the EU in 2020; https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/august/tradoc_159782.PDF  
6 Report on the protection and enforcement of IPR in third countries of 27 April 2021; 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/april/tradoc_159553.pdf  
7 Commission’s Counterfeit and Piracy Watchlist; Staff Working Document (2020) 360 final of 14 December 
2020; https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/december/tradoc_159183.pdf  
8 Regulation (EU) 2021/821 of 20 May 2021 setting up a Union regime for the control of exports, brokering, 
technical assistance, transit and transfer of dual-use items (recast), OJ L 206, 11.6.2021, p. 1 (https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32021R0821) (previously Council Regulation (EC) 
No  428/2009 of 5  May 2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and 
transit of dual-use items, OJ L 134, 29.5.2009, p. 1 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2009.134.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2009%3A134%3ATO
C)). 
9 Regulation (EU) 2019/452 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the 
Union; OJ L 79I , 21.3.2019, p. 1–14   

3 

 
 
                                                           
strategic investment and export controls. The latter has been reported on since 2013, 
on a voluntary basis. Under the new export control regulation annual reporting is now 
mandatory and transparency requirements apply. 

3.  Finally, information on the operation and monitoring and enforcement activity under 
the  EU’s  General  Scheme  of  Preferences  (GSP)  is  also  included  in  a  self-standing 
report,  issued  every  2-3  years.  On  22  September  2021,  the  Commission  adopted  its 
proposal for a new GSP Regulation10 in application from 1 January 2024. 

New tools introduced in 2020 

The priority given to effective implementation and enforcement has also led the Commission, 
in  the  second  part  of  2020,  to  introduce  new  tools  addressed  directly  to  the  stakeholder 
communities  to  engage  them  in  and  improve  the  efficiency  of  the  Commission’s  efforts  in 
this area.  

  In October 2020, in response to specific requests from stakeholders and the European 
Parliament, the Commission  launched its new “Access to  Markets” (A2M) portal11, 
providing  easily  accessible  and  multilingual  information  about  how  EU  trade 
agreements  work  in  practice,  including  specific  functionalities  to  help  operators 
navigate their more complex features. A2M includes specific tools, which help people 
and businesses of all sizes to make the most of EU trade agreements (for example, the 
Rules  of  Origin  Self-Assessment  tool,  ROSA).  The  aim  is  to  further  facilitate 
companies accessing third country markets. 

  In  November  2020,  the  Commission  established  within  the  Directorate  General  for 
Trade a Single Entry Point12 (SEP) including a complaints mechanism to enable any 
EU-based  stakeholder  to  lodge  complaints  about  possible  non-compliance  by  third 
countries with their international trade commitments vis-à-vis the EU. The SEP treats 
at parity complaints related to market access and complaints related to  commitments 
in the area of TSD and complaints related to the GSP. This new tool is accessible via 
the A2M portal. A set of operating guidelines13 takes people step-by-step through the 
information they are required to submit in order to launch a complaint. Based on the 
first months of operation this guidance has been updated to make the process of filing 
complaints clearer and better supported. Coverage and functionality of the A2M and 
the  SEP  will  continue  to  be  upgraded  over  the  coming  twelve  months,  based  on  the 
continuous feedback from stakeholders.  

10https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/september/tradoc_159803.pdf 
11 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/home  
12 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_2134  
13 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/november/tradoc_159074.pdf  

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
This  introduction  of  new  tools  directly  actionable  by  stakeholders  complements  actions  on 
implementation and enforcement, which are initiated by the services of the Commission on an 
ex officio basis, i.e. under the Commission’s own administrative powers.  

The Report looks at how these improvements taken together have led to concrete outcomes, 
stemming from: 

-  A  more  systematic  use  of  the  institutional  structures  established  by  EU  trade 
agreements  (notably  the  web  of  committees  and  sub-committees  of  EU  preferential 
agreements)  to  ensure  effective  implementation  of  commitments  by  third  countries 
and the resolution of market access barriers; 

-  An  active  mobilisation  of  the  Market  Access  Partnership  “ecosystem”  to  prevent 
and  address  trade  barriers,  including  the  Commission,  Member  States  and  EU 
stakeholder representative bodies, both in Brussels and in third countries (mobilising, 
for the Commission, the network of EU Delegations and Member States’  embassies) 
to address non-compliance issues by third countries; 

-  A high level of activity in terms of recourse to dispute resolution mechanisms under 
the WTO and under bilateral trade agreements, where the EU has now initiated 4 such 
actions and has prevailed in two of these disputes in 2020 and early 2021, vis-à-vis the 
Ukraine and South Korea, respectively; as well as the completion of 2 investigations 
under the Trade Barriers Regulation; 

-  Continued mobilisation of civil society representatives in the implementation of EU 
Trade  agreements  and  arrangements,  notably  the  TSD  commitments  thereunder, 
including through the Domestic Advisory Groups (DAGs) and civil society fora and 
the  support  provided  to  their  activities,  as  well  as  partnerships  with  international 
organisations such as the ILO. 

New legislative instruments introduced in 2020 and 2021  

In the area of trade enforcement in the broad sense, since January 2020 the EU has reinforced 
its enforcement-related legal instruments.  

11 October 2020 saw the entry into force of the EU Regulation on FDI screening kicking off 
the  cooperation  mechanism14.  On  12  February  2021,  the  amended  EU  Trade  Enforcement 
Regulation15  entered  into  force,  helping  to  overcome  any  possible  paralysis  of  the  EU’s 
dispute resolution frameworks and widening the scope of remedial measures as a result of a 
trade  dispute.  An  amended  EU  Export  Control  Regulation  entered  into  force  on  9 
September 2021.16 

14 See footnote 9 
15 Regulation (EU) 2021/167 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 February 2021 amending 
Regulation (EU) No 654/2014 concerning the exercise of the Union’s rights for the application and enforcement 
of international trade rules; OJ L 49, 12.2.2021, p. 1–5 
16 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2021:206:FULL&from=EN 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Completing the toolbox 

Finally, the Commission continues advancing a number of other important legislative and 
other instruments to complete the toolbox. These instruments, taken together, ensure the EU 
will be better equipped to respond to the challenges in international trade, notably with (1) the 
means  to  enforce  (through  its  Enforcement  Regulation  and  the  Multi-party  Interim  Appeal 
Arbitration  Arrangement,  MPIA)  negotiated  commitments  under  trade  agreements,  (2) 
autonomous  legislation/instruments  to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  in  traditional  trade  and 
investment  areas  (e.g.  foreign  subsidies  instrument,    possible  passage  of  an  International 
Procurement Instrument), (3) autonomous  legislation/instruments for ensuring the protection 
of  EU  interests  in  economic  areas  mostly  connected  to  security  (e.g.  FDI  screening,  export 
controls,  anti-coercion  instrument)  and  (4)  tools  to  support  the  EU’s  green  and  sustainable 
ambitions.  

These are the concrete ongoing initiatives: 

-  A  Commission  proposal  for  an  International  Procurement  Instrument,  with 
progress in Council17 now opening the door to its finalisation in the coming months; 
-  A Commission proposal on a new legal instrument to deal with distortions generated 

by foreign subsidies18 in the internal market; 

-  A  forthcoming  Commission  proposal  for  a  new  legal  instrument  to  tackle  economic 

coercion by third countries; 

-  A  forthcoming  Commission  proposal  for  new  legal  instruments  on  mandatory  due 

diligence and deforestation; 

-  The launch in summer 2021 of a review of the TSD 15 Point Action Plan19. 

Alongside  the  continued,  rules-based  and  proportionate  recourse  to  traditional  trade 
instruments  (anti-dumping,  countervailing  of  subsidies),  these  reinforced  tools  and  the 
Commission’s renewed focus on enforcement ensure a continuum of policy.  

As the Commission continues developing new and improved tools and instruments to tackle 
the multiple challenges in implementation and enforcement, working with Member States and 
stakeholders (businesses, trade promotion organisations, social partners, civil society groups, 
non-governmental  organisations)  becomes  increasingly  important,  as  does  cooperation  with 
like-minded third countries, to breathe life into the commitments signed, and ensure that the 
tools and instruments continue to deliver real results on the ground.   

17 The Council on 2 June 2021 agreed on a mandate for negotiations on an international procurement instrument 
with the Parliament; see   https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9175-2021-INIT/en/pdf  
18 Proposal for a Regulation on foreign subsidies distorting the internal market of 5 May 2021; COM(2021) 223 
final; see https://ec.europa.eu/competition/international/overview/proposal_for_regulation.pdf  
19 The public consultation on the TSD 15 points action plan was launched on 27 July and will run until 31 
October 2021; https://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=301  

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
II.   Making full use of the opportunities provided by EU trade 
agreements 
II.1   Trading with preferential partners - main developments in 2020 

Statistics in this sub-section on the evolution of trade flows are based on Eurostat data for the EU27 in 
March 2021 and cover 37 major preferential trade agreements20 with 67 partners, applied for the whole 
of 2020, representing more than 90% of EU preferential trade. More detailed information on these 37 
major preferential agreements is set out in the Staff Working Document21 accompanying this Report. 
Data  on  use  of  tariff  preferences  by  preferential  trading  partner  countries  and  by  EU  exporters  is 
published separately on the Commission’s website22 to enhance transparency and encourage business 
associations  and  Member  States  to  conduct  their  own  research  and  identify  the  drivers  which 
encourage people to trade under EU trade agreements or not. Patterns in preference use are also picked 
up in the regular ex post evaluation of EU agreements and in specific sectoral work23.  

In 2020 almost a third of EU trade took place under preferential trade agreements... 

Trade  with  the  67  trading  partners  covered  by  this section  in  2020  amounted  to  €  1,167  billion  or 
32.0% of EU total external trade, € 646 billion for exports and € 521 billion for imports, resulting in an 
EU trade surplus of € 124 billion.24  

Figure 1: EU external trade (2020)  

20 Since the EU agreement with Vietnam only entered into force on 1 August, it is not included yet in the 
quantitative assessment (statistics) below. The EU-UK TCA which entered into force on 1 January 2021 is not 
yet covered by this report since it has not been applied in 2020. 
21 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/159786.htm  
22 https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/   
23 For example, the Market Access working groups that took place in 2020 and 2021 dedicated to textiles and 
leather, footwear, tyres and medical devices. 
24 Trade with the all 77 preferential trading partners in 2020 amounted to € 1,259 billion or 34.5% of EU total 
external trade, € 672 billion for exports and € 586 billion for imports, resulting in an EU trade surplus of € 86 
billion. 

7 

 
 
 
                                                           
As shown by figure 2 below, Switzerland remained the EU’s largest preferential partner, accounting 
for 21.5% of EU trade with the 67 trading partners covered by this report, followed by Turkey with 
11.3%, Japan with 9.4%. Norway with 7.8% and South Korea with 7.7%. Together, these five partners 
accounted for more than half of EU preferential trade (57.7%). In terms of overall trade, Switzerland is 
the  EU’s  fourth  partner  behind  China,  USA  and  the  UK,  while  Turkey,  Japan,  Norway,  and  South 
Korea are in sixth to ninth place behind Russia and ahead of India.  

Figure 2: EU trade in goods by preferential partner (2020) 

COVID-19 delivered a severe economic shock, but preferential trade held up slightly better 

The economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was severe and trade with the 67 EU preferential 
partners  fell  by  9.1%.  There  were  notable  exceptions,  for  example,  with  an  increase  in  exports  of 
chemicals  (largely  driven by  a  10% jump  in  pharmaceutical exports  under  the agreements  covered). 
Overall, EU trade in industrial products with the 67 partners had a surplus of €116.8 billion, a rise of 
€2.1 billion compared to 2019. 

