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: 2022-10-11
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, 11.10.2022  COM(2022) 730 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(2022) 730 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

I. 

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

I.1 

The Report ............................................................................................................................. 2 

Implementation  and  enforcement  of 

trade  commitments  under 
I.2 
multilateral and bilateral agreements – main developments ......................................................... 3 

international 

II.  Making full use of the opportunities provided by EU trade agreements ............................. 9 

II.1  Trade with preferential partners - main developments in 2021 ........................................ 9 

II.2  
Advancing  implementation  of  EU  trade  agreements  in  Asia,  The  Americas,  the 
Neighbourhood and the African Caribbean and Pacific countries ............................................. 14 

III.  Helping small and medium-sized enterprises to find their place in global trade .............. 27 

IV.  Addressing barriers and finding solutions ............................................................................ 33 

IV.1  State of play of trade barriers and removal ...................................................................... 33 

IV.2  The Single Entry Point for complaints .............................................................................. 44 

V.  Bilateral and multilateral enforcement of trade commitments: resolving disputes .......... 47 

V.1  Use of dispute settlement..................................................................................................... 47 

V.2  Renewal of pools of adjudicators for disputes under EU agreements ............................ 51 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I. 

Introduction  

I.1 

The Report 

This  is  the  Commission’s  second  consolidated  annual  report1  on  trade  implementation  and 
enforcement  actions.  It  provides  an  overview  of  the  main  activities  to  ensure  effective 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  trade  agreements  and  arrangements,  steered  by  the 
Commission’s  Chief  Trade  Enforcement  Officer  (CTEO)2  in  2021  and  the  first  quarter  of 
2022.   

The Report covers action in four priority areas:  

1.  Ensuring  the  opportunities  provided  by  EU  trade  agreements  are  fully  used  (section 

II);  

2.  Helping Small and Medium-sized Enterprises find their place in global trade (section 

III);  

3.  Tackling  trade  barriers  and  resolving  problems  outside  formal  disputes  (section  IV) 

and 

4.  Using bilateral or multilateral dispute mechanisms to enforce EU rights (section V).  

The  accompanying  Staff  Working  Document3  contains  additional  information  completing 
section  II.2  of  the  Report  on  38  major  EU  trade  agreements,  including  for  the  first  time  a 
country  sheet  on  the  EU-UK  Trade  and  Cooperation  Agreement  (EU-UK  TCA).  The  Staff 
Working Document also provides information completing section IV.1 of the Report, notably 
a list of new barriers registered and those fully or partially resolved in 2021.  

The Commission’s website4 has complementary information to this report on the evolution of 
EU trade with preferential partners in 2021, the use of tariff preferences by EU exports and 
imports as per preferential trading partner, both for the EU and Member States and on the fill 
rates of tariff rate quotas. 

While this report focuses on implementation and enforcement through our action under trade 
agreements, it should also be seen in a broader context of enforcement activities on which the 
Commission reports separately:  

1 The first report was published on 27 October 2021 and is available here : 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2021)654&lang=en  
2 Information about the role of the CTEO can be accessed here : https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-
and-protection/chief-trade-enforcement-officer_en  
3 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/7fc51410-46a1-4871-8979-20cce8df0896/library/d41271f9-a025-42b2-
b5dd-e318430d510d/details?download=true 
4 Commission/DG TRADE; implementation and enforcement page: 
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/enforcement-and-protection/implementing-and-enforcing-eu-trade-
agreements_en  

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  The use of trade defence instruments (anti-dumping, anti-subsidies and safeguards) 
to  defend  EU  interests  against  unfair  practices  are  covered  by  the  Commission’s 
annual Trade Defence Reports5; 

  Activities to tackle counterfeit goods or other infringements of intellectual property 
rights (IPR) of EU companies are covered by the Commission’s alternating biennial 
publications of the Counterfeit and Piracy Watchlist6 and IPR report7; 

  The  screening  of  foreign  direct  investments  and  the  control  of  dual  use  exports, 
which constitute the EU’s strategic trade and investment controls for security (STICS), 
are  covered  by  the  Commission’s  annual  reports  on  FDI  screening8  and  on  export 
control regulation9;  

  The application of the EU General Scheme of Preferences (GSP) regime10 to provide 
developing  countries  eligible  a  special  incentive  to  pursue  sustainable  development 
and good governance is covered by the Commission’s GSP report. 

I.2 

Implementation and enforcement of international trade commitments 
under multilateral and bilateral agreements – main developments  

This  second  report  confirms  the  Commission’s  determination  to  ensure  that  businesses, 
workers and stakeholders across the EU can draw the full benefits of international trade, but 
also  that EU trading  partners around the world  live up to the commitments they have taken 
either multilaterally or bilaterally.  

The  successful  outcome  in  June  2022  at  the  World  Trade  Organisation’s  (WTO) 
Ministerial  Conference  in  Geneva,  notably  the  commitment  to  reform  the  organisation, 
including  its  dispute  settlement  mechanism,  shows  the  relevance  of  the  WTO.  It  forms  the 
backdrop  to  EU  trade  partnerships  around  the  world  and  is  a  cornerstone  of  the  EU’s 
enforcement agenda with some of the EU’s largest trading partners and a backstop for others 
with whom the EU has bilateral trade agreements in place.  

The  EU  in  2021  had  4211  preferential  trade  agreements  in  place  with  74  partners.  This 
network of agreements continued to play an important role over the reporting period (i.e. 2021 

5 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=comnat:COM_2022_0470_FIN  
6 The last Piracy Watchlist was published on 14 December 2020 and is available here: 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/december/tradoc_159183.pdf  
7 The latest IPR report is available here: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/april/tradoc_159553.pdf  
8 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2022)433&lang=en 
9 https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/documents-register/detail?ref=COM(2022)434&lang=en 
10 The last report on the application of the GSP regulation was published on 10 February 2020: 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2020/february/tradoc_158619.pdf  
11 These trade agreements are the 38 agreements contained in the 2022 Staff Working Document and the trade 
agreements with Andorra, Faroe Islands, Iceland, Liechtenstein and San Marino.  A map of all trade agreements 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
and the first quarter of 2022), as businesses in the EU and around the world emerged from the 
aftermath  of  the  COVID  pandemic.  However,  that  impact  depends  on  those  agreements  – 
alongside  international  trade  rules  –  being  properly  implemented  and  enforced.  The 
disruptions created by COVID have also impacted trade flows, had knock on impacts on the 
cost  of living and made it harder for businesses  of all sizes to navigate foreign markets.  As 
this report shows there has  been a continuing trend among certain  partners to  look inwards, 
imposing discriminatory trade  restrictions designed to  favour local  production and domestic 
industry. The EU has been ready to act where such barriers appear.  

Events during the first months of 2022 have brought this into even sharper relief as a result of 
Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine.  The  resulting  disruption  of  markets  and  supply 
chains  as  nations  take  measures  in  response  only  highlights  the  importance  of  open  trade, 
shared values and finding alternative opportunities to keep trade flowing into and out of the 
EU.  With  energy  prices  on  the  rise  and  shortages  in  raw  materials  including  agricultural 
products,  the  EU’s  network  of  trade  agreements  is  a  major  asset  to  keep  markets  open  and 
help companies diversify their supply chains.  

Two other important developments over the reporting period can also be signalled: 

  First,  following  the  end  of  the  transition  period  foreseen  by  the  Withdrawal 
Agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom and the provisional application 
of the EU-UK TCA on 1 January 2021, the United Kingdom (covered by the report) 
has become the EU’s first preferential12 trading partner, which meant that the share of 
EU trade with preferential partners jumped from 32% to 44% compared to 2020. This 
also had an impact on the EU’s surplus with preferential partners in goods, which has 
grown from €124 billion in 2020 – albeit on a much reduced level of trade because of 
COVID  -  to  €208  billion  in  2021.  The  EU-UK  TCA  is  a  ‘sui  generis’  agreement, 
which raises challenges of a very particular nature as the United Kingdom’s status has 
moved from a Member State with full access to the internal market to a third country 
partner.  The  Commission  issued  a  separate  report  on  the  implementation  and 
application of the EU-UK TCA in 2021 on 24 March 2022.13 Implementation in 2021 
focussed on accompanying companies in this transition, including by clarifying some 
aspects of United Kingdom rules and systems, while replying to trade barriers that risk 
to harm EU stakeholders. 

the  EU 

is  available  here:  https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/09242a36-a438-40fd-a7af-

concluded  by 
fe32e36cbd0e/library/0e05d6f3-64f5-4661-ae0c-aefb68094d19/details  
12  This  report  only  covers  ‘preferential’  trade  agreements  applied  in  2021.  For  the  purposes  of  this  report, 
“preferential” refers to agreements that establish a free trade area or liberalise trade in services and are therefore 
exempted from GATT and GATS MFN.   
13 
agreement-between-european-union-and-united-kingdom-great-britain-and-northern-ireland_en  

https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/annual-report-implementation-and-application-trade-and-cooperation-

4 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
  Second,  2021  saw  a  major  improvement  in  the  transatlantic  relationship  with  the 
United States, with  solutions  to  several  important  and long-standing disputes, and a 
new dynamic created in cooperation around the Trade and Technology Council.14  

Over  the  reporting  period,  the  EU  continued  to  push  forward  with  its  implementation  and 
enforcement related agenda on four main fronts and its actions have borne fruit as the below 
examples illustrate:  

First, the Commission further intensified efforts to facilitate the uptake of concrete benefits 
offered  by  trade  agreements,  in  particular  by  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs), 
while addressing market access and sustainability issues:  

  Over  three  million  users  (72%  from  the  EU)  have  visited  the  Commission’s 
Access2Markets15  platform  (that  covers  135  export  markets,  as  well  as  all  EU 
countries);  new  content  has  been  added  on  parts  of  EU  services  trade  and 
procurement; the Rules of Origin Self-Assessment Tool (ROSA) has been improved;  

 

In  2021,  39  existing  trade  barriers  were  fully  or  partially  resolved  (six  more  than  in 
2020), mostly through the EU’s cooperative engagement with the 24 trading partners 
concerned; furthermore, in 2021 EU exports to third countries were €7.2 billion higher 
thanks  to  5  years  of  work  on  removing  barriers  between  2015  and  2020;  the  Single 
Entry Point16 was taken up by stakeholders and, in 2021 and the first four months of 
2022 it has been contacted more than 60 times by EU stakeholders and 46 complaints 
were introduced on market access issues17;  

  The two cases flagged in the 2021 Report under the EU Trade Barriers Regulation18 
were  successfully  resolved  by  Mexico  on  tequila  exports  (Commission  closed  its 
investigation  on  4  February  2022)  and  are  close  to  be  resolved  by  Saudi  Arabia  on 
ceramic tiles.  

Second, the Commission continued to pursue or initiate legal enforcement cases at the WTO 
and through its bilateral agreements: 

  WTO  litigation:  Up  to  30  April  2022,  the  EU  had  brought  110  of  the  612  WTO 
disputes  launched  since  1995.  The  Commission  continued  to  pursue  and  defend  on-
going  cases,  while  in  the  early  2022  it  launched  four  new  cases,  of  which  2  against 

14 The TTC was launched in June 2021: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_2990  
15 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/home  
16 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content/single-entry-point-0  
17 The first complaint on TSD was brought in May 2022 and is not covered by this report. 
18 Regulation (EU) 2015/1843 of the  European Parliament and of the  Council of 6 October 2015 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 
 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Organization 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32015R1843  

(codification);  OJ  L 

16.10.2015, 

1–13; 

272, 

p. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
China, 1 against Egypt and 1 against the United Kingdom. The latter case concerned 
the  sector  of  wind  energy:  as  early  as  on  1  July,  less  than  four  months  after  the  EU 
asked for WTO consultations, the parties agreed on a way forward to address the EU’s 
concerns  about  discrimination  in  the  United  Kingdom’s  Contracts  for  Difference 
(CfD) scheme, which is  the United Kingdom’s main mechanism for supporting low-
carbon electricity generation.  

  Up to 30 April 2022, around half the disputes launched in the WTO since the Multi-
Party  Interim  Appeal  Arbitration  Arrangement  (MPIA)  has  been  in  place  have  been 
between MPIA participants, while with Turkey the EU agreed a separate arbitration 
agreement  to  handle  potential  appeals  in  two  cases  (see  more  information  in  section 
V). 

  The EU pursued its use of bilateral dispute settlement mechanisms to resolve issues 
with  South  Korea,  the  Southern  African  Customs  Union,  and  Algeria,  while 
enforcement  of  the  ruling  against  Ukraine  is  on  hold  in  view  of  political 
developments.  

Third  to  complete  its  toolbox  and  address  current  global  challenges  in  a  number  of  areas, 
notably to support green and sustainable transitions, the Commission  

(the  “TSD  Review”), 

  Concluded the accelerated review of its 15 point action plan on trade and sustainable 
to 
development19 
implementation  and  enforcement,  by  issuing  on  22  June  2022  its  Communication 
““The  power  of  trade  partnerships:  together  for  green  and  just  economic 
growth””20; 

including  on 

the  aspects 

relating 

  Has  been  progressing  its  proposal  to  renew  the  general  scheme  of  preferences:  A 
new  GSP  regulation21  based  on  a  Commission  proposal  of  22  September  2021  is 
discussed with the European Parliament and with the Council, with a view to have a 
final  text  adopted  by  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  in  the  last  quarter  of 
2022. 

Fourth, the Commission has also advanced work on other important new EU instruments 
currently  before  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  or  just  adopted,  to  ensure  a 
level playing field and defend the EU and its Member States against economic coercion: 

19  Refer  to  the  Non-paper  of  the  Commission  services:  “Feedback  and  way  forward  on  improving  the 
implementation and enforcement of TSD Chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements of 26 February 2018” 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/february/tradoc_156618.pdf 
For  more 
sustainability/sustainable-development/sustainable-development-eu-trade-agreements_en#tsd-review-2021 
20 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/8a31feb6-d901-421f-a607-ebbdd7d59ca0/library/8c5821b3-2b18-43a1-
b791-2df56b673900/details 
21 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/september/tradoc_159803.pdf  

review:  https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/development-and-

information 

the  TSD 

about 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  Council and European Parliament on 14 March 2022 have found political agreement 
on  all  outstanding  issues  related  to  a  Commission  proposal  for  an  International 
Procurement Instrument.22 With this regulation, the EU will, ultimately, be able to 
restrict  access  to  the  EU's  procurement  markets  of  suppliers  from  countries  where 
similar  access  to  their  procurement  does  not  exist.  These  restrictions  could  mean 
adjusting  the  way  bids  from  the  country  concerned  are  assessed,  or  result  in  the 
exclusion of certain bidders from the country concerned. The regulation was published 
on 30 June and entered into force on 29 August 2022.   

  Council  and  European  Parliament  on  30  June  reached  a  political  agreement  on  the 
Commission  proposal  of  5  May  2021  for  a  Regulation  on  distortions  generated  by 
foreign subsidies23 in the internal market, which closes a regulatory gap in the EU’s 
competition, public procurement and trade rules: with this instrument, the Commission 
will have the power to investigate financial contributions granted by public authorities 
of a non-EU country, which benefit companies engaging in an economic activity (such 
as  procurement  or  mergers)  in  the  EU  and  redress  their  distortive  effects.  The 
regulation  will  enter  into  force  once  it  is  formally  adopted  by  the  Council  and  the 
Parliament and published in the Official Journal. The Regulation will become directly 
applicable across the EU 6 months after entry into force. The notification obligations 
will start to apply 9 months after entry into force.  

  The  Commission  on  8  December  2021  put  forward  a  proposal  for  an  anti-coercion 
instrument24 to ensure the protection of the interests of the EU and Member States in 
case  of  economic  coercion  –  namely  when  a  third  country  pressures  the  EU  or  a 
Member  State  into  a  particular  choice,  in  any  areas  of  their  competence,  through 
measures  affecting  trade  or  investment.  The  primary  objective  of  the  proposed 
instrument is to deter third countries from using economic coercion towards the EU or 
a  Member  State.  If  a  third  country  resorts  to  coercion  nevertheless,  the  proposal 
provides  for  a  process  of  engagement  with  the  third  country  in  order  to  make  the 
coercion  stop,  and in  the last resort it provides tools for counteraction. The proposal 
also  contains  a  provision  dedicated  to  international  cooperation  with  regard  to 
economic  coercion.  The  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  are  in  the  process  of 
preparing 
inter-institutional 
negotiations, which are expected to start in the autumn of 2022. 

their  respective  positions  for  entering 

into 

the 

22 Text of the Regulation is available here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/NL/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022R1031  
23 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  
24 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/december/tradoc_159958.pdf  

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
In  taking  its  implementation  and  enforcement  work  forward,  the  Commission  is  moving 
forward in a close partnership with other EU institutions and Member States, in particular. In 
the first quarter of 2022, the Commission, supported by the French Presidency, has launched a 
broader  discussion25  on  how  to  strengthen  cooperation  on  implementation  and  enforcement 
with  Member  States  and  stakeholders  (businesses,  trade  promotion  organisations,  social 
partners,  civil  society  groups,  non-governmental  organisations),  both  working  through 
Brussels,  but  also  on  the  ground  in  Member  States  and  in  third  countries,  where  there  are 
more than 200 DG TRADE staff working on trade issues in 58 EU Delegations  year round. 
The Commission has also regularly reported to the EP/INTA committee to update MEPs on 
the  most  salient  issues  related  to  implementation  and  enforcement  and  received  their  feed-
back.  Finally,  it  has  also  engaged  with  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  particularly 
given the latter’s  role in supporting  the EU Domestic Advisory Groups (DAGs)  established 
under 11 EU trade agreements.  

25 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/7fc51410-46a1-4871-8979-20cce8df0896/library/7103f3c9-2dc5-4bc5-
be52-210c133802ca/details?download=true 

8 

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

agreements 

II.1  Trade with preferential partners - main developments in 2021 

In 2021, 44% of EU trade took place under preferential trade agreements... 

EU trade with its 7426 preferential partners amounted to €1,891 billion in 2021, covering 44% 
of its external trade (that is, excluding trade between Member States)27. In 2021, EU exports 
to preferential partners reached €1,049 billion and EU imports from the same set of countries 
amounted to €841 billion. Adding trade with the partners with whom the EU has concluded 
negotiations on agreements, which are in the process of being adopted or ratified (3.4%),28 the 
share of EU preferential trade in its total external trade would rise to 47,4%. 

Figure 1: EU external trade (2021)  

Other partners
52,5%

Trade agreements 
in place -
Preferential
44,0%

Trade agreements 
under adoption or 
ratification
3,4%

Source: Eurostat, Comext (extraction made in March 2022).  

As  shown  by  figure  2  below,  the  United  Kingdom  is  now  the  EU’s  largest  preferential 
partner,  accounting  for  22.8%  of  EU  trade  with  the  74  preferential  partners,  followed  by 
Switzerland (14.8%), Turkey (8.3%), Norway (6.9%) and Japan (6.6%). Together, these five 

26 These partners are the 67 mentioned in the 2021 Annual Report plus the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Andorra, 
Faroe Islands, Iceland, Liechtenstein and San Marino.  
27 The 44% (blue slice in the graphic) also includes Mexico and Chile, with whom the EU applies the existing 
trade agreements, pending the ratification of the modernised agreements. 
28 In addition to New Zealand and the Mercosur partners (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) these are: 
Benin,  Burkina  Faso,  Burundi,  Cabo  Verde,  Gambia,  Guinea,  Guinea  Bissau,  Haiti,  Kenya,  Liberia,  Mali, 
Mauritania,  Niger,  Nigeria,  Ruanda,  Senegal,  Sierra  Leone,  Tanzania,  Togo  and  Uganda    (state  of  play  July 
2022);  see  also:  https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/negotiations-and-
agreements_en  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
partners accounted for almost 60% of EU preferential trade in 2021. The United Kingdom is 
the EU’s third largest trading partner overall, behind China and the U.S., while Switzerland 
comes  fourth.  Turkey,  Norway,  Japan  and  South  Korea  are  in  sixth  to  ninth  place  behind 
Russia and ahead of India.  

Figure 2: EU trade in goods by preferential partner (2021) 

Other preferential 
partners
23,1%

United Kingdom
22,8%

Vietnam
2,6%

Ukraine
2,8%

Canada
3,2%

Mexico
3,2%

Switzerland
14,8%

South Korea
5,7%

Japan
6,6%

Norway
6,9%

Turkey
8,3%

Source: Eurostat, Comext (extraction made in March 2022).  

EU goods trade with preferential partners (not including the United Kingdom) grew again 
more strongly than EU international trade overall….. 

As was the case for the period between 2019 and 2020, trade between the EU and preferential 
partners  grew  more  strongly  (i.e.  by  19.5%)  between  2020  and  2021  than  overall  trade 
between the EU and all trading partners (17.6%) over the same time period.  

…while growth was lower including the United Kingdom  

As  seen  in  figure  3,  trade  between  the  EU  and  its  preferential  partners  plus  the  United 
Kingdom  increased  by  13.3%,  i.e.  at  a  lower  rate  than  trade  between  the  EU  and  all  third 
countries  (which  had  grown  by  17.6%)  and  trade  between  the  EU  and  non-FTA  partners 
(which had grown by 21.3%) over the same period.  

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3: Annual trade growth by partner (2020-2021)- goods  

All trading
partners

Preferential
partners

Preferential

partners minus UK Non-FTA partners

23,0%

17,6%

12,8%

15,4%

13,3%

11,6%

24,0%

19,5%

15,7%

28,6%

21,3%

13,9%

Imports

Exports

Total trade

Source: Eurostat, Comext (extraction made in March 2022).  

Similarly  than  was  the  case  for  all  goods,  EU  agri-food  trade  with  the  74  preferential 
partners grew by 4.7% in 2021, thus more modestly than agri-food trade between the EU and 
all trading partners (which grew by  7.2%),  although  EU exports rose slightly more strongly 
(i.e. by 8.2%) than exports of EU agricultural food products to all trading partners, which rose 
by  7.3%.  This  trend  was  driven  mainly  by  EU  imports  from  the  United  Kingdom,  which 
suffered a sharp decrease in 2021 (by 24.5%), and were more affected then imports in non-
agricultural  products,  which  decreased  by  12%  over  the  same  period.  Among  the  possible 
reasons were the introduction of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks applied by the EU, 
but  also  difficulties  experienced  by  United  Kingdom  operators  to  switch  from  the  single 
market regime to a third country trade regime for large parts of their exports.    

At the same time, the EU surplus with preferential partners increased in 2021 

On the other hand, the inclusion of the United Kingdom among the EU’s preferential partners 
also  led  to  an  increase  in  the  EU’s  surplus  with  preferential  partners  in  goods,  which  grew 
from  €124  billion  in  2020  to  €208  billion  in  2021,  albeit  on  a  much  reduced  level  of  trade 
because  of  COVID.  Around  20%  of  the  EU’s  surplus  with  preferential  partners  can  be 
attributed to agri-food. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Commission  in  2021,  as  required  by  the  respective  regulations,  has  again  monitored 
imports into the EU of certain industrial products and agri-food products…. 

Specific Monitoring Obligations on goods trade with Korea, Latin American Partners 

The  Commission,  as  required  by  Regulation  (EU)  No  511/201129,  monitored  South 
Korea’s  imports  of  key  car  parts  and  electronics  from  the  most  important  suppliers 
outside the EU. In 2021, Korea’s imports of combustion (gasoline and diesel) engines and 
parts  increased  compared  to  2020  (+8%),  as  did  imports  of  core  car  parts  (+11%).  
Based on these trade statistics, it is not possible to establish a link between the allowance 
of duty drawback and the increase in EU imports of cars from South Korea. 

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 Regulation 
No  19/201330  and  No  20/201331.  The  evolution  of  imports  in  2021  remained  within  the 
past  annual  average  trends  observed.  The  Commission  will  continue  to  carry  out  its 
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 stakeholders. 

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

The latest figures available for trade in services are those of 202032, extracted from Eurostat’s 
balance of payments statistics. Trade in services with the 7333 preferential partners decreased 
by 16.7% in 2020 compared to 2019, somewhat more than the decline in total extra-EU trade 
in services (14.6%).  

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

(EU)  No 19/2013 

(EU)  No  511/2011 

29  Regulation 
content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32011R0511  
30  Regulation 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R0019  
31  Regulation 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32013R0020  
32 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=International_trade_in_services  
33 Not including the United Kingdom, which was not a preferential third country trading partner in 2020.  

(EU)  No  20/2013 

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

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

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 4: EU trade in services by preferential partner (2020) 

TRADE IN SERVICES BY PREF PARTNERS, 2020

Other FTAs
29%

Switzerland
31%

Mexico
3%

Turkey
4%

South Korea
4%

Canada
5%

Japan
8%

Norway
6%

Singapore
10%

EU  trade  in  services  with  preferential  partners  saw  a  trade  surplus  of  €91  billion  in  2020 
down from €106 billion in 2019 but still almost three times as much as the EU surplus with all 
trading partners (i.e. €33 billion in 2020, down from €50 billion in 2019).  

Plurilateral agreement on Services Domestic Regulation 

The  EU  has  been  at  the  forefront  of  the  negotiations  on  a  landmark  deal  to  cut  red  tape  in 
services.  In  December  2021,  a  group  of  67  WTO  members,  including  the  EU,  successfully 
concluded the negotiations of the  Joint Initiative on Services  Domestic Regulation34. The 
negotiated outcome will simplify unnecessarily complicated regulations and ease procedural 
hurdles faced by service suppliers. According to the OECD, implementation of this outcome 
will help reduce the costs of global services trade by more than USD 150 billion every year. 

It  is  foreseen  that  the  participating  Members  will  start  the  process  to  incorporate  the 
negotiated outcome into their schedules by the end of 2022. Once the revised schedules will 
enter into force, the domestic regulation commitments will apply erga omnes. 

34https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/jsdomreg_e.htm#:~:text=On%202%20December%202021%2C%
2067,do%20business%20in%20foreign%20markets.  

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
II.2   Advancing implementation of EU trade agreements in Asia, The Americas, 
the Neighbourhood and the African Caribbean and Pacific countries 

Sub-section  II.2  provides  an  overview  of  three  main  clusters  of  implementation  work  the 
Commission is pursuing to ensure EU trade agreements deliver, illustrated by examples from 
the  four  geographical  regions  (see  points  A-C),  an  overview  of  activities  to  improve  the 
implementation  of  trade  and  sustainable  development  provisions  in  EU  trade  agreements 
(point D) as well as information on the Commission’s ex post evaluation of the EU FTA with 
Colombia, Ecuador and Peru (point D).  

A.  Communicating on trade agreements, helping business to use them 

Helping  businesses  navigate  new  markets 
internationalising and may want to use EU FTAs 

is 

important  when 

they  consider 

Before the entry into force but also during the first one or two years following the entry into 
force  of  a  new  trade  agreement,  stakeholders  need  to  become  familiar  with  the  new  trade 
regime.35  In  2021  this  meant  challenges  in  particular  for  EU  companies  trading  with  the 
United Kingdom, who had to get accustomed to the new trading relations under the EU-UK 
TCA. Well targeted and timely communication proved to be of the essence: 

  To ease application of the EU-UK TCA as of 1 January 2021, the Commission made 
every  effort  to  assist  Member  States  and  EU  businesses  to  navigate  the  new 
environment by: 

o  publishing  on  its  website36  timely  and  detailed  information  on  the  applicable 
provisions on import formalities to bring EU goods into the United Kingdom;  
o  providing  extensive  guidance  on  preferential  treatment,  rules  of  origin  and 

customs procedures;  

o  working with the United Kingdom to provide clarifications to operators, where 

needed.  