As shown in figure 3 below, EU preferential trade held up more strongly than EU trade with its non-
preferential  partners  (-11.1%)  and  trade  with  the  rest  of  the  world  (-10.5%).  The  same  trend  was 
reflected in preferential exports of goods, with declines being about 2 percentage points smaller than 
for non-preferential trade.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Annual trade growth by partner (2019-2020) 

Agri-food trade with preferential partners grew twice as fast as overall agri-food trade 

Agri-food trade with preferential partners grew by 2.2%, i.e. down from 8.7% in 2019, but twice as 
fast as overall agri-food trade (which grew by 1%). Agri-food exports under preferential agreements 
grew by 1.8%, while imports grew by 2.7%.  

 Latvian grain reaches Japan 

The EU-Japan EPA helped Dobeles dzirnavnieks, a leading grain processor in the Baltics and the 
largest pasta producer in Northern Europe, to get a foothold in Japan. “The clear framework that 
the  EU  set  for  exporting is  key to  help  our  business  to  expand to  new  markets. Our  sustainable 
production  model  and  our  advances  in  organic  production  offer  a  high  growth  potential  for 
Dobeles 
Amsils, 
Chairman of the Board, AS Dobeles dzirnavnieks) 

dzirnavnieks 

(Kristaps 

outside 

inside 

EU.” 

and 

the 

Commission study on agri-food trade confirms the EU approach 

A  prospective  Commission  study25  published  on  26  January  2021  looks  at  the  expected 
cumulative  economic  effects  by  2030  of  ongoing  and  upcoming  trade  negotiations  on  the  EU 
agricultural sector, including specific results for some agriculture products after the conclusion of 
12  trade  agreements. The study  finds  that  the  cumulated implementation  of  the  12  FTAs  would 
result  in  a  balanced  increase  in  both  EU  agri-food  exports  and  imports,  with  a  slightly  higher 
increase  in  exports.  The  study  also  confirmed  that  the  EU's  approach  of  providing  improved 
market access in the form of tariff rate quotas for the most sensitive products (mainly beef, sheep 
meat, poultry, sugar, and rice) enabled the EU to better protect the related sectors 

25  https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-fisheries/trade/documents/jrc-cumulative-economic-
impact-of-trade-agreements-on-eu-agriculture_en.pdf  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The Commission in 2020, as required by the respective Regulations, has again monitored imports 
into the EU of certain industrial products and agri-food products…. 

 Specific Monitoring Obligations (South Korea, Latin American Partners) 

The  Commission,  as  required  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  511/201126,  monitored  South  Korea’s 
imports of key car parts and electronics from the most important suppliers (outside the EU).  In 
2020, Korea’s imports of engines and parts fell by 19%, while imports of core car parts slightly 
increased (+5%). At the same time, EU imports of vehicles from Korea decreased by 16%.  

Imports into the EU of fresh bananas from Colombia, Ecuador and Peru as well as from Central 
America were also monitored by the Commission, as required by EU Regulations No 19/201327 
and  No  20/201328.  The  evolution  of  imports  in  2020  did  not  warrant  any  follow-up  action.  The 
Commission will continue to carry out regular analysis of the state of the market and the Union 
banana  producers  and,  if  need  be,  examine  the  situation  together  with  Member  States  and  the 
stakeholders. 

Trade in services declined, nevertheless the EU maintained a surplus in services... 

For  preferential  trade  in  services,  the  latest  figures  available  are  those  for  2019  (pre-COVID-19). 
Trade in services with the 67 partners covered by this Report grew by 7.8%, slower than total extra-
EU  trade in  services (+10.5%).  At the same  time,  trade  in  services  with  the  19 preferential  partners 
covered by this report that took commitments in services29 grew by 14%, thus more strongly than EU 
total trade in services overall. Preferential trade in services with all 67 partners covered by this section 
saw a trade surplus of €90 billion, albeit a decrease of 7.8% compared to 2018. Services trade grew 
strongest  between  the  EU  and  its  ACP  partners  (40%)  and  the  three  DCFTA  partners  (Moldova, 
Georgia and Ukraine: 16%).  

II.2   Advancing implementation of EU trade agreements: Examples across the 
four regions (Asia, The Americas, Neighborhood and African Caribbean and 
Pacific countries)30   

A.   Monitoring commitments under EU trade agreements and promoting new agreements 

Monitoring what is happening on the ground is a key part of effective implementation.... 

From early on, the Commission  pro-actively monitors the legislative framework relevant for the 
implementation of the commitments by the partner country. In some cases, the Commission tenders 

(EU)  No 19/2013 

(EU)  No  511/2011 

(OJ  L  145,  31.5.2011,  p.  19);   https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

(OJ  L  17,  19.1.2013,  p.  1);  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

26  Regulation 
content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32011R0511  
27  Regulation 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R0019  
28  Regulation 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R0020  
29 Norway, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Chile, Central America, Andean, Mexico, Canada, Cariforum, South 
Korea and Japan. 
30 Detailed information on individual agreements applied in 2020 can be found in the Staff Working Document: 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/159786.htm .  

(OJ  L  17,  19.1.2013,  p.  13);  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

(EU)  No  20/2013 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
dedicated projects to get a precise overview of the state of play of implementation on the side of 
the  partner  country,  especially  where  more  complex  issues  are  at  stake  (e.g.  non-tariff  issues  and 
steps requiring legislative action in partner countries). Here the work of EU Delegations is essential.  

  Example  EU-Japan  Economic  Partnership  Agreement:  Through  a  €1  million  Partnership 
Instrument (PI) project (Support facility for implementation of the EU-Japan EPA) launched 
in 2019, the Commission, through its trade team in the EU Delegation in Tokyo, has been able 
to monitor the main steps taken by Japan starting from the first year of implementation of the 
EU-Japan EPA. The Commission issued a progress report in August 2020 covering the first 
year  of  EPA  implementation31,  which  helped  to  focus  on  outstanding  issues,  such  as 
procurement, when engaging with the Japanese counterparts in the relevant committees.32  

Promoting new agreements is key to help raise awareness among beneficiaries… 

  Example  Singapore  and  Vietnam  FTAs:  For  its  two  most  recent  agreements,  the  ones  with 
Singapore  and  Vietnam,  the  Commission  in  2020  launched  two  projects  under  the  Policy 
Support  Facility  of  €285,000  and  €700,000,  respectively,  to  support  the  EU  Delegations  to 
promote the agreements. For Vietnam, this has led to action supporting the EU-Vietnam FTA, 
but  also  strengthening  responsible  supply  chains,  reducing  plastic  waste  and  fostering  the 
circular  economy.  For  Singapore,  in  addition  to  monitoring  implementation,  the  project 
finances  the  organisation  of  multiple  outreach  seminars  on  specific  aspects  of  the  EU 
Singapore FTA, such as customs, trade facilitation, rules of origin, government procurement 
and services, as well as the preparation of a guide for business. 

…and technical cooperation is often a catalyst for better implementation by EU trading partners. 

Monitoring has been complemented by technical cooperation between the parties on specific issues, 
often supported by EU projects.     

  Example:  In  2020,  the  EU  and  the  Andean  countries  worked  towards  improving  the 

implementation of the Agreement, for example, through 

 

the IP Key Latin America33 project in the area of IPR34;  

  a  project  dedicated  to  Responsible  Business  Conduct  in  Latin  America  and  the 
Caribbean 35 implemented in partnership with  the OECD, ILO and the UN Office of the 
High Commissioner for Human Rights;  

  seminars targeting specific concerns in the area of plant and animal health. 

31 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/november/tradoc_159026.pdf  
32 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/march/tradoc_159469.pdf  
33 https://ipkey.eu/en/latin-america 
34 See more information in the Report on the protection and enforcement of IPR in third countries, page 15; 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/april/tradoc_159553.pdf  
35 Responsible Business Conduct in Latin America and the Caribbean: https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/rbclac.htm 

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
B.   Using  the  institutional  framework  under  EU  FTAs  to  gain  market  access,  solve  problems 

and further cooperation  

The institutional framework under EU trade agreements is essential to pursue the EU’s priorities in 
implementation.  More  than  200  committees  and  working  groups,  most  of  which  meet  annually, 
provide  a  structure  that  keeps  constant  check  on  the  state  of  implementation  to  solve  problems  that 
arise. They bring together trade officials, as well as experts from across the Commission’s departments 
and public administrations of partner countries, such as the customs officials responsible for applying 
the  rules,  or  experts  on  environmental  protection  or  labour  rights.  Agendas  and  reports  of  these 
institutional  bodies  are  published  on  the  Commission’s  website.  In  2020,  the  COVID-19  pandemic 
meant that work was largely in a virtual format.  

The institutional framework helped to gain market access 

In 2020, this focus and framework succeeded in opening further market opportunities for trade in 
goods and services. Results were recorded not only in the area of tariffs and non-tariff measures, but 
also public procurement or IPR:   

  EU FTA with Colombia: The Joint Trade Committee adopted a decision extending coverage 

under the Agreement to six new Colombian agencies at the central level of government. 

  EU  FTA  with  Korea  and  EPA  with  Japan:  At  the  respective  ministerial  meetings  of  2021 
agreement was struck to extend the list of geographical indications (GIs) protected under the 
agreement, respectively, by 43 EU GIs and 41 Korean GIs under the EU-Korea Agreement; 
and by adding 28 GIs each for EU and Japan. The Joint Committee in January 2021 adopted 
Decision  No.  1  on  the  enlargement  of  the  list  of  GIs  protected  under  the  Agreement36. 
However, in some other sectors, there are still difficulties in accessing both markets37. 

Ministerial level contacts provide an essential rendez-vous for solutions 

The annual ministerial meeting of the (Joint) Trade or (Association) Committees can act as a focal 
point  to  provide  the  necessary  momentum  to  find  solutions,  as  well  as  initiating  and  providing 
direction to technical work throughout the year. These joint committees are often where parties decide 
on  important  implementation  issues,  and  may  agree  on  iterative  steps  to  take  them  forward. 
Increasingly, the Commission, building on this approach, is seeking to  insert mid-point stock taking 
meetings between joint committees to follow up on progress made. 

  Example  Korea:  At  the  2021  Joint  Trade  Committee,  co-chairs  adopted  and  signed  an 
administrative  amendment  of  the  car  sector  annex  that  reflects  technological  and  regulatory 
developments in the sector. The same meeting also mapped out a way forward on the follow 
up to remaining issues, following the panel findings in the bilateral labour dispute (see section 
V below). 

36 Decision No 1/2021 of the Joint Committee under the Agreement between the European Union and Japan for 
an Economic Partnership of 25 January 2021 on the amendments to Annexes 14-A and 14-B on GIs [2021/109] 
C/2021/82, OJ L 35, 1.2.2021, p. 31 (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:22021D0109) 
37 See more detail in the Staff Working Document: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/159786.htm  

12 

 
 
 
                                                           
Early intelligence on draft measures has also helped the Commission to anticipate problems 

The institutional framework under EU trade agreements supports swift and effective interaction on 
all implementation issues. This is, often, most effective at the stage when measures are still in draft 
form or not yet in force.  

In 2020, this work has seen some notable results to avert or remove trade irritants:  

  Example  Jordan: In  bilateral  discussions between  the  EU  and Jordan  under  the  EU-Jordan 
Association  Agreement  the  EU  expressed  serious  concerns  about  a  planned  measure  to 
introduce a 5% “service fee” for customs processing on imported goods from the EU and, in 
recognising  Jordan’s  budgetary  challenges,  it  stated  its  readiness  to  provide  support  to  the 
country’s  macro-economic  stability  through  its  Macro  Financial  Assistance  instrument. 
Following these exchanges the measure was put on hold. 

  Example Egypt: Following constructive discussions between the parties in the SPS Committee 
(animal and plant health), Egypt published a new standard for  Feta cheese, which removed 
the reference to the level of yeast that had been in the earlier version38. In another case, swift 
cooperation  by  Member  States  sharing  information  with  the  EU  Delegation  enabled  the 
Commission  to  avert  quantitative  restrictions for imports  of  seed  potatoes from  the  EU  into 
Egypt. 

Once  laws  and  regulations  are  in  force  rolling  them  back  is  more  difficult,  but  in  2020  work  in 
institutional bodies has delivered results… 

Once they have materialised, trade barriers are much harder to remove. They are usually  addressed 
through discussions with the partner country in structures foreseen under the agreements, such 
as  the  trade  committees  and  subcommittees,  starting  at  the  expert  level  (sometimes  reinforced  by 
discussions at political level and in the respective WTO committees). 2020 saw a number of partner 
countries bring legislation or practice into conformity with the trade agreements. 

Examples include: 

  CETA/wine  industry:  Following  discussions  in  the  Wines  and  Spirits  Committee  Canada 
committed  to  remove  the  federal  excise  duty  discriminating  EU  imports  by  mid-2022  and 
Ontario  and  Nova  Scotia  will  remove  discriminatory  measures  on  wines  by  mid-2023  and 
mid-2024, respectively. Despite remaining barriers, in 2020, Canada has become the EU’s 4th 
largest export market for wines. 

  EU-Central  America  FTA/air  transport:  EU-Central  America  FTA/air  transport:  Following 
coordinated  interventions  by  the  Commission  and  Member  States  supported  by  business  on 
the ground, Panama’s Civil Aviation Authority agreed to remove local ownership restrictions 
and KLM was issued a definitive license to provide ground handling and aircraft maintenance 
services. Before that, those ownership restrictions imposed by Panama, in contravention of the 
EU-Central  America  FTA  prevented  the  EU  airline  company  KLM  from  providing  such 
services.  This  restriction  also  affected  other  EU  airlines,  as  KLM  was  the  only  aircraft 

38 Shipments of Feta cheese to Egypt were rejected over the last years due to the amount of yeast that surpassed 
the  Egyptian  standards.  However,  high  yeast  level  is  a  natural  property  of  Feta  cheese  and  does  not  have  a 
negative effect on human health. 

13 

 
 
                                                           
maintenance  service  provider  licensed  by  the  European  Union  Aviation  Safety  Agency 
(EASA) in Panama.   

…the  Commission  is  ready  to  launch  bilateral  disputes,  where  barriers  can’t  be  solved  via  other 
means 

In cases, where a solution cannot be found, the Commission is prepared to initiate bilateral dispute 
settlement under the procedures found in 31 of the EU’s 37 preferential trade agreements covered by 
this  Report and which allows to take countermeasures in case of non-compliance. More information 
on bilateral disputes in 2020 can be found in section V.   

Implementation  is  not  just  about  barriers:  EU  agreements  in  2020  have  supported  more  market 
opening and wider cooperation as well… 

The institutional  set  up  of EU  trade  agreements  also maps  out  the  path  for  furthering  cooperation 
with trading partners on trade-related issues, such as regulatory matters:  

Example: EU-Japan regulatory cooperation under the EPA Committee on Regulatory Cooperation:  

 

 

Japan  and  the  EU  recognised  in  their  respective  domestic  regulations  a  number  of  wine-
making practices that the other Party’s producers use, including additives and enzymes, thus 
facilitating trade in the sector.  

Japan and the EU harmonised their technical regulations for cars with regard to four additional 
technical aspects, following the successful completion of implementation work on four United 
Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) regulations. Regulatory coherence was 
achieved  through  an  amendment  to  the  EPA,  updating  the  list  of  UNECE  motor  vehicles 
regulations that both sides apply. 

EU trade agreements can also offer a platform for cooperation beyond trade:  

Example: EU-Canada regulatory cooperation under CETA on consumer safety and pharmaceuticals 

  The  Commission  and  Canada  (Health  Canada)  are  cooperating  on  consumer  safety, 
implementing the administrative arrangement signed in 2018, joining forces on product recalls 
(for instance on toys in December 2020) and coordinated surveillance activities, e.g. on heavy 
metals in children's jewellery sold online.  

  The  EU  and  Canada  as  a  result  of  bilateral  cooperation  between  their  relevant  authorities, 
decided  to  recognise  the  results  of  each  other’s  Good  Manufacturing  Practices  (GMP) 
inspections  carried  out  by  either  EU  or  Canadian  inspectors  in  facilities  located  in  third 
countries, in accordance with the CETA Protocol on the mutual recognition of the compliance 
and  enforcement  programs  regarding  good  manufacturing  practices  for  pharmaceutical 
products.  

EU trade agreements, in particular regional ones such as Economic Partnership Agreements with the 
ACP countries, also provide a solid basis to initiate a multi-stakeholder dialogue to tackle important 
challenges in international and regional trade, such as sustainable value chains or child labour.  

Example: Using Economic Partnership Agreements with African, Caribbean and Pacific partners the 
EU has launched a multi-stakeholder dialogue on child labour under the Sustainable Cocoa initiative 

14 

 
 
  EPAs  with  Ghana  and  Cote  d’Ivoire:  Under  the  sustainable  cocoa  initiative,  which  was 
launched by the Commission in September 2020, Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire are now associated 
to  the  EU’s  multi-stakeholder  dialogue  on  sustainable  cocoa  production/value  chain  and 
pursue similar dialogues on the ground  and Cameroon has joined as an observer in 2021. The 
objective of the multi-stakeholder dialogue is to make progress in eliminating child labour and 
child trafficking in cocoa supply chains, enhance the protection and restorations of forests in 
cocoa-producing regions, and ensure a living income for cocoa farmers. The cocoa dialogue 
brings  together  key  EU  stakeholders,  including  representatives  of  Member  States,  the 
European Parliament, industry and civil society organisations. 

While  the  2020  COVID-19  pandemic  had  a  severe  negative  effect  on  trade,  EU  free  trade 
agreements continued to facilitate trade and investment….. 

Today the EU is the number one trading partner for 74 countries around the world, including in Asia, 
Africa,  the  US,  the  Western  Balkans  and  the  EU’s  Neighbourhood.  Trade  agreements  in  2020 
continued to facilitate trade between the EU and its partners and to reinforce the position of the EU as 
an investor, although the COVID-19 pandemic brought a number of supply chain disruptions, decrease 
in demand and a significant decline in both overall and preferential trade.  

..but challenges remain with some of the EU’s oldest and biggest preferential trading partners, such 
as Switzerland, Turkey and Norway….. 

Challenges remain in the EU’s relationships with some of its oldest and biggest preferential partners, 
based on older agreements that are more limited in scope:  

  With  Switzerland,  the  EU’s  first  preferential  partner  (4th  largest  overall,  3rd  largest  for 
services),  no  progress  was  made  in  2020  on  the  ratification  of  the  Institutional  Framework 
Agreement  negotiated  in  2018.  The  Federal  Council has  decided  to  stop  negotiations  on the 
Institutional Framework Agreement. This needs to be in place in order to unlock the potential 
for further bilateral trade.  

  With  Turkey,  the  EU’s  second  largest  preferential  trading  partner,  negotiations  on  a 
modernised  Customs  Union  can  start  only  once  the  Council  adopts  the  related  negotiating 
directives. Turkey has maintained trade barriers in breach of the Customs Union agreement, 
notably through a substantial broadening of the number of additional tariffs it imposes beyond 
the  Common  Customs  Tariff.  Other  concerns  have  included  requirements  for  certificates  of 
origin for EU goods. Following the amendment of the Turkish Customs Code in January 2021, 
a  series  of  high  level  contacts  and  technical  meetings  with  Turkey  took  place,  after  which 
Turkey 
to  all  Turkish  customs 
administrations and  had  held  information  meetings  with  economic  operators  to  clarify  the 
situation. Concerns persist in regard to the application by Turkey of localisation requirements 
in  the  pharmaceutical  sector.  The  non-discriminatory  implementation  of  the  Additional 
Protocol to the Association Agreement towards all Member States including the Republic of 
Cyprus also remains a key demand by the EU. 

it  had  sent 

instructions 

informed 

the  EU 

that 

  With Norway, the EU’s fourth largest preferential partner, no progress was achieved on the 
Commission’s  request  for  a  review  of  the  trade  regime  for  processed  agricultural  products. 
While  EU  exports  of  processed  agricultural  products  nevertheless  increased,  they  remain 
below  their  potential  due  to  high  customs  tariffs.  Negotiations  on  geographical  indications 

15 

 
 
 
remain  suspended.  Engagement  is  needed  both  on  processed  agricultural  products  and 
geographical indications. 

16 

 
 
 
 
C.  

Trade and sustainable development in focus 

In 2020 sustainable development has remained firmly in the spotlight with the  launch of the early 
review of the 15-Points Action Plan…  

The  implementation  and  enforcement  of  trade  and  sustainable  development  (TSD)  Chapters  is  a 
priority of EU trade policy. The 15-Point TSD Action Plan published in February 201839 has guided 
efforts  to  improve  further  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  TSD  Chapters  in  EU  trade 
agreements,  by  providing  a  consistent  framework  and  strategy.  This  plan,  which  is  currently  being 
reviewed in the light of the developments in trade policy and the response needed to the COVID-19 
pandemic, sets out actions in four main areas: improving the way the Commission works together with 
Member  States  and  the  European  Parliament,  facilitating  the  monitoring  and  advisory  role  of  civil 
society  towards  the  parties  of  the  agreements,  delivering  results  and  increasing  transparency  and 
communication.  

… and the first dispute under the EU-Korea FTA 

The TSD dispute under the EU-Korea trade agreement was the first bilateral dispute settlement case 
initiated by the EU and also the first on TSD provisions. It was launched at the end of 2018,40 due to 
the  EU’s  concerns  about  Korea’s  lack  of  respect  of  the  principles  relating  to  certain  fundamental 
labour  rights  and  failure  to  ratify  four  fundamental  ILO  Conventions,  as  laid  down  in  the  trade 
agreement. The Panel of Experts’ ruling was issued on 20 January 2021 and found that Korea had not 
complied  with  its  obligations.  The  dispute  with  Korea  also  illustrates  well  the  importance  of  the 
assertive use of the enforcement tools foreseen in TSD Chapters, when needed. 

39 See Non-paper of the Commission services: Feedback and way forward on improving the implementation and 
2018 
enforcement 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/february/tradoc_156618.pdf 
40 More detailed information on the dispute can be found in section V. 

in  EU  Free  Trade  Agreements 

of  TSD  Chapters 

26  February 

of 

17 

 
 
                                                           
The dispute settlement case against South Korea  

The Panel clarified that: (1) compliance with the fundamental labour principles enshrined in the 
ILO was a binding commitment of ILO members and of the parties to the trade agreement, even in 
the  absence  of  ratification  of  the  conventions,  (2)  there  was  an  ongoing  obligation  to  make 
continuous and sustained efforts to achieve the ratification of fundamental ILO Conventions that 
was binding on the parties (Korea therefore remains under an obligation to do so), and that making 
continuous  and  sustained  efforts  means  making  realistic  efforts  to  achieve  ratification  not  just 
giving lip-service, (3)  that there was no need to show the violations of the provisions at stake have 
effects on trade.  