More  generally,  the  Commission  -including  through  EU  funded  projects-  is  helping 
businesses to grasp the opportunities and secure a first mover advantage in the early days of 
each agreement: 

35 See also the study ‘Time to Preference’ by L. Nilsson (DG TRADE/ Chief Economist Team) that sheds light 
on the impact of time on the utilisation of preferences, using the example of CETA and the EU FTA with South 
Korea, suggesting the importance of the first 21 months for companies to become aware and use the benefits; 
https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/50a0487d-086a-4a75-a1ff-92bdd2ec2c4b/library/56ade566-d915-493a-acd2-
b31b9dc397cc/details   
36   https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs-4/international-affairs/third-countries/united-kingdom/new-

import-formalities-bring-goods-eu-uk-1-january-2022_en  

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
  For  example,  2021  saw  the  launch  of  an  EU  project  to  improve  the  ability  of  EU 
businesses (notably SMEs) to increase their trade and investment in  Vietnam by 
providing  practical  information  on  how  to  make  the  most  of  the  EU-Vietnam  FTA. 
The  online  guide37  to  EU  SMEs  on  Vietnam  trade  and  investment  was  launched  in 
March 2022. 

But  even  in  agreements,  which  have  been  in  place  for  a  while,  there  still  remains  untapped 
potential  in  areas  other  than  goods  trade.  EU  funded  projects  aim  at  helping  business  to 
unlock these: 

  For example, in 2021 the Commission implemented a Partnership Instrument project 
on Data Collection on Public Procurement in Chile to obtain a better understanding 
of  the  public  procurement  market  in  Chile,  e.g.  by  measuring  its  size,  describing  its 
features  and  its  entry  barriers.  The  study  shows  inter  alia  that  only  11  out  of  27 
Member States participate in the Chilean public procurement market so far, mostly at 
central  level,  while  there  is  very  low  penetration  of  EU  companies  in  the  municipal 
sector.  In  particular  infrastructure  spending  appears  to  be  a  market  with  further 
potential  for  EU  firms.  Lessons  learnt  through  the  project  will  contribute  to  focus 
efforts in improving the participation of European companies in this market. 

  With  the  help  of  a  Partnership  Instrument  project  on  Preference  Utilisation  Rates 
(PUR) concluded in August 2021, the Commission assessed the uptake of preferences 
of EU exports under the trade agreement with Central America, identifying potential 
areas for improvement and strengthening the implementation and enforcement of trade 
agreements. 

Furthermore, the EU engages in technical cooperation projects to help improve conditions 
for trade and investment under the respective trade agreements 

  For example, in 2021, the EU and Mexico used the IP Key Latin America38 project 
as  a  tool  to  ensure  effective  protection  of  intellectual  property  rights,  featuring  a 
number  of  activities  in  the  area  of  intellectual  property  (e.g.  symposium  for  judges, 
patent  examination  training,  etc.).  In  2021,  IP  Key  Latin  America  and  the  Instituto 
Mexicano  de  la  Propiedad  Industrial  (IMPI)  presented  a  Study  on  the  Economic 
Contribution of Intellectual Property in Mexico.39  

  A  €10  million  EU  funded  Support  Programme  operating  since  November  2021 
supports  implementation  of  the  EU-SADC  Economic  Partnership  Agreement  in 
South Africa, to enhance South Africa's trade and business opportunities by promoting 
the full implementation of the EU-SADC EPA, while advancing regional integration, 

37 https://www.eu-vietnam-fta-sme-guide.eu/  
38 Latin America | IPKEY 

39 IP-Key-LA_Impact-Study-Mexico-2020_Report.pdf (ipkey.eu) 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
with a specific focus on agricultural products. In particular the programme focuses on:  
(i)  unlocking  challenges  related  to  quality  infrastructure  and  technical  capacity  in 
agricultural  value  chains  that  are  throttling  exports  to  the  EU;  and  (ii)  increasing 
response  to  opportunities  under  the  EPA  by  emerging  exporters  of  agricultural 
products and those with recognised geographical indications (GIs). 

B.  Monitoring commitments of EU trade agreements  

Monitoring what is happening on the ground helps the Commission to be prepared to better 
target its implementation actions.... 

The  Commission,  mostly  through  its  staff  in  EU  Delegations,  has  been  monitoring  the 
developments in a number of trading partner countries to inform its implementation activities, 
sometimes supported by EU funded projects: 

  For  example, 

in  2021 

the  Commission  has  been  closely  monitoring  the 
implementation  of  the  United  Kingdom’s  commitments  across 
the  entire 
agreement, with a particular focus on level playing field and sustainable development, 
notably  as  regards  the  United  Kingdom  subsidy  rules,  developments  related  to  the 
environment,  including  the  chemical  sector,  the  United  Kingdom’s  Emission  Trade 
Scheme as well as freeports.  

  The  Commission  has  also  been  closely  monitoring  subsidies  for  supporting 
renewable energy under the United Kingdom’s ‘Contracts for Difference’ scheme, as 
a possible model for other  United Kingdom subsidy schemes.40  In this context,  those 
concerns led to the initiation of a WTO dispute settlement case in early 2022, focusing 
on  the  apparent  inclusion  of  factors  such  as  ‘the  percentage  of  United  Kingdom 
content in the assessment criteria for the selection of suppliers (see also section V.I).  

Close monitoring of the implementation of Trade and Sustainable Development provisions 
in EU trade agreements is essential… 

The  Commission  pays  close  attention  to  compliance  by  trading  partners  with  Trade  and 
Sustainable  Development  (TSD)  commitments  in  EU  trade  agreements.  This  monitoring  is 
taken forward through the work of the TSD Committees, assisted by the structures created to 
involve civil society.  

In 2021 and the first quarter of 2022, all TSD Committees – with the exception of Singapore 
and  Moldova41  -  took  place  as  foreseen,  although  mostly  using  a  virtual  format  due  to  the 
COVID  pandemic.  This  included  the  first  meetings  of  the  newly  established  EU-Vietnam 
and EU-United Kingdom TSD Committees. 

40   https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contracts-for-difference/contract-for-difference 
41 In 2022, the TSD Committees with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine were temporarily postponed due to the 
crisis in Ukraine.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
These  meetings  addressed  issues  such  as  forced  labour,  freedom  of  association,  social 
dialogue, labour discrimination and other restrictions on core labour principles, as well as the 
ratification  and  effective  implementation  of  International  Labour  Organization  (ILO) 
Conventions, including on occupational health and safety. The COVID pandemic’s impact on 
the world  of work has been far-reaching,  exacerbating poverty  as well  as  gender, economic 
and social inequalities, reaffirming the need for effective implementation of commitments on 
fundamental principles and rights at work.   

At the TSD Committees, the EU and its trading partners also monitored the implementation of 
Multilateral  Environmental  Agreements  (MEAs)  and  discussed  how  to  jointly  tackle 
environmental  challenges,  notably  on  climate  change,  circular  economy  and  resource 
efficiency  (e.g.  plastics,  waste  and  residues),  exchanging  views  on  national  climate  and 
biodiversity action plans. The EU side used those opportunities to update on EU Green Deal 
policies  (such  as  CBAM,  the  Circular  Economy  Action  Plan  and  Forest  Strategy,  including 
the deforestation initiative) and advocated such policies amongst its closest trading partners, 
often  with  the  support  of  jointly  agreed  cooperation  initiatives.  Matters  related  to  climate 
change and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) to the Paris Agreement were covered 
in particular detail in the TSD committee with Vietnam in November 2021 and with Japan in 
January 2022, among others. 

C.  Using  the  institutional framework under EU  trade agreements  to tackle market 

access, solve problems and further cooperation  

The committees and working groups established by EU trade agreements constitute the main 
motor  for  implementing  the  commitments  and  turning  written  contracts  into  practical 
advantages for stakeholders on either side. Committees usually meet once a year and are co-
chaired  by  representatives  of  the  Parties.  The  joint  trade  committee  often  meets  at 
Ministerial/Commissioner level, and is prepared by sub-committees led by senior officials or 
at technical level, as the case may be. Information on the agendas and reports after meetings 
are published on the Commission’s website42.  

The work of committees and working groups is multi-faceted and they are proactively used to 
increase market access, follow-up on commitments on trade and sustainable development or 
level playing field, avert or remove barriers to trade or enhance cooperation, while they also 
offer a platform for dialogue with stakeholders and civil society. Some examples are outlined 
below. 

42 https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/transparency-eu-trade-
negotiations_en   

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
The institutional framework helped to further unlock the potential of the FTAs in services 
and IPR 

 

 

In February 2021, Japan and the EU at the Joint Trade Committee Meeting decided to 
add  28  additional  EU  GIs,  and  28  Japanese  GIs  to  the  list  of  Geographical 
Indications protected under the Agreement. This was the second such extension of the 
GI list, and the EU and Japan are currently working towards a third one.   

In  March  2022,  Canada  and  the  EU,  working  together  in  the  CETA  services 
committee  successfully  concluded  negotiations  on  a  mutual  recognition  agreement 
for the professional qualifications of architects, making this the first ever agreement 
on  professional  qualifications  signed  by  the  EU  with  a  third  country.  Once  it  enters 
into  force,  architects  from  the  EU  and  Canada,  who  meet  the  criteria  set  out  in  the 
Agreement,  will  be  able  to  have  their  qualifications  recognised  and  can  thus  supply 
their services in the other Party’s territory more easily. 

Regular contacts with partner countries in between committee meetings strengthened trust 
between the parties, contributing to barrier prevention 

FTA  committees  are  also  a  forum  where  parties  update  each  other  on  their  respective 
regulatory  and  legislative  approaches  and  initiatives  to  come,  allowing  the  parties  to  raise 
potential barriers before they become law; in addition, their existence also reinforces mutual 
confidence  allowing  for  practical  solutions  to be found outside the  regular annual  meetings. 
Cooperation between Commission, EU Delegations, Member States’ embassies and business 
stakeholders in partner countries has proven vital in this context: 

 

 

In March 2022, through cooperation between the EU Delegation and Member States, 
safeguard  measures  planned  by  Morocco  for  imports  of  wire  rods  and  reinforcing 
bars  as  well  as  for  cold-rolled  steel  sheets  and  plated  or  coated  sheets  could  be 
averted. 

In 2021, coordinated efforts by the EU and Member States, as well as cooperation by 
the Egyptian authorities allowed to avert the planned re-reintroduction of Egypt’s 
customs duties on cars imported from the EU.  

The  exchanges  in  FTA  committees  and  bodies  are  also  a  means  to  seek  clarifications  and 
increase transparency and to provide input to public consultations processes: 

  For  example,  in  2021,  the  EU  contributed  to  Vietnam’s  public  consultation 
concerning  ongoing  amendments  to  the  legislation  on  pharmaceuticals  after  raising 
concerns at technical and political level in regard to cumbersome rules discriminating 
among Member States’ regulatory authorities.  

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Following contacts at political level and discussions in the Trade in Goods Committee 
under  the  EU-Korea  FTA,  Korea  informed  that  European  stakeholders  will  have  a 
new opportunity to express their views on new rules on local content requirements for 
the offshore wind power market released in December 2021.  

The institutional framework of EU trade agreements again helped to get existing barriers 
removed in partner countries  

Eliminating existing barriers  is  often  difficult, including  from  a  political  perspective, as  this 
means government or legislators need to undo actions they previously approved. Furthermore, 
even  once  lifted,  restrictive  legislation  may  continue  to  influence  practices  by  local 
authorities.  To  tackle  these  challenges,  coordinated  interventions  by  the  Commission,  EU 
Delegations, Member States and stakeholders tend to have the greatest chance of success: 

  For  example,  in  2021,  progress  was  made  by  Canada  in  removing  certain 
discriminatory  measures  for  wines  and  spirits  maintained  at  federal  and  provincial 
level.  Additionally,  after  several  years  of  negotiation,  Canada  accepted  an  EU 
harmonised  certificate  for  poultry  meat,  further  easing  trade  for  exporters  from 
authorised Member States.  

  Turkey stopped requiring proof of origin for products originating outside the EU, and, 
following  the  Commission’s  interventions  in  2021,  Turkish  authorities  issued 
additional  clarifications  to  Turkish  importers.  Since  then,  the  number  of  the 
certificates of origin required overall has been gradually decreasing, also for products 
originating in the EU. At the same time, the non-discriminatory implementation of the 
Additional  Protocol  to  the  Association  Agreement  towards  all  Member  States 
including the Republic of Cyprus remains a key demand by the EU.  

  Vietnam,  following  a  request  from  the  Commission,  approved  a  list  of  35  prelisted 
establishments  interested  in  exporting  animal  products  and/or  fishery  products  to 
Vietnam.  These  establishments  can  now  start  to  export  fishery/animal  products  to 
Vietnam without any inspection or documentary check.  

FTA  committees  and  working  groups  also  supported  bilateral  cooperation  between  the 
parties on trade-related issues, often linked to regulations… 

Cooperation in the context of EU FTAs is an integral part of the work of many committees 
and produced outcomes again in 2021 as the following examples show:  

  The EU and Japan regularly exchange information and discuss outstanding issues on 
medical  devices  regulations,  among  other  sectors.  In  2021,  following  bilateral 
discussions  and  cooperation  with  the  industry,  regulatory  improvements  were 
implemented in Japan as regards electronic instructions for use of medical devices and 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
engagement  with  manufacturers  to  shorten,  where  possible,  time  lags  concerning 
marketing approvals.   

  The  EU  and  Canada  cooperate  on  regulatory  issues  through  the  CETA  Regulatory 
Cooperation  Forum  (RCF).  The  EU’s  RAPEX  and  Canada’s  RADAR  system, 
dedicated  to  consumer  safety,  continued  their  information  exchange  and  organised 
trainings  delivered  to  both  parties’  system  users  with  a  view  to  improving  access  to 
data and targeted alerts. In addition, the EU and Canada issued a joint statement43 on 
animal welfare in July 2021 and discussed various topics, including the protection of 
animals during sea transport and potential options for animal welfare labelling.  