The developments in Korea since the Panel show that TSD provisions can lead to real changes on 
the  ground:  (1)  Already  ahead  of  the  issuance  of  the  Panel’s  report,  in  December  2020,  the 
Korean National Assembly passed a series of legislative amendments to the Korean Trade Union 
and Labour Relations Adjustment Act (TULRAA), which aim to bring it in compliance with the 
principle of freedom of association. (2) On 26 February 2021, the National Assembly completed 
the ratification of three of the four pending fundamental ILO Conventions (No 87 on Freedom of 
Association and the Right to Organize, No 98 on the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining 
and  No  29  on  Forced  Labour).  (3)  Using  the  institutional  structures  under  the  Free  Trade 
Agreement, the Committee on TSD and the Trade Committee in April 2021 agreed on a process to 
monitor the implementation of the recommendations in the report of the Panel of Experts that will 
include a joint examination of the changes made to the trade union law and of moves towards the 
ratification of the one outstanding fundamental ILO  Convention No 105 on Abolition of Forced 
Labour. 

Close monitoring of the TSD provisions in EU trade agreements is key… 

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, all TSD committees – with the exception of Vietnam- took place 
as foreseen in 2020 and the first two quarters of 2021, including the first meeting of the TSD Board 
established  under  the  EU-Singapore  FTA.  The  meetings  of  Domestic  Advisory  Groups  of  both 
trading  parties  to  the  EU-Singapore  FTA  and  the  civil  society  fora  were  also  held  virtually,  which 
allowed many more civil society organisations to participate and have their voices heard.  

 …..  and  the  ratification  of  ILO  conventions  by  the  EU’s  trading  partners  has  remained  a  high 
priority 
A  key  priority  for  the  EU  TSD  engagement  with  several  FTA  partners  has  been  the  ratification  of 
fundamental  ILO  Conventions  and  the  implementation  of  the  labour  commitments.  The  most 
prominent example was the dispute settlement case with Korea, as mentioned above. The continued 
engagement  with  Vietnam  is  also  noteworthy,  highlighting  the  space  for  progress  provided  by  the 
ratification  procedure  and  the  particular  role  of  the  European  Parliament  at  that  stage.  In  2020, 
Vietnam continued working on the legislation to allow the implementation of  its new Labour Code, 
which entered into force on 1 January 2021 (after adoption on 20 November 2019). The EU continued 
to  support  this  process  via  collaboration  with  the  ILO  and  through  close  engagement  with  the 
Vietnamese authorities. Notwithstanding this, and in the absence of implementing legislation, it is not 
possible yet to establish free trade unions in Vietnam.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
The Commission has again been working closely with the International Labour Organization… 

The Commission has in cooperation with the ILO provided technical assistance to Georgia to support 
the  country  in  adopting  a  new  Labour  Code  in  September  2020.  This  has  resulted  in  greater 
approximation  to  international  standards  and  to  the  relevant  EU  law,  and  a  new  law  on  labour 
inspections. Collaboration with the ILO also allowed the Commission to offer technical assistance to 
promote labour rights in rural areas in Colombia, thanks to a project to strengthen labour inspection. It 
also allowed the organisation of a workshop on labour inspection in Peru in February 2020. In 2020, 
the EU also provided technical assistance to improve the labour inspection in the agricultural sectors 
of Ecuador (to be implemented in 2021).   

Implementation of environmental sustainability commitments is also of growing importance 

In the area of environment, the Commission continued its close engagement with Vietnam on Forest 
Law  Enforcement,  Governance  and  Trade  (FLEGT).  The  Voluntary  Partnership  Agreement  (VPA) 
between  the  EU  and  Vietnam  entered  into  force  in  June  2019  and  Vietnam  continued  working  on 
regulations  needed  to  implement  the  timber  legality  assurance  system.  Close  cooperation  continued 
also with Ukraine with regard to the reform of the Ukrainian forest-based sector, focussing on wood 
harvesting and trade and, in particular, steps taken against illegally forested timber.  

The review of the 15 Points Action Plan on TSD is looking at ways to strengthen implementation 
and enforcement… 

The review of the EU Commission’s 15-Point Action Plan of February 2018 was launched in 2021 
(frontloaded from 2023) and includes a broad public consultation as well as a comparative study on 
implementation and enforcement of TSD provisions in EU trade agreements. Overall, the TSD review 
will  look  at  all  relevant  aspects  of  TSD  implementation  and  enforcement,  including  the  scope  of 
commitments, monitoring mechanisms, the possibility of sanctions for non-compliance, the “essential 
elements” clause as well as the institutional set-up and required resources.  

In implementing TSD provisions in EU trade agreements the Commission draws on the advice of   
EU DAGs helping it to connect with civil society in the EU and partner countries. 

Twelve  EU  trade  agreements41  provide  for  the  involvement  of  civil  society  in  advising  on  the 
monitoring and implementation of their TSD Chapters, in particular, through the creation of DAGs on 
either  side.  EU  DAG  members  include  a  mix  of  stakeholder  representatives  at  EU  level  as  well  as 
smaller  organisations  dedicated  to  specific  topics;  a  majority  of  members  are  selected  following  a 
public call for interest, while others are appointed by the European Economic and Social Committee 
(EESC), which also provides the secretariat for the EU DAGs. The Commission supports the work of 
both  EU  and  partner  countries’  DAGs  through  a  Partnership  Instrument  project  as  well  as  the  joint 
work of Commission staff in Headquarters and trade teams in the EU Delegations.  

41 11 of these agreements are covered by the present report, the 12th one, the Trade and Cooperation Agreement 
with the UK, is not yet covered as its application only started on 1 January 2021.  

19 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Examples of activities by EU DAGs relevant for implementation of TSD chapters 

South  Korea  labour  dispute:  Supporting  the  Commission  to  advance  EU  efforts  to  bring  South 
Korea into compliance with labour commitments under the EU-Korea FTA, EU DAG Members 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Commission  information  on  potentially  problematic  elements 
within the Korean legal framework and practice related to core ILO principles and ratification of 
the  fundamental  ILO  conventions. The  EU  DAG  plays  an  active  role in  monitoring  compliance 
with the TSD panel report.  

Human rights issues in Andean countries: The EU DAG during its two meetings in 2020 with the 
Commission  reported  on  violence  against  trade  union  leaders  and  environmental  activists  in 
Colombia,  the  situation  of  the  banana  sector  in  Ecuador,  the  monitoring  of  labour  and 
environmental  issues  in  Peru,  and  the  socio-economic  impact  of  COVID-19  on  the  EU  and  the 
Andean partners. The Commission used this input for its discussion with the trading partners in 
the TSD committee meetings.  

The establishment of a structured dialogue with civil society has proven difficult for some of the EU’s 
trading  partners,  who  have  had  limited  engagement  with  their  civil  society.  EU  Delegations  are 
encouraged to reach out to host countries as the latter put the structures in place and to provide advice 
and support, as needed, as the following example shows:  

  EU -Vietnam FTA (EVFTA): The Commission through its trade team in the EU Delegation in 
Hanoi has actively supported the setting up of the Vietnam DAG following the entry into force 
of  the  FTA.  This  support  has  been  channelled  mainly  through  a  project  promoting  the 
engagement  of  social  partners  (business  &  workers’  organisations)  and  civil  society  (Non-
Governmental  Organisations  (NGOs).  This  has  been  appreciated  both  by  local  civil  society 
and  by  the  Vietnamese  administration,  given  the  limited  experience  of  independent  Civil 
Society Organisations in Vietnam.  

D.  

Analysing the effects of trade agreements (ex post) to improve implementation 

Learning from the real impact of existing agreements helps to improve implementation in the future… 

The Commission evaluates the impact of its trade agreements over time, usually for the first time 
after five years of implementation, to verify if the expected outcomes have been achieved. Two ex post 
evaluations were completed in 2020. These covered the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with 
CARIFORUM (its second evaluation after ten years in force) and FTAs with the six Mediterranean 
countries.42 They were published in January and March 2021, respectively. Both studies point to the 
main  outstanding  issues  and  where  the  focus  in  implementation  should  be  placed,  also  identifying 
problems more typically encountered with the regions.  

For  example,  in  the  case  of  the  EU-CARIFORUM  EPA,  lack  of  administrative  capacity  of  the 
authorities/agencies remains an issue of concern as well as a lack of awareness of the agreement on the 
side  of  business  and  insufficient  respect  of  transparency  obligations.  At  the  same  time,  given  the 
development  dimension  of  the  EPA,  its  successful  implementation  by  the  14  CARIFORUM  States 
depends  significantly  on  the  relevant  development  cooperation  funding.  The  new  partnership 

42 The study covers Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and Tunisia; https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-
detail/-/publication/fab9bddd-9106-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1  

20 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
programme  under  the  Neighbourhood,  Development  and  International  Cooperation  Instrument 
(NDICI-Global  Europe)  of  the  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  (MFF)  2021-2027,  creates 
opportunities for such tailored support on the identified trade related challenges. The evaluation also 
identified  areas  where  the  EU  needed  to  do  more,  in  particular  as  concerns  greater  Member  States’ 
engagement, improved communication and support for business-to-business links and platforms. 

In the case of the six Euro-Med Association agreements, the study points to the need for a further 
reduction in the number of non-tariff measures, such as non-automatic import licenses or un-notified 
technical regulations, which cause unpredictability and distort local business operations. Moreover, the 
study  recommends  the  simplification  of  administrative  procedures,  the  application  of  internationally 
recognised standards and avoiding of unnecessary duplication of conformity assessments. Improving 
the business environment would have to be accompanied by enhanced EU support and cooperation on 
policies  upgrading  competitiveness,  skills  and  removing  logistical  constraints.  The  identified 
objectives will not only inform the FTAs implementation process but could also guide reflections for 
EU aid-for-trade support in the period 2021-2027. 

III.   Supporting the take-up of trade agreements by small and 
medium-sized enterprises 

SMEs  and  family  businesses  represent  around  99%  of  all  companies  in  the  EU,  and  account  for 
half of Europe’s GDP  

Global markets remain an important source of growth for SMEs, who account for one third of all EU 
exports, supporting more than 13 million jobs in the EU43. In 2020, the Commission stepped up efforts 
to help SMEs make the most of trade rules and agreements, as well as making it easier for them to flag 
concerns on how trade agreements and rules are being followed.  

Information gaps and lack of know-how can represent a barrier to trade and investment in their 
own right, weighing particularly heavily on smaller companies. First, trade agreements are of no use if 
the  potential  beneficiaries  do  not  know  about  them  and  unless  they  understand  how  to  access  the 
advantages in the concrete case. Even if SME’s are not exporting directly, trade agreements can matter 
to  them  because  of  their  role  in  global  supply  chains.  Second,  even  where  companies  are  aware  of 
WTO rules and EU preferential agreements their benefits do not materialise automatically. Therefore, 
while trade promotion is the competence of Member States, business associations or trade promotion 
authorities (TPOs) the Commission in 2020 continued supporting their activities, including by way of 
guidance,  outreach  (including  in  particular  through  EU  Delegations  in  partner  countries),  dedicated 
interactive online tools or help desks and centres catering to SME’s needs.   

Trade  agreements  with  developing  countries  offer  market  access  opportunities  that  local  SMEs  are 
eager to seize, and they provide incentives for reform that development cooperation can further build 
on.  Economic  Partnership  Agreements  (EPAs)  with  African,  Caribbean  and  Pacific  countries,  for 
example,  have  a  strong  development  dimension:  their  successful  implementation  depends  on 

43 DG TRADE Chief Economist Note of May 2020:  
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/june/tradoc_158778.pdf  

21 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
addressing  these  countries’  internal  constraints  to  trade  through  Aid  for  Trade.  The  Staff  Working 
Document accompanying this Report includes examples of how EU Delegations work to address trade 
barriers  through  Aid  for  Trade.  The  EU  Aid  for  Trade  Progress  Report  2020  contains  further 
information  on the  Commission’s and  Member  States’  support for  SMEs in  developing  countries  to 
make the most of EU trade agreements.44    

A.  

Access2Markets and Rules of Origin Assessment Tool (ROSA) 

2020  saw  the  launch  of  the  Access2Markets  portal,  offering  a  free,  one-stop  shop  source  of 
information about trade… 

The Commission’s new portal for imports and exports  Access2Markets45 launched in October 2020 
with  its  integrated  Rules  of  Origin  Assessment  Tool  (ROSA)  offers  a  wealth  of  free,  searchable, 
multi-lingual, and up-to date information. It covers 122 export markets outside the EU and 190 source 
markets.  Companies  can  consult  information  on  tariffs,  taxes,  quotas,  import  formalities  and 
procedures  for  their  imports  and  exports,  and  they  can  compare  rules  of  origin  across  all  EU  trade 
agreements. While available to any user, it is particularly helpful for SMEs. 

…the platform includes a self-assessment tool to help businesses find their way through the rules of 
origin in different EU agreements  

ROSA, the Rules of Origin Self-Assessment Tool  

ROSA guides users through a set of questions to assess whether or not their products fulfil the rules 
allowing users to qualify for preferential treatment under an EU trade agreement. To make life easier 
for companies, ROSA contains also clear instructions on the documentation required as proof of origin 
to  obtain  tariff  preferences  and  includes  a  function  to  compare  the  rules  across  various  agreements. 
Currently ROSA is being used around 500 times a day. 

Access2Markets  has  been well  received  by  up to  10,000  daily  users,  70%  of them  being  from  the 
EU.  Its  usage  is  significantly  higher  than  that  of  the tools  it  replaced  (Market  Access  Database  and 
Trade  Helpdesk).  Access2Markets  and  ROSA  have  been  developed  in  close  cooperation  with  both 
business  associations  and  chambers  of  commerce  and  are  being  constantly  improved  based  on  user 
feedback. This good start was reflected in the platform winning the public vote in the 2021 European 
Ombudsman’s  Good  Administration  Awards46,  a  recognition  of  its  delivery  of  a  citizen-focused 
service in times of crisis.   

Access2Markets is set to expand with future modules on services and procurement in coming years 
and most agreements in ROSA by the end of 2021…  

As part of the improvements, the scope of Access2Markets is being extended to include other core 
elements of EU trade agreements:  

44 European Commission, EU Aid for Trade Progress Report 2020 – Review of progress on the implementation 
of the updated EU aid for trade strategy of 2017, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020 
(https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f022db96-d854-11ea-adf7-01aa75ed71a1). 
45 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/home  
46 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXkldaJvv5E  

22 

 
 
                                                           
  A searchable database covering a number of service sectors under EU agreements is being 
developed  on  a  pilot  basis,  and  specific  sectoral  guides  zooming  in  on  certain  regions  or 
countries, for example, in the area of plant and animal health provisions.  

  ROSA’s geographical coverage is also being extended  to cover  most trade agreements by 
the end of 2021. Today, it already captures 26 trade agreements with 36 countries (including 
the  UK,  Central  American  partners,  Columbia/Peru/Ecuador,  Vietnam,  Canada,  Japan  and 
South Korea).   

  A  new  dedicated  tool  -  Access2Procurement47  –launched  in  September  2021  covers 
government  procurement  under  EU  trade  agreements,  starting  with  the  members  of  the 
Government  Procurement  Agreement  (GPA)  and  the  EU-Canada  agreement  (CETA); 
coverage will be gradually extended beyond that.  

A new tool to improve information on public tenders  

Access2Procurement is a new IT tool integrated into the Access2Markets platform. Its purpose is to 
help European suppliers find out whether they are eligible to bid on a given government procurement 
contract in a third country. Based on the answers users give to three or four questions regarding the 
procuring entity, the subject matter of the procurement, and the expected value of the contract, the new 
tool gives a quick and highly reliable assessment on whether the user is entitled to participate in the 
bidding process. This will help bidders to determine whether or not a procurement project in a third 
country  is  covered  or  not  by  that  country’s  market  access  commitments  vis-à-vis  the  EU  under  the 
WTO Government Procurement Agreement or a bilateral agreement. 

B.  Guides, help desks, SME centres and cooperation with networks 

In  its  communication  efforts,  the  Commission  continues  to  focus  on  the  benefits  EU  trade 
agreements offer to businesses, particularly SMEs…. 

The  Commission  in  2020  continued  producing  a  series  of  guides  to  help  business  navigate  the 
agreements, backed up by dedicated training sessions and webinars for stakeholders, complementing 
activities  by  EU  Member  States  and  business.  The  EU  Delegations  play  an  important  role  in 
awareness raising and support economic operators wishing to reap the benefits of the agreement. 

  Example  Canada:  In  2020,  the  Commission  continued  to  develop  specific  guides  and  to 
organise  webinars  to  assist  EU  businesses,  which  are  or  want  to  become  active  on  the 
Canadian  market.  This  work  covered  nine  areas  from  highly  technical  subjects  like 
alternatives to methyl bromide treatment for exporting certain plant products or opportunities 
for clean technology companies to more general subject like public procurement opportunities 
in Canada at federal and sub-federal level or an overview of IPR in Canada. All these guides 
and reports are publicly available on the Commission’s website48. 

  Example Japan: In 2020, the trade team in the Tokyo EU Delegation developed a Step-by-Step 
Guide to provide market access information to companies completed by sectoral guides.49   

47 https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/procurement/#/step1 
48 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1720&title=CETA-factsheet-and-guides  
49 
Japan: 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/november/tradoc_159028.pdf  ;  step-by-step  guide  providing  market 

procurement 

government 

suppliers 

Guide 

EU 

for 

on 

in 

23 

 
 
                                                           
 
SME centres in key markets, supported by the EU, have an important role….  

To  help  SMEs  internationalise  and  assist  them  in  accessing  negotiated  benefits in  partner  countries, 
the  Commission  continues  to  sponsor  SME  centres  in  China  and  Japan,  in  close  liaison  with 
Member  States,  national  and  European  business  associations  abroad  and 
trade  promotion 
organisations. The EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Cooperation50 has 2,233 registered members. It 
is jointly funded and managed by the EU and Japan51 in cooperation with the Member States’ Trade 
Promotion  Organisations.  It  is  providing  multiple  services52  to  SMEs  inter  alia  via  the  EPA 
Helpdesk53,  via  the  Japanese  Tax  &  Public  Procurement  Helpdesk54,  and  promotes  technology 
transfers between the EU and Japan via a dedicated Helpdesk55. The EU SME Centre in China is a 
Commission funded project which since 2010 helps European small and medium-sized enterprises get 
ready to do business in China. Currently in its third phase, the project is scheduled to run from October 
2020 to March 2022. The EU SME Centre in its phase 2 (July 2014 to April 2020) was funded by the 
EU with a total budget of €5.9 million and has 14,163 registered users on the EU SME Centre website. 

SME centers in Japan and China 

Examples of activities of the EU-Japan Centre for Industrial Co-operation in 2020: 

  16 EPA-related webinars (via the EPA Helpdesk) with 925 participants; 
  18 factsheets guiding SMEs on key aspects of the EPA; 
  21 webinars with 810 participants. 

Examples of activities of the EU SME Centre’s in China (Nov 2014- April 2020):  

  307 trainings in China and the EU for over 12.000 EU SMEs; 
  28 Memoranda of Understanding signed with government agencies and business 

support organisations in China and Europe; 

  270 partnerships between the EU SME Centre and partner organisations; 

…and are supported in some cases by thematic teams as well  

EU  companies  (in  particular  smaller  ones)  are  often  confronted  with  practical  challenges  and 
limitations  when  it  comes  to  IPR  protection  in  third  countries,  such  as  forced  technology  transfer, 
procedural  deficiencies,  backlogs  in  rights  registrations,  non-registration  of  certain  rights,  non-
deterrent level of sanctions for IPR infringements, lack of expertise, corruption, lack of awareness and 
lack  of  transparency.  To  help  them  effectively  tackle  these  challenges,  which  may  impact  on  their 
efforts to internationalise, the Commission has established thematic SME helpdesks on IPR in key 
regions, notably China, Latin America and South-East Asia.56 These helpdesks support EU SMEs 

information 

to  EU  companies:  https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content/eu-japan-

access 
economic-partnership-agreement  
50 https://www.eu-japan.eu/  
51 The EU side provides financing under the COSME Work Programme 2020 (€ 5.6 million; April 2020-March 
2022). 
52 https://www.eu-japan.eu/summary-activities  
53 https://www.eubusinessinjapan.eu/library/news/epa-helpdesk  
54 https://www.eu-japan.eu/japan-tax-public-procurement-helpdesk  
55 http://www.eu-jp-tthelpdesk.eu/  
56 https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/ip-thematic-areas_en  

24 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
to  both  protect  and  enforce  their  IPRs  in  EU  trading  partner  countries’  territories,  through  the 
provision of free information and services. 

25 

 
 
 
 
C.  Deepening of cooperation with business and business networks 

To  reach  companies  on  the  ground,  the  Commission  in  2020  continued  to  deepen  its  cooperation 
with representatives of EU business interests in the EU and in third countries, including Enterprise 
Europe  Network  (EEN)57,  the  European  Business  Organisations’  World  Wide  Network  (EBO 
WWN)58 and Member States’ Trade Promotion Organisations (TPOs). The Commission’s objective is 
to  promote  the  exchange  of  views  with  those  organisations  to  improve  market  access  for  European 
businesses in third countries. 

The  EEN  is  providing  advice  on  FTAs  concluded  by  the  EU.  The  EEN  thematic  group  for  SME 
internationalisation  regularly  shares  information  about  latest  trade  related  issues  via  the  EEN 
community platform. The expert group also organises webinars for local businesses and EEN advisers 
and runs help desks to spread information on trade agreements:  

 The European Enterprise Network - recent activities 

  On  27  January  2021,  the  EEN  thematic  group  for  SME  internationalisation 
organised  a  webinar  ”Meet  our  international  partners:  EEN  Singapore”, 
highlighting  the  opportunities  and  support  available  for  EU  business  keen  on 
doing business in Singapore taking advantage of the FTA. 

  EEN  Vietnam  started  a  helpdesk  to  assess  enterprises  needs  regarding  the  EU-
Vietnam  FTA  that  entered  into  force  on  1st  August  2020,  including  by  running 
surveys, organising meetings etc. 

 

In November 2020, the EEN  - in close cooperation with DG TRADE  - hosted a 
dedicated  hands-on  training  on  the  functionalities  of the  Access2Markets  portal. 
The  webinar  was  well  received  and  more  than  200  EEN  advisers  followed  the 
training. More practical/hands on training sessions are planned in the future. 