 

In  2021,  the  Commission  services  and  the  Korean  authorities  advanced  technical 
cooperation  on  e-certification  and  harmonisation  of  health  certificates  to  further 
facilitate trade of several processed agri-food products. 

..  while  Trade  and  Sustainable  Development  Committees  opened  the  door  to  additional 
cooperation on sustainability issues, including in multilateral fora  

  At the January 2022 meeting of the Trade and Sustainable Development  Committee, 
the  EU  and  Japan  discussed  their  cooperation  in  multilateral  fora,  including  the 
International Convention on Climate Change (regarding Initiatives on Methane and on 
Deforestation),  indicating  their  openness  to  cooperate  to  achieve  further  progress 
toward COP27. 

  At the February 2022 meeting of the Trade and Sustainable Development Committee 
established  under  CETA,  the  EU  and  Canada  discussed  cooperation  on  trade  and 
labour  issues  in  a  number  of  policy  areas,  including  combatting  forced  and  child 
labour  in  global  supply  chains.  Both  sides  highlighted  their  support  for  and  close 
cooperation with the ILO. 

The  Economic  Partnership  Agreements  with  the  EU’s  African,  Caribbean  and  Pacific 
partners  continued 
for  reform,  assisted  by  development 
cooperation….. 

to  provide 

incentives 

Economic  Partnership  Agreements  (EPAs)  with  African,  Caribbean  and  Pacific  countries 
have  a  strong  development  dimension  and  provide  incentives  for  reform  that  development 
cooperation  can  further  build  on.  Their  successful  implementation  depends  on  addressing 
these countries’ internal constraints to trade through Aid for Trade (AfT).44 The EU Aid for 
Trade  Progress  Report  202145  shows  that  the  EU  with  its  Member  States  was  the  world’s 

43 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/august/tradoc_159774.pdf  
44 The Staff Working Document accompanying this Report includes examples of how EU Delegations work to 
address trade barriers through AfT. 
45 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/57b9a87f-3865-11ec-8daf-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
largest provider of AfT, with 38% of global AfT in 2019, corresponding to € 17.9 billion, and 
that 96% of EU AfT in the same year went to countries that have preferential access to the EU 
market.  The  report  also  contains  further  information  on  the  Commission’s  and  Member 
States’  AfT,  e.g.  supporting  SMEs’  uptake  of  trade  agreement  opportunities  and  the 
improvement  of  TSD  issues.  The  website  on  EU  AfT  has  an  interactive  mapping46  on 
beneficiary countries with context-specific examples of AfT projects.  

….. and continued to host fruitful discussions on sustainability issues 

In 2021 the parties continued their dialogue on sustainability of the cocoa value chain with 
Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire, while Cameroon is an observer.  

 

In  2021,  eight  thematic  roundtables  -  “CocoaTalks”  took  place,  which  looked  into 
various  aspects  of  sustainability  in  the  cocoa  value  chain,  such  as  living  income, 
standards,  transparency  and  traceabiliy  related  to  child  labour  and  deforestation,  due 
diligence,  agroforestry,  development  and  financing  assistance  and  consumer 
perspective.  

  The  2021  series  of  the  Cocoa  Talks  was  concluded  with  a  technical  wrap-up  in 
December 2021, taking stock of the thematic meetings and outlining the way forward, 
(i.e. roadmap and action points), confirmed at a high level political event on 28 June 
2022.  

D.  Trade and sustainable development in focus  

A  new  Commission  Communication  sets  out  how  the  EU  will  further  enhance  the 
contribution of trade agreements to sustainable development … 

As a result of the review of the 15-Point Action Plan47, and following a one-year consultation 
process,  the  Commission  issued  in  June  2022  its  Communication  “The  power  of  trade 
partnerships:  together  for  green  and  just  economic  growth”48.  From  business  and  trade 
unions  to  environmental  and  human  rights  groups,  social  partners  submitted  numerous 
contributions, representing a broad spectrum of economic, social and environmental interests. 
The  Commission  also  engaged  in  an  extensive  exchange  of  views  with  the  European 
Parliament, Member States and the European Economic and Social Committee. Based on the 
input  and  recommendations  received,  the  Commission  identified  a  set  of  policy  priorities 

https://international-partnerships.ec.europa.eu/policies/sustainable-growth-and-jobs/economic-integration-

46 
trade-and-connectivity_en#mapping-of-eu-aft-activities-in-partner-countries  
47  Refer  to  the  Non-paper  of  the  Commission  services:  “Feedback  and  way  forward  on  improving  the 
implementation and enforcement of TSD Chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements of 26 February 2018” 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/february/tradoc_156618.pdf 
For  more 
sustainability/sustainable-development/sustainable-development-eu-trade-agreements_en#tsd-review-2021 
48 
b791-2df56b673900/details  

https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/8a31feb6-d901-421f-a607-ebbdd7d59ca0/library/8c5821b3-2b18-43a1-

review:  https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/development-and-

information 

the  TSD 

about 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
and  key  action  points  that,  taken  together,  enhance  the  focus  on  ensuring  the  effective 
implementation of the trade and sustainable development provisions in EU trade agreements.  

… in particular by reinforcing the role of civil society …  

As  a  result  of  the  TSD  review,  the  Commission  is  ensuring  a  more  inclusive  consultation 
process  with  civil  society  throughout  all  stages  of  the  lifecycle  of  trade  agreements.  It  is 
further  strengthening  the  role  of  DAGs  by  continuing  to  provide  resources  for  their 
logistical  support  and  functioning,  and  inviting  EU  DAG’s  representatives  to  the  TSD 
Member  States’  Expert  Group  chaired  by  the  Commission.  DAGs  are  now  more  closely 
associated to the preparation of TSD Committee meetings and in particular the identification 
and  monitoring  of  implementation  priorities.  The  Commission  is  also  promoting  and 
facilitating  more  interaction  between  EU  and  partner  countries’  DAGs,  and  fostering 
transparency on the composition of DAGs. EU DAGs are also consulted on EU TSD-related 
technical assistance projects for the countries or partner regions they cover. 

…  and  focusing  on  stronger  enforcement  of  trade  and  sustainable  development 
commitments when required. 

The  Commission’s  new  approach  includes  an  enhanced  enforcement  mechanism,  which 
comes  into  play  when  the  cooperation-based  engagement  fails,  and  action  through  an 
adjudicative process (panel of experts) is necessary to ensure that the other party brings itself 
into  compliance  with  its  agreed  TSD  commitments.  The  EU  is  planning  to  include  TSD 
procedures for the compliance stage, meaning the period in which the party who has lost the 
case  must  implement  the  ruling.  These  procedures  provide  for  a  period  in  which  the  losing 
party brings itself into compliance with its commitments, allowing both the panel of experts 
and  the  other  party  to  verify  whether  this  is  happening.  Furthermore,  the  EU  intends  to 
provide the possibility to apply trade sanctions in serious instances of non-compliance with 
the  ILO  fundamental  principles  and  rights  at  work,  or  in  cases  of  conducts  that  materially 
defeat the object and purpose of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.  

The  Commission  has  also  improved  the  mechanism  for  complaints  on  infringements  of 
trade and sustainable development commitments  

As  part  of  the  application  of  the  new  approach  following  the  TSD  review,  the  Commission 
revised  its  Operating  Guidelines  for  the  Single  Entry  Point49  to  addresses  particular 
concerns and requests expressed by stakeholders: 

 

In particular, the revised guidelines bring increased transparency and predictability 
for  TSD  stakeholders,  by  adding  additional  clarifications  on  who  can  bring 
complaints. For example, it is explicitly mentioned that DAGs can file complaints and 

49 Link to the updated SEP guidelines: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/7fc51410-46a1-4871-8979-
20cce8df0896/library/f00caa15-b3d3-4025-8823-c43ca069ffee/details  

22 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
that EU complainants may also represent the interests of parties located in EU trading 
partner countries. 

  The  operating  guidelines  also  introduce  improvements  in  the  way  complaints  are 
handled, in particular regarding the timing for the initial assessment. The Commission 
is also publishing non-confidential information on TSD complaints in order to increase 
awareness among stakeholders of restrictions encountered in third countries, mirroring 
the approach in the area of market access.  

  The revised operating guidelines introduce timelines that the Commission will follow 
as a general rule to treat TSD complaints: 10 working days to acknowledge the receipt 
of the complaint;  20 workings days for the first  follow up with  the complainant  and 
120 working days for the finalisation of the preliminary assessment of the complaint.  

Over the reporting period, the Commission has also been monitoring compliance by Korea 
with the panel ruling in the bilateral dispute on labour rights….. 

The Commission continued to monitor the implementation of the ruling delivered by the TSD 
panel of experts on 20 January 2021:    

 

 

In  respect  to  the  ratification  of  core  ILO  conventions,  three  fundamental  ILO 
Conventions  entered  into  force  in  Korea  in  April  2022:  Convention  No  87  on  the 
Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise, No 98 on the Right to 
Organise and Collective Bargaining and No 29 on Forced Labour. 

In respect to domestic improvements, Korea passed amendments to its labour regime. 
The parties held an interim TSD committee in November 2021 to assess in particular 
the implementation of the legislative amendments to the Korean Trade Union Act as 
well as its implementing guidelines.  

  Concerning the ratification of the last pending fundamental ILO Convention, No 105 
on  the  Abolition  of  Forced  Labour,  Korea  confirmed  its  commitment  to  continue  its 
sustained efforts towards ratification, and published the agreed study that identifies the 
domestic provisions that need to be amended in order to be in conformity with the ILO 
Convention.  The  parties  will  continue  their  exchanges  in  order  to  continue  moving 
closer to ratification. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…  and  has  been  monitoring  steps  taken  by  Vietnam  to  involve  civil  society  in 
implementation of the TSD chapter  

Albeit with some delay, Vietnam established its DAG on 17 August 2021. On 30 December 
2021, Vietnam also followed up on its promise to broaden the membership of its DAG, whose 
members have been increased from three to six, though assumingly no independent workers’ 
organisation is a member yet. Following the DAG establishment, the TSD Committee and the 
Joint Forum had a first meeting in November 2021. The Commission will continue to closely 
monitor  compliance  by  Vietnam  with  all  its  obligations  under  the  TSD  chapter,  including 
elements related to their DAG. 

The Commission has been working with stakeholders from Civil Society and with Domestic 
trade  and  sustainable  developments 
Advisory  Groups 
commitments in EU trade agreements 

implementation  of 

the 

in 

The Commission has a long-established process to conduct meetings with stakeholders from 
civil society in the EU - the so-called Civil Society Dialogue – to reach out and discuss trade 
policy  matters.  In  the  bilateral  context,  the  Commission  regularly  engages  with  the  DAGs 
established  under  the  agreements  to  exchange  information  and  provide  feedback  on  the 
implementation process.  

Furthermore,  regular  joint  meetings  between  governments  and  the  representatives  of  civil 
society  from  both  sides  take  place  after  the  TSD  Committee,  contributing  to  the  process  of 
implementation.  

  For  instance,  in  the  case  of  Ecuador,  joint  submissions  from  the  Civil  Society 
representatives highlighted the difficulties in the registration as “union” of one of the 
workers’  organisations  in  the  banana  sector.  The  Commission  in  its  regular  meeting 
with  government  counterparts  voiced  concerns  about  the  violation  of  core  labour 
commitments  and  recalled  the  recommendations  issued  by  ILO.  Although  the 
government  never  acknowledged  the  issue  as  being  problematic,  one  of  the  local 
courts in Ecuador did agree with the claim and asked the government to  grant union 
status to the organisation in question.  

 

In  another  instance,  in  November  2021,  the  Commission  acted  upon  specific 
information provided by the EU DAG established under the EU-Korea FTA to raise a 
case of alleged discrimination in Korea against delivery workers. Korea clarified that 
their worker status was not denied but acknowledged there was an issue related to the 
recognition  of  their  right  to  collective  bargaining.  The  matter  remains  under 
examination. 

On  5  July  2021,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  (EESC)  initiated  and 
organised the first EU All DAGs meeting, bringing together the members of individual EU 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
DAGs  established  under  11  EU  trade  agreements.  Senior  level  representatives  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Commission  were  invited  to  attend.  Discussions  led  to  the 
formulation  of  the  Non-paper  “Strengthening  and  Improving  the  Functioning  of  EU  Trade 
Domestic Advisory Groups”50 issued in October 2021. Several of the proposals put forward 
were  considered  as  part  of  the  Commission’s  TSD  review,  in  particular  the  proposals  to 
further  strengthen  the  role  of  DAGs  by  providing  resources  for  their  logistical  support,  to 
invite EU DAG’s representatives to TSD Member States’ Expert Group meetings, to associate 
EU  DAGs  to  the  identification  and  to  the  monitoring  of  implementation  priorities,  and  to 
foster transparency. The Commission on its side expects that civil society organisations will 
deliver  timely,  well  substantiated  and  evidence-based  contributions  which  are  essential  to 
identify, prioritise and act upon TSD matters. 

…  and  has  continued  its  collaboration  with  ILO  to  provide  technical  assistance  to  a 
number of trading partners 

In 2021 the Commission continued to  work  closely  with  international organisations such  as 
ILO and OECD to promote sustainable trade as the following examples show:  

in 

  The  Commission  partners  up  with  OECD,  ILO  and  UN  OHCHR 

the 
implementation  of  the  four-year  project  “Responsible  business  conduct  in  Latin 
America  and  the  Caribbean”51  (2019-2022),  which  aims  to  promote  smart, 
sustainable  and  inclusive  growth  in  the  region  by  supporting  responsible  business 
conduct  practices  in  line  with  international  instruments.  The  is  carried  out  in 
partnership with Chile and Mexico, both OECD members, as well as with Argentina, 
Brazil,  Colombia,  Costa  Rica  and  Peru,  who  adhered  to  the  OECD  Guidelines  for 
Multinational  Enterprises  and  set  up  a  National  Contact  Point  for  Responsible 
Business  Conduct,  and  with  two  other  partner  economies,  namely  Ecuador  and 
Panama. 