Support for SMEs is now built into many EU trade agreements… 

To further help SMEs make use of EU trade agreements, recent agreements have included dedicated 
SME chapters in EU FTAs59  which provide for transparency vis-à-vis SMEs and regular contacts 
between the parties’ SME Contact Points. In 2020, the SME Contact Points established under CETA 
delivered an activity report to the CETA Joint Committee that met in July 2020 and started delivering 
on  their  work  plan  2020-2160,  involving  inter  alia  the  EEN  and  tracking  of  SMEs  progress  under 
CETA. A meeting of the contact points established under the EU-Japan EPA took place in Feb 2021, 

57 The network, co-financed by the EU COSME programme, is active in more than 60 countries and brings 
together 3000 experts from 600 member organisations. Its objective is to help small and medium-sized 
businesses in their international activities 
58 https://eboworldwide.eu/  

59  A  SME  recommendation  has  been  agreed  with  Canada,  the  EU-Japan  EPA  and  the  TCA  with  the  United 
Kingdom  have  SME  chapters  as  do  the  agreements  concluded  with  Mercosur  and  the  modernised  agreement 
with Mexico. SME chapters are also part of the negotiations with Chile, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand. 
60 Work plan and activity report available at : https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/july/tradoc_158910.pdf  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
where  both  sides  reported  about  their  initiatives  to  implement  the  information  provisions  under  the 
SME Chapter.  

IV.    Addressing barriers and finding solutions 
IV.1   State of play of trade barriers and removal in a challenging year  

2020 has been a particularly demanding year: the health and economic crisis triggered by the COVID-
19 pandemic has fuelled protectionism and made some partners more reluctant to remove barriers that 
predate the crisis.  

The institutional bodies established by EU trade agreements provide an important route to detect, raise 
and  resolve  problems  with  trading  partners  with  whom  the  EU  has  concluded  preferential  trade 
agreements.  But  business  may  encounters  problems  in  areas  not  directly  addressed  by  a  trade 
agreement  or  in  countries  with  whom  the  EU  doesn’t  have  a  preferential  trade  agreement.  Work  to 
identify and remove barriers has thus continued 2020 at all levels (bilateral and multilateral), to meet 
concerns by EU businesses, who are facing restrictive measures or practices and are treated unfairly by 
EU  trading  partners,  or  who  cannot  compete  on  a  level  playing  field.  To  facilitate  complaints,  the 
Commission,  in  November  2020  established  on  its  Access2Markets  portal  the  Single  Entry  Point 
(SEP), a one-stop-shop to provide information on trade barriers and/or trading partners failing to live 
up to their commitments on TSD. 

A.  Stock of (total registered) trade & investment barriers as of 31 December 2020  

As the below table shows, 462 active trade and investment barriers in 66 third countries are listed 
in the Commission’s database Access2Markets at the end of 2020: 

Type of measure 

Number of barriers 

Sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) 

Technical barriers to trade (TBT) 

Tariffs and equivalents and quantitative restrictions 

Administrative procedures 

Services & investment 

Other measures* 

IPR 

Public procurement 

Exports taxes and restrictions 

Grand Total 

109 

79 

78 

41 

39 

37 

35 

28 

16 

462 

*  Other  measures  include  barriers  related  to  trade  defence  instruments  (TDIs)  and  to  subsidies,  measures  affecting 
competition, and other measures non-classifiable in previous categories. 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4: Types of barriers in 2020  

As can be seen from figure 4 above, looking at types of barriers, as in previous years, SPS measures 
(109) remained the largest category, accounting for a quarter of all barriers recorded, followed by TBT 
and  tariff  measures  and  quantitative  restrictions  (almost  80  each).  These  three  categories  made  for 
almost 60% of all active barriers in 2020.  

Looking at the geographical spread, in 2020 China remained the country with the highest stock and 
has 40 barriers (two more than in 2019); second was Russia, followed by Indonesia and United States 
(26 each), India (25) and Turkey (24). Other countries with ten or more barriers included Brazil, South 
Korea, Australia, Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Canada and Malaysia. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B.  The evolution of trade & investment barriers in 2020  

The  below  table shows  new  barriers  registered  and  barriers  resolved  in  202061  as  per type/category, 
showing a net increase (+8) in comparison to 201962:  

Type of measure 

New barriers63  Resolved barriers 

SPS 
TBT 
Administrative procedures 
Tariffs and equivalents and quantitative restrictions 
Services & Investment 
Other measures64 
Government Procurement 
Exports taxes and restrictions 
IPR 
Grand Total 

13 
5 
5 
5 
4 
4 
3 
1 
1 
41 

17 
6 
4 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
0 
33 

Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures again came on top both in terms of new measures (13), 
but also for measure resolved (17), thus accounting for half of all barriers solved in 2020. The resolved 
SPS barriers meant, for example, opening for EU exporters the Japanese markets for certain EU beef 
products,  allowing  Belgian  apples  in  Mexico  and  Thailand  or  getting  South  Korea  to  lift  a  ban  on 
poultry from Hungary.   

Technical  Barriers  to  Trade  (TBT)  and  barriers  linked  to  administrative  procedures  were  the 
second and third most common types. 

In  terms  of  new  barriers  registered  in  2020  per  sector,  43%  were  found  in  the  agriculture  and 
fisheries sector while the wine & spirit sector saw four new barriers and the automotive sector three. 
However,  after  agriculture  and  fisheries,  the  largest  group  of  new  barriers  (8)  were  horizontal 
measures  that  can  affect  all  exports  to  the  trading  partner  country  concerned  (6)  or  measures  that 
cover  more  than  one  sector  (2).  Together,  horizontal  and  multi-sector  measures  made  up  for  a 
quarter  of  all  new  barriers  recorded  in  202065,  reflecting  an  increase  in  protectionist  tendencies, 
further accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic.  

61 A complete list of new barriers reported and barriers resolved in 2020 can be found in the Staff Working 
Document: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/159786.htm  
62 Tallying last year's measures (438 active barriers) with 2020 figures (41 new and 33 resolved barriers) would 
yield 446 barriers. The main difference stems from the fact that, to trace barriers partially resolved, the 
Commission has encoded follow-up active barriers as of 2020, leading to a nominally higher number of barriers 
while not altering the underlying trends. 
63 New barriers are the ones registered in Access2Markets along 2020. 
64 Other measures included barriers related to TDI and to subsidies,  measures affecting competition, and other 
measures, non-classifiable in previous categories 
65 This large proportion of measures of horizontal effect hampers a proper quantification of trade flows affected.  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Trade and investment barriers & COVID-19  

In  the  early  stages  of  the  pandemic,  supply  chain  disruptions  led  to  an  explosion  of  demand  for 
essential  (health)  goods  and  hence  shortages  and  knee-jerk  restrictive  measures,  followed  by 
uncontrolled ramping up of the production (mainly in China), which brought with it concerns about 
safety and conformity with EU standards. The EU introduced a temporary transparency mechanism in 
the form of an export authorisation scheme for personal protective equipment, replacing national 
bans, both of which expired at the end of May 2020.  

During  the  first  phase  of  the  pandemic,  a  number  of  EU  trading  partners  introduced  export 
restrictions. The Commission continues to monitor these measures to verify whether their duration is 
limited to the strict necessity, i.e. whether the measures are removed once the health situation allows66. 
In cases where restrictions are found to affect the EU’s supply of essential goods needed to cope with 
COVID-19,  the  EU  is  seeking  to  remove  or  mitigate  the  measure.  An  example  includes  Indian 
measures restricting exports of several critical medical supplies67, which it proved possible to remove 
through engagement at the highest political level.  

C.  Barriers resolved in 2020  

The  Commission  has  proactively  chased  barriers  in  2020  ensuring  that  33  barriers  were  fully  or 
partially removed in 22 trading partner countries, as can be seen from the figure 5 below.  

Figure 5: Number of barriers resolved by partner (2020) 

66  Some  of  these  measures  were  recorded  in  the  EU’s  database  for  monitoring  purposes  (at  Access2Markets 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/barriers) 
67 The supplies concerned by the restrictions included hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), other active pharmaceutical 
ingredients (APIs) and paracetamol formulations (over a third of India’s production of the latter is exported to 
the EU). 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The Commission disposes of a range of instruments, often applied in combination to resolve trade 
barriers. In addition to activating the institutional framework under its bilateral trade agreements (see 
section  II.2  B.  above)  the  Commission  uses  diplomatic  channels  and  high-level  dialogues  with  its 
trading partners to solve barriers. It also regularly raises barriers in a multilateral setting in the WTO. 
It  may  also  launch  investigations  under  the  EU’s  Trade  Barrier  Regulation  (two  examinations  were 
launched in 2020 and completed in 2021; see further below).  

Bilateral action proved to be an effective route to address barriers 

Examples for efforts at the bilateral level:  

 

 

Saudi  Arabia/plastic:  Combined  efforts  by  the  Commission,  EU  Member  States  and  business 
helped  to  avert  a  technical  barrier  on  the  certification  of  plastic  materials  by  Saudi  Arabia. 
Member  States  and  industry  associations  reported  to  the  Commission  a  new  requirement  that 
would  make  the  use  of  certified  oxo-biodegradable  plastics  mandatory  for  packaging.  The 
Commission studied the issue and concluded that such restriction was not science-based (i.e. lack 
of  evidence  of  the  beneficial  effects  of  oxo-degradable  plastics  on  the  environment).  This  and 
other scientific evidence presented by the EU Delegation to Saudi Arabia led the latter to abandon 
the technical regulation on packaging products. 

Indonesia/IPR: The Commission over the past two years has been raising with Indonesia the issue 
of local manufacturing as a precondition for patent protection for pharmaceuticals as this was a 
serious obstacle for European companies wanting to compete in Indonesia. The EU engaged with 
Indonesia  through  diplomatic  channels  and  cooperated  with  like-minded  countries  to  find  a 
solution  that  is  mutually  beneficial  both  for  the  local  and  European  innovative  industries  and 
consistent with international standards. In October 2020, Indonesia adopted a new Omnibus Law 
on  Job  Creation  that  removed  the  requirement.  This  meant  an  important  move  towards 
compliance  with  international  standards  covering  inter  alia  the  manufacture,  importation  and 
licensing of patented inventions in Indonesia. 

…alongside action within the framework of the WTO and its various committees...   

the  proliferation  of  rules  and  regulations  affecting 

Given 
the  proper 
implementation  of  multilateral  disciplines  related  to  TBT  is  of  utmost  importance.  Thanks  to 
successful  EU  engagement  at  the  WTO  TBT  Committee,  a  large  number  of  such  TBT-related 
barriers  could  be  clarified,  removed  or  prevented,  thus  facilitating  EU  exports.  According  to  recent 
estimates, such measures affected around €83 billion68 worth of EU exports over the past decade in 
a wide range of sectors, notably medical devices, pharmaceuticals, automotive, food and beverages, IT 
products, and electrical appliances, cosmetics, toys, textiles, ceramics or furniture.69 

international 

trade, 

… and the Trade Barriers Regulation offered an additional legal route in specific cases. 