  Another twin programme (Responsible Supply Chains in Asia) is implemented in six 
Asian  countries  (China,  Japan  Myanmar,  Thailand,  Philippines  and  Vietnam)  to 
further  sustainable  and  inclusive  economic,  social  and  environmental  progress  by 
integrating  responsible  business  practices  into  the  operations  of  multinational 
companies and their supply chains.   

  Until  war  broke  out,  the  EU  had  been  working  with  ILO  to  implement  the  common 
project ‘Towards safe, healthy and declared work in Ukraine’52, which was providing 
input  for  the  preparation  of  draft  laws  on  labour  relations,  occupational  health  and 

50 https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/non-
paper_of_the_eu_dags_strengthening_domestic_advisory_groups_oct2021_002.pdf :   
51 Responsible Business Conduct in Latin America and the Caribbean:  
https://mneguidelines.oecd.org/rbclac.htm 
52 https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_dialogue/---
lab_admin/documents/projectdocumentation/wcms_742913.pdf  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
safety  and  labour  inspections.  This  project  aims  at  promoting  safe,  healthy  and 
declared work in Ukraine.  

 

In 2021-2022 the EU-ILO project “Trade for Decent Work” continued for selected 
trading partner countries in Asia and Africa and also supported some specific ad hoc 
activities in selected countries in Latin America.53 A continuation is being prepared for 
2023. 

...  while  also  using  trade  agreements  to  advance  cooperation  to  tackle  environmental 
challenges  

 

 

In  2021,  through  its  cooperation  projects54,  the  EU  supported  Colombia’s  move 
towards a more sustainable and environmentally friendly economy, including through 
a pilot project on sustainable mining in the poverty-ridden pacific region of Colombia.   

In June 2021, the EU and Japan jointly organised an event55 focused on technologies 
and  sectors  essential  to  achieve  carbon  neutrality  by  2050.  Leveraging  the  effect  of 
EU-Japan  cooperation  on  regulations  and  standards,  and  building  on  the  strength  of 
bilateral  trade,  businesses  shared  experience  and  insights  on  the  potential  for  green 
growth linked to the cooperation in renewable energy, hydrogen, clean mobility, and 
the raw materials required by these industries.   

E.  Evaluating the impact of trade agreements to inform implementation work 

The  Commission  continues  to  give  particular  attention  to  assessing  the  impact  of  its  trade 
agreements  either  for  specific  agreements,  or  for  cross-cutting  issues  across  several 
agreements.  Ex  post  evaluations  feed  into  improvements  to  future  agreements,  but  also 
provide  a  reference  point  in  setting  priorities  for  implementation  and  enforcement.  The  ex 
post  evaluations  of  the  Cariforum  EPA56  and  the  EU’s  FTAs  with  six  Mediterranean 
countries57 were published in January and March 2021, respectively and were also covered in 
the 2021 Annual Report. In April 2022, the Commission completed its ex post evaluation of 
the Trade Agreement between the EU and Colombia, Peru and Ecuador58.  

53 https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/WCMS_697996/lang--en/index.htm  
54 Rural development and empowerment of the Communitarian Councils of the Chocó Department through the 
sustainable use of natural and mineral resources: https://www.unido.org/news/colombia-rural-development-and-
empowerment-communitarian-councils-choco-department-through-sustainable-use-natural-and-mineral-
resources  
55 https://www.eu-japan.eu/events/trade-industry-towards-carbon-neutrality-eu-japan-online-conference  
56 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/january/tradoc_159352.pdf  
57 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/fab9bddd-9106-11eb-b85c-01aa75ed71a1  
58 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/november/tradoc_159894.pdf  

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Ex post evaluation of the FTA with Colombia, Ecuador and Peru: Main conclusions 

 

In the Andean countries, the economic effect of the Agreement on GDP was positive, 
estimated  at  USD  728  million  and  all  parties  benefitted.  Estimated  effects  on 
employment, welfare and poverty reduction were also positive.  

  While  the  overall  effects  are  likely  to  be  limited,  nevertheless  the  Agreement  and 
exports  to  the  EU  created  jobs  in  rural  areas  in  the  Andean  countries.  Jobs  were 
created, in particular, in the fruits, sugar, vegetables and nuts sector, and in fisheries. 
In industry, sectors such as food products, chemical products or textiles (the latter in 
Colombia and Peru) also benefitted.  

  The  need to  adapt  to  standards on the  EU market  has raised  production standards of 
the  Andean  countries,  resulting  in  higher  quality  produce,  as  well  as  more  organic 
products driven by EU demand, the protection of geographical indications, improved 
respect of labour or environmental standards e.g. the application of private standards 
and certification. 

  The  Agreement  has  allowed  for  a  platform  of  engagement  on  sustainability  issues, 
including regular committees and projects that allow to address areas of concern: e.g. 
freedom  of  association,  decent  jobs  and  child  labour,  where  improvements  could  be 
identified in sectors exposed to the Agreement.  

  Trade diversification: the Agreement contributed to diversify and increase exports, in 

particular from SMEs. 

The  recommendations  issued  by  the  consultant  were  published  in  January  202259.  The 
Commission/DG  TRADE’s  assessment  and  follow-up  actions  will  be  included  in  a  Staff 
working document, which should be published in the first half of 2023. 

III.  Helping  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  to  find  their 
place in global trade  

SMEs and family businesses which represent 93% of EU exporters, remain at the heart of 
the Commission’s activities to promote the advantages of EU trade agreements 

In spite of economically and politically challenging times, global markets not only remain an 
important  source  of  growth  but  also  represent  a  great  potential  for  economic  recovery.  In 
2021,  the  Commission  continued  its  efforts  to  help  SMEs  use  EU  trade  agreements.  SMEs 
constitute the large majority of exporters by numbers, while only representing a third of EU 
exports  by  value.  The  Commission  has  also  continued  to  promote  the  EU’s  ‘think  small’ 
principle in multilateral fora such as the WTO and the G20, and has been active in the WTO 

59 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/79f623fa-aa5c-11ec-83e1-01aa75ed71a1/language-
en/format-PDF/source-254167460  

27 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Informal Working Group on Micro, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs) in the run 
up to the WTO’s postponed Ministerial Conference, which finally took place in June 2022.  

A.  Upgrading & promoting Access2Markets  

The  Access2Markets  platform  launched  in  October  2020  includes  detailed,  practical 
information  for  businesses  that  want  to  import  or  export  goods,  which  is  available  free  of 
charge in  all EU official  languages.  Information  on exports  covers tariffs, taxes,  procedures 
and formalities for 135 export markets60, rules of origin, statistics and trade barriers. Similar 
information  is  available  for imports into the EU, namely tariffs, taxes, import requirements, 
rules of origin and statistics from all over the world.  

Coverage  also  included  from  1  January  2021  full  information  on  EU  trade  with  the  United 
Kingdom.  In  2022,  as  events  unfolded  in  Ukraine,  the  platform  has  been  updated  to  reflect 
restrictive measures imposed on EU exports to  Russia and more general information on EU 
sanctions and additional guidance for importers on Russian measures imposed on exports to 
the EU.  

Access2Markets has seen more than 3 million unique visitors since its launch, 72% from the 
EU, its ROSA tool has 500 hits per day, on average. The new release of ROSA also guides 
business on how to document the origin of their products.   

In 2021, the Commission has been gradually upgrading Access2Markets, adding additional 
content for users, especially relevant for SMEs, while also developing new interactive tools: 

 

 

In September 2021, the Commission launched Access2Procurement61, a tool helping 
businesses  to  understand  whether  the  procurement  in  question  is  covered  by  an 
international  commitment  undertaken  by  Canada  and  Japan  under  their  respective 
trade agreements with the EU. In the first eight months after it went online, more than 
2700 assessments were carried out by users, over the first quarter of 2022 the number 
of assessments was between 200 and 300 per month. Next, the tool will also cover the 
United States and will be further extended to cover more EU trading partners.   

In  2021,  the  platform,  mostly  occupied  with  conditions  for  import  and  export  of 
goods, was further enriched with additional information on trade in services, including 
a toolkit ‘Getting Started to trade services: imports and exports”, followed in 2022 by 
the  “My  Trade  Assistant  for  Services  and  Investment”  function62,  covering  the 
legal and maritime sectors under the agreements in the United Kingdom and Canada. 
For  example,  an  EU  company  interested  in  providing  legal  services  in  the  United 

60 The following countries were added in 2021: Antigua and Barbuda, Comoros, 
Dominica, Eswatini (Swaziland), Grenada, Lesotho, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Seychelles, St Kitts and 
Nevis, St Vincent, Suriname, Samoa and Solomon Islands. The coverage of the Central American agreement 
now provides for individual pages rather than a single page for the partners concerned.  
61 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/content/how-use-my-trade-assistant-procurement  
62 The Assistant covers three modes of supply: Cross –border supply of services, commercial presence and 
movement of professionals. 

28 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Kingdom, to practice either domestic or foreign law, can find information on various 
requirements  such  as  on  licensing  and  authorisation,  qualifications,  legal  form, 
nationality  or  residency  conditions.  The  scope  of  this  function  will  be  rolled  out  to 
other third countries and sectors, step-by-step. 

The Commission continued to provide extensive support and training on Access2Markets 
for  businesses,  Member  States  and  other  intermediaries,  as  well  as  a  train  the  trainer 
programme  during  2021  and  this  is  set  to  continue.  So  far  events  reached  more  than  6,500 
organisations and covered almost all EU languages. Events were also organised with partners 
inside  and  outside  the  EU,  such  as  the  EU-Japan  Centre  for  Industrial  Cooperation,  with 
ICEX  España  or  the  Deutsche  Gesellschaft  für  Internationale  Zusammenarbeit  (GIZ). 
Promotion was taken forward through a variety of media and platforms, including twitter, as 
well as via the Commission’s website and on youtube63.  

B.  Internationalisation made to work for SMEs – concrete actions in 2021  

While  all  EU  trade  agreements  aim  at  helping  SMEs  to  grow  their  business  with  and  in 
foreign markets, three EU trade agreements in force have dedicated SME provisions64: The 
EU- Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) has a recommendation 
on SMEs65, while the EU-Japan Economic Partnership  Agreement (EU-Japan EPA) and the 
EU-UK TCA have SME chapters, which provide for dedicated SME contacts on either side, 
tasked with ensuring that SME interests and perspectives are reflected in the implementation 
of the respective agreements. In addition, the SME Chapters provide for a number of practical 
steps  to  further  increase  transparency  for  SMEs,  notably  through  information  sharing:  For 
example, in line with the SME chapter of the EU-Japan EPA, Japan provides (on a publicly 
accessible website) product specific market access information by customs tariff code for the 
import  of  goods,  including  links  to  authorities  on  agreed  trade  related  issues.  The  Parties' 
contact  points  for  SMEs  discuss  ways  to  further  streamline  and  improve  the  available  tools 
and information. 

In  2021,  the  Commission,  together  with  trading  partners,  Member  States  and  stakeholders, 
continued to implement the SME provisions under CETA and the EU-Japan EPA: 

CETA 

  SME contact points agreed on an SME Action Plan66, setting out the specific actions 
and a timeline to implement the SME Recommendation. In line with the priorities of 

63 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F5Hbwq6ZjM&list=PLJmEREKFYU8V0lVZsOaKe2OQ3c4GQamDo  
64 A SME recommendation has been agreed with Canada,  while the EU-Japan EPA and the EU-UK TCA 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. 
65 Recommendation of the CETA joint committee on Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) (europa.eu)  
66 Circabc (europa.eu) 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
the Action Plan, a SME roundtable was held in September 2021, on the occasion of 
the  fourth  anniversary  of  CETA,  organised  by  the  Commission  with  the  help  of  the 
European Union Chamber of Commerce in Canada (EUCCAN) 67.  

  In  addition, 

the  EU  and  Canada  cooperate 

their  SMEs’ 
internationalisation. One notable example includes joint work by Enterprise Europe 
Network  in  Canada  and  the  EUCCAN  on  the  one  hand  and  the  European-Canadian 
Centre  for  Innovation  and  Research  on  the  other  hand,  to  provide  business  and 
innovation  support  services  that  help  strengthen  European  and  Canadian    SMEs’ 
competitiveness and sustainability.  

to  support 

EU-Japan EPA  

  SME  Contact  Points  finalised  a  Joint  Activity  Report68  and  the  EU  and  Japan 
advanced their outreach vis-à-vis SMEs through the EU-Japan Centre for Industrial 
Cooperation, which in 2021 again issued two booklets on “How to import from Japan 
to  the  EU  using  the  EPA”69  and  “How  to  export  from  the  EU  to  Japan  using  the 
EPA”70.  

  The Centre’s Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) Helpdesk71 over the reporting 
period  again  organised  47  trainings  and  interactive  webinars  with  businesses  and 
produced  relevant  factsheets  on  various  aspects  of  the  EU-Japan  EPA,  including  on 
geographical  indications,  rules  of  origin,  SME  Chapter,  fisheries,  dairy  products, 
human  resources  mobility,  etc.  The  Centre  also  liaises  with  Member  States’  Trade 
Promotion  Organisations  and  other  European  and  Japanese  networks,  such  as  the 
Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) to bring the EPA closer to SMEs.72  

In  addition,  the  Commission  continues  to  support  European  SME  entrepreneurs  and  their 
activities  in  challenging  markets,  notably  through  its  EU  SME  Centre  in  China73.  The 
Centre continues to play a fundamental role in assisting and supporting EU SMEs with market 
entry  and/or business  development  in  China. The Centre is  assisting EU SMEs in  assessing 
their readiness to enter the Chinese market, advising on opportunities and risks of establishing 
and developing a commercial presence in the Chinese market (through exports, investments or 
both)  and  advising  them  on  how  to  improve  synergies  and  share  best-practices.  By  way  of 
example,  in  2021,  the  Centre  held  62  training  sessions  in  China  and  the  EU  for  over  5400 
SMEs.  

67 EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) – Round table with Small and Medium-
sized Enterprises (SMEs) to celebrate CETA’s fourth anniversary - Trade - European Commission (europa.eu) 
68 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/09242a36-a438-40fd-a7af-fe32e36cbd0e/library/9a618439-ce4b-4759-ac4b-
d0d9a7f0051b/details   
69 EPA Handbook – a guide to help EU SMEs import Japanese products | EU-Japan 
70 EPA Export Handbook – a guide to help EU SMEs export to Japan | EU-Japan 
71 EPA Helpdesk | EU-Japan 
72 See for example the Matchmaking event held in March 2022 around the theme of green transition: 
https://www.eu-japan.eu/sites/default/files/presentations/docs/Report_on_GreenTransition_2022_0514.pdf  
73 https://www.eusmecentre.org.cn/  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
C.  Cooperation with the Enterprise Europe Network 

Helping EU businesses to exploit preferential trade arrangements, i.e. reduction/elimination of 
tariffs  or  other  cost  related  to  regulatory  alignment  will  be  at  the  heart  of  the  Enterprise 
Europe Network74 (EEN) as relaunched under the Single Market Programme.  

The  Commission  on  4  August  2021  launched  a  call  for  expressions  of  interest  for 
International  Network  Partners75  with  several  cut-off  dates  to  submit  proposals.  The 
objective  of  this  call  is  to  identify  client-oriented  business  support  organisations  in  fast 
growing markets in the Americas and (South-east) Asia. The focus will be on countries and 
trade blocks with which the EU has established deep and comprehensive trade agreements: 

  International and European Network Partners will work hand in hand to improve 
the  exploitation  of  trade  arrangements.  They  will  exchange  market  intelligence  for 
the  benefit  of  European  SMEs.  So  far,  numerous  business  organisations  from  the 
United States, United Kingdom, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, Israel, South-Korea and 
India have applied to join the EEN. The list of countries is non-exhaustive and will be 
expanded during further cut-off dates for the submission of applications.  

 

In the relaunched EEN, services helping EU companies to exploit trade opportunities 
abroad  will  be  fully  integrated  into  the  ‘Network’s  Client  Journey’,  i.e.  European 
Network Partners are expect to generate concrete impact for their clients and to report 
them as achievements via the EEN performance database.. 

In  2022, 
the  EEN  established  a  new  expert  group  to  foster  the  quality  of 
internationalisation  services  within  the  Network.  The  so-called  ‘Thematic  Group 
Internationalisation’  with  some  130  experienced  Network  advisers  in  daily  contact  with 
businesses located in  all Member States  and regions,  appointed a  co-chair for strengthening 
the  exploitation  of  EU  trade  agreements.  The  main  role  of  the  co-chair  will  be  to  set  the 
agenda for capacity building and training of Network advisers to support European SMEs to 
take advantage of trade opportunities. Among the first projects will be setting up a train-the-
trainer  session  for  Network  advisors  to  take  advantage  of  the  Access2Markets  platform,  in 
cooperation with the Commission. 

In addition to its cooperation with the EEN, the Commission also continued its exchange with 
European and national business associations, the European Business Organisations’ World 
Wide Network (EBO WWN)76 and Member States’ Trade Promotion Organisations (TPOs), 

74 Information on the EEN is available here: https://een.ec.europa.eu/.  The network, co-financed by the EU 
COSME program, 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 
75 Information related to the call is available on the website of EISMEA, the EU agency responsible for all the 
activities of the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the programmes related to small and medium-sized 
enterprises: https://eismea.ec.europa.eu/index_en  
76 https://eboworldwide.eu/  

31 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
who are at the forefront of supporting and advising companies large and small on the benefits 
of trade agreements. 

D.  Activities to support SMEs at multilateral level (WTO) 

The  EU  is  spearheading  multilateral  efforts  at  the  World  Trade  Organization  supporting 
SMEs 

The EU has been an active member of the Informal Working Group on Micro, Small and 
Medium  Enterprises  (MSME  Group’)  since  its  establishment  following  the  11th  WTO 
Ministerial Conference of Buenos Aires in 2017.  

While the group’s initial mandate was to prepare a work programme to be endorsed at the 12th  
WTO Ministerial Conference, the Covid-19 pandemic prompted the MSME Group to issue a 
‘Declaration on the importance of MSMEs in the time of COVID in May 202077 followed by 
the fast-tracked adoption of a package of six soft recommendations in December 2020 (the 
MSME  Package)78.  In 
to  promote  MSMEs 
internationalization and consideration of their specific needs, the MSME Package focuses on 
improving  access  to  information  for  MSMEs,  implementing  the  Trade  Facilitation 
Agreement79  in  an  effort  to  facilitate  MSMEs  trade,  developing  an  integrated  database  for 
trade policies,  as well as simplifying MSMEs’ access  to  finance  and cross-border payments 
through exchange of best practices and information.  

long-standing  efforts 

line  with  EU’s 

Work continued in 2021 and delivered its first outcome, a database listing information on 
MSMEs in WTO Policy Reviews…. 

In 2021, the MSME Group met several times to  monitor implementation of the Package. In 
particular,  the  secretariat  of  the  Informal  Working  Group  on  MSMEs  completed  work  on  a 
database  that  lists  references  to  MSME  information  in  the  WTO  Trade  Policy 
Reviews80. At the 12th Ministerial Conference visibility was given to on-going MSME work 
via a statement from the Chair of the MSME informal group81.  

77 Declaration on the importance of MSMEs in the time of COVID, 14 May 2020:  Covid-19 : WTO statement 
on highlighting the importance of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (MSME) (europa.eu).  
78 WTO | 2020 News items - Package of declarations and recommendations adopted to help small businesses 
trade globally 
79 Trade Facilitation Agreement, entered into force 22 February 2017: WTO | legal texts - Agreement on Trade 
Facilitation  
80 The database can be found here: WTO | MSME references in trade policy reviews   
81 https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/MIN22/4.pdf&Open=True  

32 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
IV.  Addressing barriers and finding solutions  

IV.1  State of play of trade barriers and removal  

In  2021,  the  Commission’s  work  to  detect,  raise  and  resolve  trade  barriers  continued,  still 
under the shadow of the COVID pandemic, which had led to increasing protectionist practices 
on the side of several EU trading partners. This produced some difficulties related to logistics 
and supply  chains fuelled by price increases in transportation, commodities and energy, that 
fed  through  into  higher  inflation  as  the  year  progressed.  These  difficult  conditions  were 
further compounded by the resurgence of the omicron variant of COVID in the later part of 
2021, and its reappearance in China in 2022, as well as by the unstable geo-political situation 
flowing from Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.  

Notwithstanding  these  difficult  conditions,  the  EU  continued  work  in  2021  to  identify  and 
remove trade barriers. In doing so, the Commission, in close cooperation with the European 
Parliament,  Member  States  and  business,  continued  to  engage  directly  with  third  countries, 
including  through  the  network  of  EU  Delegations  in  partner  countries  and  in  Geneva. 
Working  both  on  the  ground  in  third  countries  and  through  the  institutional  framework 
provided by EU trade agreements and by the WTO (e.g. the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade 
and  Sanitary  and  Phyto-Sanitary  Committees),  the  Commission  was  active  in  seeking 
solutions  to  existing  and  new  issues.  Preventive  work  remained  in  the  focus  to  capture 
potential  trade  barriers  before  they  materialise.  Concerns  from  EU  companies,  who  were 
reporting unfair treatment or restrictive measures by EU trading partners were at the centre of 
this work. The same attention was paid to breaches of sustainable development commitments 
under EU trade agreements.  

For  new  barriers  and  complaints,  2021  was  the  first  full  year  of  the  Single  Entry  Point, 
which  was  established  to  support  the  Chief  Trade  Enforcement  Officer  and  provides  a  one-
stop-shop  accessible  within  the  Access2Markets  platform,  to  submit  complaints  about 
(potential)  trade  barriers  or  non-compliance  with  commitments  on  trade  and  sustainable 
development and the EU’s GSP Regulation82. 

82 GSP is not part of this report but subject to standalone reporting.  

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
A. Stock of registered trade & investment barriers as of 31 December 2021 

As indicated in the table below, 455 active trade and investment barriers in 65 third countries 
were listed in the Commission’s database Access2Markets83 at the end of 2021: 

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

102 
81 
78 
39 
37 
39 
34 
29 
16 
455 

The  stock  of  trade  and  investment  barriers  facing  EU  companies  when  exporting  to  third 
countries slightly decreased from 462 active barriers in 2020 to 455 in 2021, notwithstanding 
the structural change in trading patterns with the departure on the United Kingdom. However, 
the stock of trade barriers registered rose from 372 in 51 third countries in 2016 to 462 in 66 
countries in 2020 (i.e. by almost 25%).  

Looking  at  the  stock  of  trade  barriers  registered  in  2021,  the  majority  of  barriers  were 
registered  over  the  past  five  years  (39%),  while  34%  of  all  barriers  are  between  six  to  ten 
years old and 27% of all barriers have been listed for more than a decade.  

83 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/barriers  

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Figure 5: Number of barriers as per registration date  

Number of barriers by age

177

154

124

0-5 years

6-10 years

>10 years

Looking  at  barriers  as  per  type,  figure  6  below  shows  that  SPS  measures  remained  the 
category  with  the  largest  number  of  trade  barriers  (102)  in  2021,  accounting  for  almost  a 
quarter of all recorded barriers. Although the total number of SPS barriers was slightly below 
the level in 2020 (107), SPS restrictions have been steadily increasing between 2016 and 2020 
and have remained the largest category. 

The  second  most  frequently  registered  type  of  barrier  in  2021  remained  TBT  measures  (81 
barriers)  and  tariff  measures  and  quantitative  restrictions  (78  barriers),  as  was  the  case  in 
2020. Together, these three categories of trade barriers accounted for almost 60% of all active 
barriers in 2021. This mirrors the trend in 2020.  

35 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6: Types of barriers in 2021 

18%

9%

3%

6%

17%

7%

9%

8%

23%

Administrative procedures

Exports taxes and restrictions

Government Procurement

IPR

Other measures*

Services & investment

SPS

TBT

Tariffs and equivalents and quantitative restrictions

EU  companies  are  facing  trade  barriers  all  over  the  world  when  exporting  their  goods  and 
services, as can be seen from figure 7 below.  

36 

 
 
 
 
Figure 7: Geographic spread of barriers as per region (end of 2021) 

8%

12%

6%

16%

17%

41%

Africa, 55

Asia & Oceania, 187

Central & South America, 75

Europe and Eastern Neighbourhood, 74

Middle-East, 29

North America, 35

As figure 8 below demonstrates, in 2021 China remained the country with the highest stock 
and had 39 barriers; second was Russia 32, followed by United States (27), India (26), Turkey 
(24) and Indonesia (21). Other countries with ten or more barriers included Brazil (19), South 
Korea (18), Australia (15), Algeria (14), Mexico (12), Egypt (11), Malaysia (10) and Vietnam 
(10). Barriers have not  yet been included in the database for the United Kingdom reflecting 
the  very  new  state  of  relations  and  perhaps  the  fact  that  many  of  the  existing  barriers  with 
other partners go back several years.  

Looking over a five year period between 2016 and 2020, Russia and China have been in the 
top two countries within the stock of trade barriers, with China overtaking Russia in 2018 to 
take first place. While Russia’s trade barriers remained fairly stable in  numbers  (average of 
33), barriers concerning China over the period have almost doubled from 23 in 2016 to 40 in 
2020.  

37 

 
 
 
 
Figure 8: Stock of barriers per trading partner (end of 2021) 

B.  

The evolution of trade & investment barriers in 202184 

New barriers registered 

In  terms  of  new  trade  barriers  per  sector,  agriculture  and  fisheries  made  up  the  largest 
category with four, followed by services with three new barriers. Third came the ceramics and 
glass sector and the category of cross-cutting measures (i.e. covering more than one sector or 
affecting all exports to the trading partner country concerned) with two new barriers each.   

Sector 

Number of new barriers 

Agriculture and Fisheries 
Automotive 
Ceramics and Glass 
Chemicals 
Electronics 
Cross-cutting measures 
Other industries 
Services  
Textiles and Leather 
Grand Total 

4 
1 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
3 
1 
16 

84 A complete list of new barriers reported and barriers resolved in 2021 can be found in the Staff Working 
Document: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/7fc51410-46a1-4871-8979-20cce8df0896/library/d41271f9-a025-
42b2-b5dd-e318430d510d/details?download=true 

38 

 
 
 
                                                           
Looking  at  the  five  year  period  between  2016  and  2020,  the  sectors  of  agriculture  and 
fisheries and of wines and spirits have seen the highest number of new barriers registered.   

Looking at the total number of new barriers registered in 2021, the table below suggests 
that in 2021 fewer new barriers were registered (16) than in 202085 (41), which corresponds to 
a net decrease of 25.  

Looking  at  the  new  barriers  recorded  as  per  type,  in  contrast  to  2020,  where  SPS  was  the 
dominant category among new barriers, in 2021 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) topped 
the  list  (6  new  registered  barriers),  while  only  two  new  barriers  related  to  Sanitary  and 
phytosanitary  (SPS)  measures,  as  compared  to  13  in  2020.  2  new  trade  barriers  each  were 
registered  in  the  categories  tariffs  and  equivalent  and  quantitative  restrictions,  public 
procurement, and other measures.  

Type of measure 

New barriers86 2021 

New barriers 2020 

2 
6 
2 

SPS 
TBT 
Tariffs and equivalents and quantitative 
restrictions 
Administrative procedures 
Services & investment 
Other measures* 
IPR 
Public procurement 
Exports taxes and restrictions 
Grand Total 
* Other measures include barriers related to trade defence instruments (TDIs) and to subsidies, measures affecting competition, and other 
measures non-classifiable in previous categories. 