68  This  methodology  estimates  the  current  trade  flows  that  benefitted  from  the  elimination/prevention  of  TBT 
barriers and does not provide a quantification of export increases or other trade effects. 
69  See  also  publication  by  CEPS  of  February  2021:  “Multilateral  cooperation  behind  the  trade  war  headlines: 
Boucher; 
by 
How 
https://www.ceps.eu/download/publication/?id=32164&pdf=PI2021-03_Multilateral-cooperation-behind-the-
trade-war-headlines.pdf  

Lucian 

Cernat 

David 

much 

up?”; 

freed 

trade 

and 

is 

31 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The  Trade  Barriers  Regulation  (TBR)  is  a  legal  instrument  that  gives  EU  companies,  industries, 
associations  and  Member  States  the  right  to  lodge  a  complaint  with  the  Commission  about  trade 
barriers in third countries. If the complaint fulfils the criteria for admission, the Commission examines 
the case to determine whether there is evidence of violations of international trade rules resulting in 
adverse trade effects or injury, and whether it is in the EU’s interest to act. If the procedure concludes 
that  action  is  necessary  to  ensure  the  respect  of  international  trade  rules  and  to  remove  the  injury 
caused,  appropriate  measures  can  be  taken,  which  may  include  the  initiation  of  dispute  settlement 
proceedings.  

So far 24 TBR examination procedures have been initiated with regard to trade practices of a wide 
range of trading partners (e.g. Brazil, Canada, Japan, Turkey). Two examinations were started in 2020 
and concluded in 2021.  

  Examples Saudi Arabia/tiles and Mexico/Tequila: On 5 May 2021, the Commission concluded 
the  investigations  concerning  Saudi  Arabian  measures70  restricting  market  access  to  EU 
ceramic tiles and concerning Mexican measures71 affecting Tequila exports to the EU. These 
investigations were initiated upon complaints of the respective business associations (i.e. the 
European Ceramic Industry Association (Cerame-Unie) and Brewers of Europe) and resulted 
in  clarifying  the  legal  situation  and  economic  effects  of  the  third  country  measures.  The 
examinations found that Saudi Arabia’s new technical regulations were hindering 75 to 80% 
of EU exports in ceramic tiles, valued at € 120-150 million per year, and affecting many EU 
SMEs,  while  Mexico’s  refusal  to  issue  export  certificates  for  Tequila  to  the  EU  might 
constitute export restrictions prohibited under WTO rules. 

Having concluded these two examinations the Commission is now in a better position to get these 
barriers removed. The Commission will now engage with Saudi Arabia to ensure removal of these 
barriers, either through negotiation or bringing the case before the WTO. The Commission will also 
monitor pending administrative procedures in Mexico to ensure they remove the trade barrier.  

D.  The Market Access Partnership at work and its impact in 2020  

Tangible  results  were  achieved  in  2020,  notwithstanding  the  difficulties  created  by  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, thanks to ongoing cooperation between the Commission, Member States and business. in 
the Market Access Advisory Groups in Brussels, but also in many Market Access Teams steered by 
trade  teams  in  EU  Delegations,  and  stakeholders  providing  information  about  the  situation  on  the 
ground in our partner countries.  

In terms of the geographical spread of barriers resolved in 2020, 4 were addressed in Egypt, 3 in 
the  United  Arab  Emirates,  2  concerned  India,  Indonesia,  Iran,  Kuwait,  Russia  and  Saudi  Arabia, 
respectively,  while  one  each  was  addressed  in  14  other  countries.  Almost  half  the  barriers  resolved 
(15) were located in the South Mediterranean and Middle East region, as that the Commission reacts 
to the growing trend in protectionism in this strategic region. Seven barriers were resolved in South 
and South East Asia.  

70 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/may/tradoc_159564.pdf  
71 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/may/tradoc_159563.pdf  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
As  in  previous  years,  the  sector  that  most  benefitted  from  the  number  of  barriers  removed  was 
agriculture and fisheries, accounting for almost 60% of total barriers resolved. Seven of the resolved 
barriers (one fifth) corresponded to either horizontal or multisector barriers. 

Figure 6: Number of barriers resolved per sector (2020) 

Overall, econometric analysis72 carried out by the European Commission showed that, thanks to the 
removal  of  a  number  of  barriers  between  2014  and  201973,  exports  from  the  European  Union  in 
2020 were € 5.4 billion higher than they would have been if the barriers had still been in place. 
These  additional  €  5.4  billion  EU  exports  are  tangible  benefits  of  implementation  and  enforcement 
efforts  carried  out  by  the  Commission,  Member  States  and  business  within  the  Market  Access 
Partnership. 

IV.2 

 Facilitating complaints: The Single Entry Point  

The  launch  of  the  Single  Entry  Point  is  helping  to  focus  and  mobilise  resources  to  tackle  trade 
barriers... 

The  launch  of  the  Single  Entry  Point74  (SEP)  on  16  November  2020  should  further  improve  the 
interaction between the Commission and stakeholders, raising complaints about market access barriers 
and  infringements  of  TSD  commitments  and  complaints  related  to  non-compliance  with  the 
requirements under the EU “Generalised System of Preferences” (GSP). The SEP is designed in a way 
to  ensure  that  the  Commission  can  draw  on  a  solid  base  of  evidence  in  examining  complaints, 

72 The methodology applies to trade in goods only and does not allow inclusion of complex horizontal barriers 
affecting goods, nor barriers beyond goods. 
73 The analysis includes 130 barriers removed from 2014 to 2019. Only some barriers can be quantified by this 
analysis, notably the ones affecting EU exports in goods and which do not have a horizontal effect. The analysis 
does  not  cover  barriers  removed  in  2020  because  at  least  one  full  year  of  data  after  the  barrier  is  removed  is 
required to establish the impact on trade. 
74  See  Operating  guidelines:  Operating  guidelines:  https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/form-
assets/operational_guidelines.pdf 

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
allowing it to act more rapidly and effectively in cases where it believes there are grounds to act.  At 
the same time, the one-stop-shop mechanism and guidance provided by the Commission addresses the 
difficulty  many  stakeholders  have  been  facing  to  identify  the  right  channels  and  the  information 
course.  
expected 

complaints 

launch 

follow 

them 

from 

their 

and 

to 

to 

The  SEP  also  benefits  from  a  more  streamlined  approach  to  managing  work  on  barriers  inside  the 
Directorate-General  for  Trade  and  across  the  wider  set  of  services  in  the  Commission,  which  are 
concerned by potential barriers. While keeping all barriers under review, some are prioritised based on 
their legal strength, their economic or systemic importance and the perspective for their removal.  

… making it easier to prepare stronger cases 

The  SEP  can  be  accessed via  the  online  platform  Access2Markets  (see  section III.  A  above),  which 
allows  to  submit  complaints  on-line75.  Since  its  announcement  in  summer  2020  the  SEP  has  been 
contacted  more  than  60  times  with  regard  to  possible  complaints  resulting  in  17  formal  complaints 
received. 

… and helping the Commission to react faster and with greater effect…  

The Single Entry Point is already making a real difference  to the way the Commission works on 
barriers. As the below example shows, receiving the right information at an early stage heightens the 
chances  of  addressing  barriers  successfully  through  the  full  range  of  formal  and  informal  channels 
available.  

  Example:  Egypt/ceramic  tiles:  A  recent  example  is  the  temporary  import  ban  imposed  by 
Egypt  on  ceramic  tiles.  EU  companies,  acting  through  their  industry  association,  with  the 
help of the new one-stop-shop facility were able to act swiftly and, guided by the complaint 
form, were able to put together the information required only days after Egypt had published 
the measures. This allowed the Commission, with the help of the EU Delegation, to engage 
with  the  Egyptian  authorities  at  an  early  stage,  including  via  diplomatic  contacts  and  by 
exchanging letters. In March 2021, following the initial three months’ period, Egypt decided 
not to extend it and thus the measure has now expired.  

At the same time, it is to be noted that all formal complaints to date have focused on market access 
barriers and not yet on sustainable development, reflecting the additional complexity of potential cases 
in that area, but also the greater familiarity of business stakeholders with the existing market access 
work.  The  Commission  is  regularly  reviewing  its  operating  guidelines  on  the  SEP  as  needed  and  is 
adjusting  them,  considering  comments  from  stakeholders.76  This  is  important  as  the  new  complaint 
system  comes  with  a  responsibility  for  business  and  other  stakeholders  to  provide  well-argued  and 
substantiated cases, wherever possible. Where this is done, the Commission will be well equipped to 
respond. In addition, the Commission always reserves the right to become active on its own initiative 
(by  launching  ex  officio  cases),  both  on  barriers  related  to  market  access  and  to  infringements  of 
commitments on TSD.  

75 Complaints on market access or regarding violations of  TSD commitments can now be made on-line via the 
corresponding forms on the Access2Markets portal. 
76 First update taking account of stakeholders’ input was made in September and can be accessed at 
https://ec.europa.eu/trade/trade-policy-and-you/contacts/chief-trade-enforcement-officer/    

34 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
V.   Bilateral and multilateral enforcement of trade 
commitments: resolving disputes77 
Effective upstream work on implementation, on pre-empting potential barriers and on tackling actual 
barriers  before  they  become  entrenched  is  at  the  heart  of  the  Commission’s  new  approach  to 
implementation and enforcement. However, this work must be backed up by effective legal procedures 
for resolving disputes, to be used when necessary.  

V.1   Use of dispute settlement 

A.  WTO dispute settlement  

WTO dispute settlement remains important for effective enforcement, despite the current blockage 
of its Appellate Body function 

The  WTO  dispute  settlement  system  produces  independent  and  impartial  rulings,  binding  for  the 
parties  to  the  dispute,  which  can  be  appealed,  guaranteeing  the  quality  and  legitimacy  of  those 
rulings. 

The WTO offers a tried and tested dispute settlement system that can be used by the EU to enforce its 
WTO rights when other WTO Members do not respect their commitments. Up to June 2021, the EU 
had launched 104 of the 600 disputes brought to the WTO since 1995.  

In  the  period  covered  by  this  report,  the  EU  brought  a  significant  number  of  dispute  settlement 
proceedings. While the timelines of WTO disputes have inevitably been affected by the COVID-19 
pandemic, the EU has actively promoted and supported measures in the WTO to keep the disputes on 
track, such as having panel hearings in virtual or hybrid form.  

77 For a detailed summary of, in particular, WTO cases involving the EU as complainant or respondent and cases 
under the EU’s bilateral agreements, see the most up-to-date edition of the ‘Overview of the EU’s active dispute 
settlement cases’, published on DG Trade’s website (https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/dispute-
settlement/ ).   

35 

 
 
                                                           
WTO dispute settlement proceedings 

-Panel  proceedings  continued  in  a  number  of  disputes  initiated  by  the  EU,  including:  against 
Turkey  in  the  Pharmaceutical  Products  case  (DS583);  against  Colombia  concerning  anti-dumping 
duties  on  frozen  fries  from  Belgium,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  (DS591);  against  India  over 
excessive  Indian  tariffs  on  certain  goods  in  the  information  and  communications  technology  sector 
(DS582); and against the US concerning certain measures on steel and aluminium products (DS548) 
and anti-dumping and countervailing duties on ripe olives from Spain (DS577). 

-The EU advanced to the panel stage its dispute concerning Indonesia’s nickel ore export ban as well 
as  Indonesia’s  domestic  processing  requirements  affecting  nickel  ore  and  iron  ore.  A  panel  was 
composed on 29 April 2021 in Indonesia — Measures Relating to Raw Materials (DS592). 

-In October 2020, in the EU’s dispute against the US concerning Large Civil Aircraft (DS353), the 
WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body authorised the EU to suspend concessions in relation to the US up to 
the level of nearly four billion USD annually. Following the actual imposition of countermeasures by 
the  EU  on  10  November  2020,  and  the  mutual  suspension  of  countermeasures  by  the  EU  and  the 
United  States  on  5  March  2021  for  a  four-month  period,  an  Understanding  on  a  cooperative 
framework for Large Civil Aircraft was reached on 15 June 2021, according to which countermeasures 
remain suspended for a further period of five years. 

B.  Bilateral dispute settlement  

In  2020  the  Commission  continued  its  litigation  work  under  the  dispute  settlement  provisions  of 
bilateral trade agreements … 

Dispute  settlement  procedures  that  are  found  in  31  of  the  37  EU  trade  agreements  covered  by  this 
report  favour,  as  a  first  step,  mutually  agreeable  solutions  through  consultations.  This  is  feasible  in 
cases where there is good will on both sides to swiftly address imbalances and to remove trade irritants 
detected in monitoring compliance with those agreements.  

Where a mutually agreeable solution does not appear possible through consultations, either side may 
request the establishment of a dispute settlement panel.  

Since  2018,  the  EU  has  requested  dispute  settlement  under  four  bilateral  trade  agreements:  the 
Association  Agreement  with  Ukraine,  the  Free  Trade  Agreement  with  the  Republic  of  Korea,  the 
Economic Partnership Agreement with the Southern African Development Community (SADC)78, 
and  the  Association  Agreement  with  Algeria.  Steps  taken  in  2020  and  early  2021  include  the 
following: 

 

In April 2020, the EU asked for the establishment of an arbitration panel with the  Southern 
African Customs Union (SACU)79 under the EU’s Economic Partnership Agreement with the 
Southern African Development Community (SADC)80 in relation to safeguard measures taken 
against  EU  poultry  exports.  The  panel  selection  process,  which  had  been  temporarily 

78 The EU-SADC EPA applies between the EU and six countries from the Southern African Development 
Community (SADC): Eswatini, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia and South Africa. 
79 5 Members of SADC (Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Eswatini) formed a customs union.  
80 https://www.sadc.int/about-sadc/overview/ ) 

36 

 
 
                                                           
suspended  due  to  the  public  health  situation,  was  restarted  on  22  November  2020  and  is 
ongoing. 

  Also in June 2020, the Commission seized the Association Council under its agreement with 
Algeria to address a number of import restrictive measures including an import ban imposed 
by Algeria on cars. As a result, constructive discussions between the EU and Algeria covering 
all challenged measures started in September 2020 were held in numerous rounds in 2021 in 
order to resolve the dispute in an amicable settlements. 

 

 

In  relation  to  Korea,  following  delays  linked  to,  among  other  things,  the  COVID-19 
pandemic, the Panel of Experts in January 2021 gave its ruling on the case brought by the EU 
regarding  Korea’s  obligation  under  the  FTA    to  ratify  fundamental  ILO  Conventions  and 
regarding trade union legislation, see above, section II.2 C.  

In the case of Ukraine, a panel found on 11 December 2020 in the EU’s favour as regards a 
ban on wood exports to the EU. Ukraine informed the EU in writing on 29 June 2021 of its 
progress to comply with the arbitration panel ruling’ but was not in a position to notify any 
measure that it has taken to comply with the panel ruling.  

37 

 
 
 
Ukraine Dispute Settlement Case 

In 2005, Ukraine started applying an export prohibition concerning a number of wood species in the 
form  of  unprocessed  wood  and  sawn  wood.  Between  2015  and  2017,  Ukraine extended  the  product 
scope of this  export  prohibition  to  cover the  export  of  all  unprocessed wood.  As  political  efforts 
failed to resolve the issue, the Commission decided on 22 November 2018 to start dispute settlement 
proceedings with Ukraine under the bilateral EU-Ukraine Association Agreement (an arbitration panel 
was established on 28 January 2020).  

The approach taken by the European Commission in this case was underpinned not only by a strong 
legal  basis  but  also  by  the  economic  impact  of  the  Ukrainian  export  ban.  Whereas  Ukraine  has 
become in the meantime the second largest import source of (processed) softwood lumber for China, 
imports into the EU of unprocessed wood from Ukraine fell from 2 million tons in 2015 (14% of EU 
imports)  to  a  negligible  2  000  tons  in  2019,  thus  potentially  seriously  impacting  the  availability  of 
relevant raw materials for the EU wood processing industry.  

The  arbitration  panel  issued  its  final  ruling  on  11  December  2020,  concluding  that  the  Ukrainian 
export  ban  on  unprocessed  wood  was  incompatible  with  Article  35  of  the  EU-Ukraine  Association 
Agreement, which forbids export prohibitions. The ruling also  clarified that the relevant exceptions 
did not apply, rejecting Ukraine’s claim that the export ban on unprocessed timber was legitimately 
designed to protect Ukrainian forests. The panel only upheld this line of argument for a very narrow 
earlier export ban on sawn wood of ten very rarely traded wood species.  

The  case  illustrates  the  EU’s  policy  of  taking  assertive  action  against  export  restrictions,  as  they 
pose a  systemic threat to international trade. This was also reflected by the EU’s and other trading 
partners’ action against certain Chinese restrictions on raw materials, or – more recently – the launch 
by the EU of a WTO dispute settlement case against Indonesia’s export ban on nickel ore (DS592  – 
see box on WTO dispute settlement proceedings). 

V.2  Renewing the pools of arbitrators and experts in TSD  

In December 2020, the Commission called for applications in connection with the renewal of the pool 
of  arbitrators  and  the  separate  pool  of  TSD  experts  for  dispute  settlement  panels  under  trade 
agreements  to  which  the  EU  is  a  party.  A  selection  panel  of  experienced  international  judges  and 
academics will examine the applications to confirm their suitability for appointment.  

In  line  with  Commission’s  adherence  to  the  “Equal  Representation  in  Arbitration  Pledge”,  the 
Commission will seek to ensure gender balance in its proposals to the Council for rosters of arbitrators 
and experts, as well as in the appointment of arbitrators or of experts in TSD in specific disputes. 

V.3 

 Responding to obstacles to dispute resolution 

With  the  work  of  the  WTO  Appellate  Body  blocked,  the  European  Union  has  been  to  the  fore  in 
efforts to find a temporary workaround pending a lasting solution….. 

The  WTO  Appellate  Body  has  been  paralysed  since  December  2019,  due  to  a  blockage  on 
appointments. It is therefore possible that disputes do not reach a binding conclusion where the losing 
party  appeals  a  panel  report  to  a  non-functioning  Appellate  Body  and  refuses  to  agree  to  appeal 
arbitration  under  the  WTO  rules.  A  growing  number  of  such  cases  cannot  currently  be  processed, 
which  has  a  negative  effect  on  the  stability  and  predictability  of  the  environment  for  international 

38 

 
 
 
trade.  The  Multi-party  interim  appeal  arbitration  arrangement  (MPIA),  described  below,  seeks  to 
address this problem. 

A.  

Brokering the Multi-party Interim Appeal Arbitration Agreement (MPIA) 

The  “Multi-party  interim  appeal  arbitration  arrangement”  offers  participants  binding  and 
independent dispute settlement under WTO rules, and the possibility of appeals… 

In  April 2020, the EU and a group of other WTO Members set up the  Multi-party interim appeal 
arbitration arrangement, known as the ‘MPIA’. This arrangement – which any WTO Member can 
join – means that participants commit to having any appeals in WTO disputes between them dealt with 
through appeal arbitration under the WTO rules while the Appellate Body remains unable to function 
fully. 

Based on existing WTO rules, the MPIA preserves, among its participants and for as long as the 
Appellate Body is unable to function fully, a right of appeal in WTO disputes, as well as the right 
to  binding  and  independent  adjudication  of  trade  disputes.  This  means  that,  in  relation  to  the  other 
MPIA participants, the EU continues to benefit from  a fully functioning, two-tier dispute settlement 
system under WTO rules, despite the Appellate Body crisis. In addition, by preserving the possibility 
of such dispute settlement among its participants, the MPIA  generally contributes to stability and to 
the  preservation  of  rules-based  trade.  Up  to  30  June  2021,  the  MPIA  covered  25  WTO  Members81. 
These  include  major  WTO  dispute  settlement  users  and  represent  around  half  of  the  world’s  gross 
domestic product. In July 2020, the participating WTO Members established a 10-strong standing pool 
of  appeal  arbitrators,  from  which  three  arbitrators  per  case  are  to  be  selected  randomly  to  hear  any 
appeals covered by the MPIA.  

The MPIA has been implemented in several disputes where the parties are both MPIA participants, 
through  the  signature  of  appeal  arbitration  agreements  corresponding  to  the  MPIA  model.  These 
disputes  include  the  EU’s  case  against  Colombia  concerning  anti-dumping  duties  on  frozen  fries 
imported from certain EU Member States (DS591). Accordingly, if the EU succeeds at the panel stage 
this case, Colombia cannot seek to frustrate that outcome through an appeal before a non-functioning 
Appellate Body.  

B.      Strengthening the EU Enforcement Regulation (ER)  

Changes  to  the  EU’s  Enforcement  Regulation  allow  the  EU  to  counter  attempts  by  partners  to 
prevent WTO or bilateral disputes reaching a conclusive decision 

By  amending  its  ‘Enforcement  Regulation’  the  EU  broadened  its  possibilities  for  exercising  and 
enforcing its international rights more assertively. The  amendments  introduced by  Regulation (EU) 
2021/167,  which  came  into  force  on  13  February  2021,  strengthen  the  EU’s  capacity  to  act  in  two 
important respects.  

  First,  the  amendments  allow  the  EU  to  suspend  or  to  withdraw  its  obligations  towards  a 
trading  partner  in  situations  of  a  breach  of  international  trade  rules  or  commitments  by  that 

81 The EU, Australia, Benin, Brazil, Canada, China, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, the European Union, 
Guatemala, Hong Kong (China), Iceland, Mexico, Montenegro, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Pakistan, 
Singapore, Switzerland, Ukraine, Uruguay and Peru.  

39 

 
 
 
                                                           
trading partner towards the EU where that trading partner seeks to thwart the final and binding 
conclusion  of  the  dispute  settlement  processes  concerned,  be  they  under  the  WTO  Dispute 
Settlement  Understanding  or  in  relation  to  bilateral  or  regional  trade  agreements.  In  other 
words, the amendments concern situations where, despite the EU’s good faith and best efforts, 
a binding ruling on a trade dispute on breached EU’s rights cannot be obtained. This could be 
due to the failure of the counterparty (the EU’s trading partner) to take the required action (for 
example, refusing to appoint arbitrators under an international trade agreement of the EU) or 
to  the  counterparty  appealing  a  WTO  panel  report  to  the  non-functioning  WTO  Appellate 
Body  and  not  agreeing  to  interim  appeal  arbitration  under  Article  25  of  the  WTO  Dispute 
Settlement  Understanding.  Enforcement  action  through  the  suspension  or  withdrawal  of  the 
EU’s  obligations  towards  the  trading  partner  concerned  will  effectively  defend  the  EU’s 
economic interests.  

  Second,  those  amendments  also  broaden the  scope  of  possible  countermeasures by  allowing 
the EU to take countermeasures in trade in services and in some trade-related aspects of IPR. 
The  EU’s  range  of  options  for  enforcement  measures  is  thus  significantly  wider  and  better 
adapted to today’s knowledge-based society. Providing for such measures corresponds to the 
seriousness the EU attaches to the respect of commitments by its trading partners. 

40