 1 
1 
 2 
0 
2 
0 
16 

5 
4 
4 
3 
3 
1 
41 

13 
5  
5 

The  steep  fall  in  new  SPS  barriers  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  there  were  no  outbreaks  of 
African  Swine  fever  in  2021  and  more  generally,  adverse  economic  conditions  may  have 
slowed the reporting of barriers due to COVID, with businesses focusing squeezed resources 
on other activities.  

85 Link to the 2020 report: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/september/tradoc_159794.pdf 
86 New barriers are the ones registered in Access2Markets along 2021. 

39 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
C.  

Barriers resolved in 2021 

In 2021, 39 trade barriers were resolved, i.e. six more than in 2020:  16 were fully removed 
while 23 were partially resolved.87  

Type of measure 

Barriers resolved 
in 2021 

Barriers resolved 
in 2020 

SPS 
TBT 
Tariffs and equivalents and quantitative restrictions 
Administrative procedures 
Services & investment 
Other measures* 
IPR 
Public procurement 
Exports taxes and restrictions 
Grand Total 
* Other measures include barriers related to trade defence instruments (TDIs) and to subsidies, measures affecting competition, and other 
measures non-classifiable in previous categories. 

15 
6  
6 
3 
2 
1 
3 
1 
2 
39 

17 
6 
2 
 4 
1 
 1 
0 
1 
1 
33 

Looking at  barriers  solved  as per type of barrier, SPS barriers accounted  for the biggest 
category with 15 solved barriers, as was the case in 2020 (17). Elimination of these barriers 
again had a direct positive effect including on EU exporters in many sectors, notably the food 
sector: 

  For  example,  in  2021,  concrete  outcomes  of  the  Commission’s  cooperation  with 
Member  States  and  business  in  this  respect  included  Canada  accepting  the  EU 
harmonised poultry meat certificate, and  

  South  Korea  lifting  previous  import  bans  for  several  Member  States  that  had  been 

imposed due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Flu (HPAI).  

With six partially or fully solved barriers each, the second most common types related to TBT 
and  tariffs  and  equivalents  and  quantitative  restrictions.  Examples  for  successful 
resolution of TBT issues in 2021 included among others: 

  The adjustment by Australia of standards for sulphur content of fuel that resulted in 
fuel quality, that was incompatible with the latest, high-efficiency engines produced 
by EU manufacturers;  

 

Improvements  by  Tunisia,  following  interventions  by  the  EU  side,  to  mitigate  the 
effects  of tariffs on “non-essential”  consumer products  that had been introduced  for 
agricultural products such as kiwi, frozen tuna and honey.  

Furthermore, as can be seen from figure 9 below, full or partial solutions covered 24 of the 
EU’s trading partners.  

40 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 9: Number of barriers resolved by partner (2021) 

5

4

3

2

1

0

In  tackling  barriers,  the  Commission  applies  a  wide  range  of  instruments,  often  in 
combination 

The choice of instruments and fora depends on the particular situation: The Commission may 
raise  the  issues  under  a  bilateral  trade  agreement  (e.g.  using  the  institutional  structures 
established), or  in one of the WTO Committees,  or by making use of diplomatic channels, 
including  joint  demarches  with  Member  States,  or  high-level  dialogues  with  its  trading 
partners. As a last resort, where merited by the problem, the Commission will bring dispute 
settlement cases under its bilateral agreements or at the WTO (see further section V below), 
or -in response to industry requests- will launch investigations under the EU’s Trade Barriers 
Regulation.  

Some trade barriers were successful tackled through bilateral action… 

This  was  the  case  inter  alia  for  Turkey  –  Cosmetics:  In  2018,  Turkey  started  requiring  the 
preliminary submission of Safety Assessment Reports for  all cosmetics entering the Turkish 
market. The Trade Section in the EU Delegation in Ankara, in coordination with the Member 
States’ Embassies, reached out to the local authorities to seek an adaption of this practice in 
order  to  remove  the  barrier.  At  the  start  of  2021  the  requirement  for  Safety  Assessment 
Reports  was  lifted  and,  to  ensure  full  alignment  with  the  EU,  Turkey  prepared  a  new  draft 
legislation, which has been submitted for the Commission’s assessment. 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
…while other trade barriers were solved in the multilateral framework of the WTO and its 
committees… 

The EU, acting on behalf of the 27 Member States, remains a driving force within the WTO. 
It actively participates across the full set of committees (e.g. on SPS and TBT), which often 
provide the setting to raise and seek resolution of persistent market access barriers imposed by 
other  Members  and  offer  the  possibility  to  comment  directly  to  third  countries  on  new 
measures before they enter into force as part of the SPS and TBT notification procedures.     

Examples for successful interaction at multilateral level in 2021 include: 

  Korea – Ballast Water Treatment System: After more than two years of work through 
the WTO TBT Committee, Korea issued Type Approval Certificates (TACs) to an EU 
manufacturer of Ballast Water Treatment Systems. This allows the company to install 
these  systems  on  Korean  flagged  vessels  in  order  to  prevent  the  spread  of  invasive 
species, thereby ensuring maritime safety and protecting the environment.  

  Saudi  Arabia  -  Mandatory  expiry  dates  for  several  food  products:  In  2021,  Saudi 
Arabia announced its intention to set mandatory expiry dates for table eggs (60 days) 
and  frozen  poultry  meat  products  (3  months)  via  WTO  SPS  notifications.  The  EU 
submitted comments requesting Saudi Arabia to give the responsibility to the business 
operators  to  set  expiry  dates  within  a  given  range,  thus  maintaining  high  protection 
levels,  while  avoiding  overly  burdensome  administrative  procedures.  The  Saudi 
Arabian authorities suspended the implementation for further review.  

…and in specific cases, the Trade Barriers Regulation offered a legal path to tackle trade 
barriers in Mexico and Saudi Arabia 

The  Trade  Barriers  Regulation  (TBR)  is  a  legal  instrument  allowing  EU  stakeholders 
(companies, industries,  associations and Member States) to complain  about  trade barriers in 
third  countries.  If  the  complaint  fulfils  the  admission  criteria,  the  Commission  assesses 
whether the alleged barrier indeed constitutes a violation of international trade rules and if the 
EU should act.  

  The  Commission  services’  Tequila  report88  concluded  that  -since  the  Mexican 
measure raised concerns on its compliance with WTO rules- it should continue to be 
monitored.  Against  the  backdrop  of  this  report,  a  mutually  agreeable  solution  was 
found,  relevant  exports  of  Tequila  resumed,  and  the  complainant  withdrew  the 
complaint (the TBR procedure was formally terminated in February 2022). The case 
demonstrates  how  recourse  to  swift  and  effective  trade  enforcement  tools  can 
contribute to finding mutually agreeable solutions to trade barriers. 

88 The Commission’s report to the TBR Committee can be accessed here: 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/may/tradoc_159563.pdf  

42 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 

In  2021,  Commission  services  also  concluded  their  examinations  of  Saudi  Arabia´s 
measures  restricting  market  access  for  EU  ceramic  tiles.  The  Commission  services 
report  concerning  Saudi  Arabia89  concluded  that  many  aspects  of  these  new  Saudi 
technical regulations and the way that they are implemented raised serious concerns of 
compliance with WTO law, and that the services would engage with Saudi Arabia to 
ensure  a  swift  and  efficient  removal  of  these  barriers.  That  engagement  was  still 
ongoing at the end of 2021 and led to Saudi Arabia to take in March 2022 a number of 
commitments  to  address  EU’s  requests.  The  Commission  is  monitoring  the 
implementation of these commitments. 

D.  

The Market Access Partnership at work and its impact in 2021 

In addressing trade barriers the Commission works closely with Member States and European 
business associations in various fora, such as: 

  The Market Access Advisory Committee (MAAC)90: As the central forum of discussion, it 
meets  on  a  monthly  basis  and  brings  together  the  Commission  services,  Member  States 
officials and representatives of more than 50 EU business associations from all sectors; 

  The sectoral Market Access Working Groups (MAWG): These working groups meet once 
per year and follow the same structure as the MAAC, while discussions are sector-driven. 
Currently there  are MAWG on  seven sectors (SPS issues,  Electronics and  ICT, Medical 
Devices, Pharmaceuticals, Wines and Spirits, Textile, Cars and Tyres). 

Figure 10 below shows the wide set of sectors benefitting from the efforts taken forward in 
these  and  other  fora  to  strengthen  market  access  for  EU  businesses  in  third  countries. 
Continuing  the  trend  over  the  previous  years  between  2016  and  2020,  agriculture  and 
fisheries  remained  the  sectors  that  saw  the  highest  number  of  trade  barriers  resolved  in 
2021 (17), accounting for almost 40 % of all resolved barriers.  

89 The Commission’s report to the TBR Committee can be accessed here: 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/may/tradoc_159564.pdf  
90  In  addition,  mirroring  the  discussions  in  Headquarters,  a  number  of  EU  Delegations  also  hold  regular 
discussions  involving  Member  States,  as  well  as  business  (and  sometimes  also  authorities  from  the  partner 
countries). 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
Figure 10: Number of barriers resolved per sector (2021)  

In  2021,  the  second  largest  category  of  resolved  barriers  was  made  up  by  horizontal 
measures,  i.e.  barriers  applying  to  many  sectors,  while  four  concerned  the  textiles  and 
leather  sector.  By  contrast,  the  number  of  solved  barriers  for  the  other  sectors  remained 
relatively stable between 2016 and 2020, with some minor variations from year to year.  

Overall, econometric analysis carried out by DG TRADE showed that, thanks to the removal 
of  a  number  of  barriers  between  2015  and  2020,  exports  from  the  EU  in  2021  were  €7.2 
billion higher than they would have been if the barriers had still been in place. This  is 
€1.8  billion  higher  than  in  2020  (when  barrier  work  carried  out  2014-2019  enabled  an 
additional € 5.4 billion in EU exports) and is a clear indication of the direct benefits stemming 
from  the  implementation  and  enforcement  efforts  carried  out  by  the  Commission,  Member 
States and businesses under the Market Access Partnership.  

IV.2  The Single Entry Point for complaints 

DG  TRADE  launched  the  Single  Entry  Point  on  16  November  2020  to  make  reporting  of 
new (or potential) trade barriers or breaches of sustainability commitments (under the TSD or 
General Scheme of Preferences (GSP)) easier. First, with the Single Entry Point, there is now 
one  point  of  contact  for  stakeholders.  Second,  the  Single  Entry  Point  has  ensured  a  more 
efficient  assessment  of  new  issues  and  speeds  up  decisions  on  the  appropriate  follow-up 
process  inside  the  Commission.  Under  the  guidance  of  the  Chief  Trade  Enforcement 
Officer (‘CTEO’), the Single Entry Point coordinates the assessment of the complaints and 
sets up Commission services ‘case teams’.     

The  Single  Entry  Point  has  frequent  contacts  with  potential  complainants  ahead  of 
formalising  a  complaint.  Complaints  can  be  submitted  online  using  one  of  two  complaint 
forms – one related to market access issues and one on TSD/GSP-related issues. The forms 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
can  be  found  directly  on  the  Access2Markets  platform91  and  are  designed  to  provide  the 
Single  Entry  Point  with  the  information  necessary  to  make  a  first  assessment  of  the  issue, 
together with other Commission services and trade teams in the EU delegations, and decide 
on  follow  up  action  accordingly.  If  more  information  is  needed  or  the  opinion  of  other 
international organisations (e.g. the ILO on trade and labour questions), the Single Entry Point 
will follow up  directly  with the complainant. The complainant  will be  kept  informed of the 
progress of the case.   

Once it is complete, the appointed case team will assess the complaint and suggest appropriate 
follow-up  actions  to  solve  the  issue.  If  the  Single  Entry  Point  does  not  receive  an  official 
complaint, the Commission still reserves the right to take action by its own initiative – the so-
called ex-officio process.  

EXAMPLE: Complaint on restrictions of EU exports of footwear to India  

In early 2021, the SEP received a complaint on Quality Control Orders (QCOs) for footwear 
in  India. QCOs are a known challenge for EU companies, who want to export to India and 
they  affect  many  different  sectors.  However,  with  the  complaint,  the  Commission  became 
aware  of  new  QCOs  in  yet  another  sector  –  footwear.  Once  received,  the  SEP  therefore 
engaged  with  the  complainant  to  collect  further  information  and  to  fill  in  the  gaps  of  the 
original  complaint  form.  The  SEP  then  set  up  a  case  team  consisting  of  experts  from  
geographical and sectorial units to assess the complaint in detail. The EU Delegation in New 
Delhi was also directly involved. The conclusion was clear: Upon entry into force, the QCOs 
for  footwear  will  constitute  a  trade  barrier  for  EU  companies.  The  barrier  was  therefore 
registered in Access2Markets. In the spring of 2022, a positive development occurred as the 
entry  into  force  of  the  QCOs  was  delayed  until  2023  to  the  benefit  of  EU  exporters.  The 
Commission continues to work towards a full resolution of the issue.       

The Single Entry Point in numbers 

2021 constituted the first full year when the Single Entry Point was fully operational. In total, 
the  Single  Entry  Point  was  contacted  61  times  about  potential  trade  barriers  or  potential 
breaches  of  third  countries’  sustainability  commitments.  Those  contacts  translated  into  33 
complaints  through  the  Access2Markets  portal.  All  of  these  complaints  concerned  market 
access issues. While sustainability related issues did come up in a number of pre-submission 
meetings  with  stakeholders,  none  of  these  materialised  in  a  formal  complaint  during  the 
period covered by this report.92  

Looking  at  the  source  of  the  complaints,  the  vast  majority  of  complainants  (30)  were  EU 
businesses  (15  complaints  were  launched  directly  by  EU  companies,  12  by  European  trade 

91 Market access complaint form: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/contact-
form?type=COMPL_MA  
TSD/GSP complaint form: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/access-to-markets/en/contact-
form?type=COMPL_TSD_GSP  
92 A first complaint was submitted in May 2020 by a Dutch NGO in relation to the compliance of Colombia and 
Peru of certain ILO labour provisions pursuant to the trade agreements with the EU. The complaint is not 
covered by this report. 

45 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
associations,  and  three  by  national  trade  associations).  Only  three  complaints  came  from 
Member States.  

Complaints  concerned  market  access  barriers  in  21  EU  trading  partners,  covering  all 
geographic regions. However, as figure 11 suggests, the Southern neighbourhood, the Middle 
East, Turkey, Russia and Central Asia made up more than a third of all complaints received in 
2021, while only one complaint concerned the North American region.    

Figure 11: Complaints received by Single Entry Point per region  

3%

9%

African, Caribbean and Pacific

9%

Europe and Eastern Neighbourhood

37%

Far East

12%

Latin America

6%

South and South East Asia Australia and
New Zealand

Southern neighbours,  Middle East,
Turkey, Russia and Central Asia

24%

Northern America

46 

 
 
 
 
 
V.  Bilateral 
commitments: resolving disputes93 

and  multilateral 

enforcement 

of 

trade 

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  approach  to 
implementation and enforcement. To be at its most effective, this upstream work is backed up 
by pursuing legal disputes, when necessary.  

V.1  Use of dispute settlement 

A.   WTO dispute settlement  

Even with the WTO’s Appellate Body still blocked, the EU’s WTO dispute settlement 
activity continued…. 

Since  December  2019  the  WTO  Appellate  Body  has  been  unable  to  hear  appeals,  due  to  a 
blockage on appointments.  Finding a lasting solution to  this situation  remains a top  priority 
for the EU.  

In  the  meantime,  despite  the  threat  to  binding  resolution  of  WTO  disputes  posed  by  the 
paralysis  of  the  Appellate  Body,  the  EU  successfully  advanced  a  growing  number  of  WTO 
disputes during the reporting period. The MPIA94 contributed to this advancement and is an 
important  part  of  the  EU’s  strategy  concerning  the  Appellate  Body  situation.  At  the  end  of 
April  2022,  52  out  of  the  164  WTO  Members  were  covered  by  the  25  MPIA  participants. 
Alternatively,  if  a  WTO  member  with  which  the  EU  has  a  WTO  dispute  chooses  not  to 
participate  in  the  MPIA,  the  EU  concludes  where  possible  an  ‘ad  hoc’  appeal  arbitration 
agreement  for  that  dispute,  based  on  the  MPIA  model.  Accordingly,  the  EU  concluded  in 
March  2022  ad  hoc  appeal  arbitration  agreements  with  Turkey  in  two  WTO  disputes 
(DS583  and  DS595,  see  below).  By  agreeing  on  appeal  arbitration  procedures,  the  EU  and 
Turkey  ensured  that  binding,  two-tier  and  independent  dispute  settlement  could  continue  at 
the WTO for both cases.  

93 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/ ).   
94  This  arrangement,  notified  to  the  WTO  in  April  2020,  ensures  that  the  WTO  members  participating  in  it 
continue  to  benefit,  even  though  the  Appellate  Body  is  paralysed,  from  binding,  two-tier  and  independent 
adjudication under WTO rules in any disputes between them. Any WTO member may join the MPIA as long as 
the Appellate Body remains unable to function fully.  

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Among the disputes advanced by the EU over the reporting period were the following, inter 
alia:95  

  U.S.  –  ripe  olives  (DS577)  –  This  dispute  concerns  countervailing  duties  applied  on 
imports of ripe olives from Spain put in place during the previous  US administration 
in  2018.  On  19  November  2021,  the  panel  ruled  that  these  countervailing  duties  are 
illegal under WTO rules. The report became binding in December 2021, following its 
adoption in the WTO without appeal. Parties agreed that the reasonable period of time 
in which the U.S. would have to implement the report would be by 14 January 2023.  

  Turkey  –  pharma  (DS583)  –  This  dispute  concerns  the  EU’s  challenge  of  certain 
Turkish  measures  affecting  imported  pharmaceutical  products.  All  claims  were 
decided in the EU’s favour in the panel report of 28 April 2022, which concluded that 
Turkey  cannot  require  producers  of  pharmaceutical  products  to  move  production  to 
Turkey for their products to be eligible for reimbursement by social security schemes 
in  Turkey.  Neither  can  Turkey  prioritise  reviews  of  reimbursement  and  marketing 
applications  concerning  domestic  pharmaceutical  products  over  those  concerning 
imported pharmaceutical products. Turkey’s appeal of this panel report is being heard 
under  WTO  rules  in  accordance  with  the  ad  hoc  appeal  arbitration  agreement 
concluded  with  Turkey  (mentioned  above).  That  agreement  guarantees  a  binding 
resolution  of  the  dispute,  including  with  respect  to  any  future  disagreement  over 
compliance. 

  Turkey  –  steel  safeguards  (DS595)  –  This  dispute  concerns  the  EU  steel  safeguard 
measure imposed by the EU in February 2019. The panel report of 29 April 2022 was 
overall  positive  for  the  EU,  with  the  most  important  questions  being  resolved  in  the 
EU’s  favour.  Importantly,  the  panel  clarified  WTO  rules  on  safeguards,  thus 
confirming  the  availability  of  the  safeguards  instrument  as  a  response  to  the  global 
steel crisis. The panel found the EU steel safeguard WTO-compatible on most of the 
points which Turkey had questioned, while it also found, on three points, that the EU 
safeguard  measure  lacked  sufficient  justification.  In  this  regard,  the  EU  will 
implement  the  ruling  after  its  official  adoption  in  the  WTO.  In  this  dispute,  neither 
side  made  use  of  the  right  to  appeal,  which  was  guaranteed  by  the  ad  hoc  appeal 
arbitration agreement concluded with Turkey. 

  U.S.  –  steel  and  aluminium  (DS548  and  DS559)  –  In  late  2021,  in  the  context  of  a 
joint  EU-U.S.  statement  on  a  ‘Global  Arrangement  on  Sustainable  Steel  and 
Aluminium’, the EU and the U.S. in effect suspended two disputes between them: (1) 
DS548  concerning  additional  duties  imposed  by  the  U.S.  on  certain  steel  and 

95 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://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/february/tradoc_159429.pdf  

48 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
aluminium  imports and (2) DS559  concerning additional import duties  levied by the 
EU in response to those U.S. duties. The EU and the U.S. transformed the WTO panel 
proceeding in both disputes into WTO arbitration proceedings that they subsequently 
suspended indefinitely with the possibility of resumption – if necessary – in the future. 
In  parallel,  the  U.S.  undertook  to  remove  ‘Section  232’  tariffs  on  EU  steel  and 
aluminium  imports  into  the  U.S.  up  to  past  trade  volumes  and  the  EU  undertook  to 
suspend temporarily the corresponding EU rebalancing measures against the U.S.  

  U.S.  –  large  civil  aircraft  (DS316  and  DS353)  –As  reported  last  year,  another 
important  step  in  2021  was  the  de-escalation  of  the  disputes  on  ‘large  civil  aircraft’ 
reached  between  the  EU  and  the  U.S.  in  mid-June  2021,  in  the  context  of  the 
‘Understanding  on  a  cooperative  framework  for  Large  Civil  Aircraft’  (DS316  and 
DS353).  

In addition, panel proceedings progressed in several other WTO disputes involving the EU. 
These  include  Colombia  –  frozen  fries  (DS591)  where  the  panel  report  is  expected  in  the 
second half of 2022 (and which is covered by the MPIA). Other important examples are the 
EU’s case against India over excessive Indian tariffs on certain goods in the information and 
communications technology sector (DS582) and its dispute concerning Indonesia’s nickel ore 
export ban and domestic processing requirements affecting nickel ore and iron ore (DS592) as 
well as two defensive cases, brought by Indonesia and Malaysia, concerning certain biofuel 
rules in relation to palm oil (DS593 and DS600, respectively).  

Russia’s  unprovoked  and  unjustified  military  aggression  against  Ukraine  grossly  violates 
international law and undermined international security and stability. It also affected the EU’s 
trade enforcement activities. Consistently with the EU’s general approach taken with respect 
to  Russia  in  international  fora,  the  EU’s  contacts  with  Russia  have  ceased  in  the  WTO 
disputes between the two sides. In particular, panel proceedings have been suspended in the 
EU’s  dispute  against  Russia  concerning  various  measures  favouring  Russian  products  and 
services (DS604) and in the dispute brought by Russia concerning EU anti-dumping measures 
on certain steel products from Russia (DS521).  

Russia’s  onslaught  also  affected  Ukraine’s  ability,  in  a  bilateral  dispute  under  the  EU’s 
Association  Agreement  with  Ukraine,  to  comply  with  the  arbitration  panel’s  ruling 
concerning a Ukrainian ban on the export of certain types of timber.  

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
A series of new cases confirms the EU’s belief in WTO dispute settlement…  

In  early  2022,  the  EU  launched  several  new  WTO  disputes.  This  reflects  the  EU’s 
determination  to  combat  trade-distortive  conduct  and  the  EU’s  confidence  in  WTO  dispute 
settlement as a means of doing so.  

-  Egypt  –  import  registration  (DS609)  –  In  January  2022,  the  EU  requested 
consultations concerning Egypt’s import registration requirements and the manner that 
they affect the importation of certain categories of goods from the EU to Egypt.  

-  China  –  goods  and  services  (DS610)  –  In  January  2022,  the  EU  launched  a  dispute 
against China concerning certain measures affecting trade between the EU and China 
in  goods  or  services  from  or  destined  for  Lithuania  or  linked  in  various  ways  to 
Lithuania,  for  example  through  the  presence  of  Lithuanian  components.  Those 
measures also have an effect on supply chains throughout the EU. 

-  China  –  anti-suit  injunctions  (DS611)  –  In  February  2022,  the  EU  launched  another 
dispute against China, this one concerning the practice of ‘anti-suit injunctions’, issued 
by  Chinese  courts,  that  leave  EU-based  high-tech  companies  at  a  significant 
disadvantage  when  enforcing  their  intellectual  property  rights  to  protect  their 
technologies.  

-  United Kingdom – procurement in low carbon energy generation (DS612) – In March 
2022, the EU launched WTO proceedings concerning the United Kingdom’s measures 
to incentivise low-carbon energy generation projects, mainly offshore wind farms. The 
EU  claims  that  the  United  Kingdom,  by  incentivising  applicants  for  State  financial 
support  (in  the  form  of  ‘contracts  for  difference’  or  CfD)  to  commit  to  and  to 
implement  an  ambitious  percentage  of  United  Kingdom  local  content,  accords  less 
favourable treatment to imported goods than to like domestic goods. Following WTO 
consultations, on 1 July, the parties agreed on a way forward to settle the issue:  The 
United  Kingdom  clarified  that,  both  for  the  current  and  future  allocation  rounds, 
United  Kingdom  content  does  not  play  any  role  whatsoever  in  the  allocation  of 
subsidies  and  that  CfD  beneficiaries  do  not  need  to  achieve  any  particular  level  of 
United Kingdom content to receive payments. Any request for information on United 
Kingdom content remains for information purposes only.96 

96 https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-and-uk-agree-way-forward-wto-dispute-concerning-uks-green-
energy-subsidy-scheme-2022-07-01_en  

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
B.  

Bilateral dispute settlement  

The EU did not launch any bilateral disputes in 2021, but continued to press for procedural 
or compliance progress in existing cases …  

-  Korea  –  labour  commitments.  As  of  the  end  of  April  2022,  discussions  were 
continuing with the Republic of Korea on the completion of its implementation of the 
January 2021 ruling of the panel of experts97, issued in accordance with the ‘Trade and 
Sustainable  Development’  chapter  of  the  EU-Korea  Free  Trade  Agreement.  In 
particular,  Korea  still  needed  to  ratify  the  last  of  the  four  fundamental  ILO 
conventions  concerned,  notably  Convention  No  105  on  the  Abolition  of  Forced 
Labour. 

-  Southern African Customs Union  – safeguard measures on poultry. This dispute 
is governed by the dispute settlement provisions of the bilateral Economic Partnership 
Agreement  between  the  EU  and  the  Southern  African  Development  Community.  It 
concerns  the  imposition  in  September  2018  of  a  safeguard  measure  on  exports  of 
frozen bone-in chicken cuts from the EU. All the procedural elements for the launch of 
panel  proceedings  were  eventually  agreed  in  the  first  half  of  2021,  allowing  those 
proceedings to start in autumn 2021. The hearing took place in March 2022. As of the 
end  of  April  2022,  the  main  remaining  milestone  in  these  proceedings  was  the 
issuance of a final report.  

-  Algeria – several  trade restrictive measures.  After the EU nominated its arbitrator 
and  formally  requested  the  establishment  of  an  arbitration  panel  in  March  2021, 
technical  consultations  with  Algeria  with  a  view  to  finding  an  amicable  solution 
intensified.  In  early  2022,  Algeria  removed  excessive  tariffs  on  129  products. 
However,  as  of  the  end  of  April  2022,  progress  by  Algeria  on  other  aspects  of  the 
dispute had yet to materialise.  

V.2  Renewal of pools of adjudicators for disputes under EU agreements 

Following  the  Commission’s  December  2020  call  for  applications  in  connection  with  the 
renewal  of  the  pool  of  arbitrators  and  the  separate  pool  of  experts  in  trade  and  sustainable 
development for dispute settlement panels under trade agreements to which the EU is a party, 
a selection panel of experienced international judges and academics examined the candidates 
to confirm their suitability for appointment. The successful candidates were informed in May 
2022  and  the  list  published  in  June  202298.  In  line  with  the  Commission’s  adherence  to  the 
‘Equal Representation in Arbitration Pledge’, the Commission will now seek to ensure gender 
balance in its proposals from that pool to the Council for rosters of arbitrators and experts, as 
well as  in  the appointment  of arbitrators or of trade and sustainable development experts in 
specific disputes. 

97 The panel report was issued on 20 January 2021 and is available here : 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2021/january/tradoc_159358.pdf  

98 https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/7fc51410-46a1-4871-8979-20cce8df0896/library/3b8c3460-b8f5-4bd2-
8e32-08b68cf4d834  

51