COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the impact of the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, of the other part
Date: 2023-10-04
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, economic consequence, environmental impact, human rights, social impact, trade agreement, trade agreement (EU), trade cooperation

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 4.10.2023  SWD(2023) 327 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the impact of the Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, of the other part {SWD(2023) 328 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... ….2 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/check ............................................................................ …2 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ....................................... 5 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives ............................................................. …5 

2.2 Point(s) of comparison .......................................................................................................... 6 

Impact on trade and welfare ………………………………………………………………………………………………….8 

Impact on GDP  …………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………8 

Main gains/losses across goods sectors ...................................................................................... 8 

Main sustainability issues by type of impact .............................................................................. 9 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ....................... 11 

Current state of play …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11 

4. 

EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ....................................................................... 14 

4.1. To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ............................................... 14 

4.2. How did the EU intervention make a difference and for whom? ...................................... 42 

4.3. Is the intervention still relevant? ....................................................................................... 43 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED?   ............................................... 44 

5.1. Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..44 

5.2. Lessons learned …………………………………………………………………………….………………………………48 

ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION............................................................................................. 55 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ................................................... 57 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS 

TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............................................................. 67 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE 

ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] .................................................................. 78 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................................. 85 

ANNEX VI. TRADE IN GOODS ................................................................................................................ 99 

ANNEX  VII.  EFFECTS  ANTICIPATED  IN  THE  SIA  V  EFFECTS  IDENTIFIED  IN  THE 

EX POST EVALUATION ................................................................................................................ 101 

ANNEX VIII. UTILISATION TRQS ......................................................................................................... 105 

ANNEX IX. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ............................................................................................. 107 

ANNEX  X.  CHANGES  IN  GDP  (AT  INITIAL  MARKET  PRICES)  IN  EU  AND  PARTNER 

COUNTRIES CAUSED BY THE AGREEMENT (YEAR 2020) ................................................... 109 

ANNEX  XI.  COMPARISON  OF  THE  RESULTS  OF  THE  EX ANTE  MODELLING  (2009) 

AND THOSE OF THE EX POST EVALUATION (2023) ............................................................... 110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

CGE 

CRS 

CS 

DAG 

EEAS 

EP 

FTA 

GSP 

GSP+ 

HS 

GATT 

GDP 

GHG 

GVC 

ILO 

MEAs 

MFN 

MSME 

NTM 

OPC 

RoO 

SDG 

SIA 

SPS 

TBT 

TPR 

ToR 

TRQ 

TSD 

WTO 

Computable general equilibrium 

Corporate Social Responsibility 

Civil Society 

Domestic Advisory Group 

European External Action Service 

European Parliament 

Free Trade Area 

General System of Preferences 

Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable Development and good 
Governance 

Harmonised System 

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 

Gross Domestic Product 

Green House Gas 

Global Value Chain 

International Labour Organisation 

Multilateral Environmental Standards and Agreements  

Most favoured nation 

Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises 

Non-tariff measures 

Open Public Consultation 

Rules of Origin 

Sustainable Development Goal 

Sustainability Impact Assessment 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary 

Technical barriers to trade 

Trade Policy Review 

Terms of Reference 

Tariff-Rate Quota 

Trade and Sustainable Development 

World Trade Organization 

1 

 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation/check 

This ex post  evaluation  has  been undertaken  to  analyse the economic, social, environmental 
and  human  rights  (including  labour  rights)1  impact  of  the  implementation  of  the  European 
Union’s  Trade Agreement  with Colombia, Peru and Ecuador (hereafter the  ‘Agreement’).  It 
also  seeks to  determine  whether there  are any  areas of work that could  benefit from further 
implementation  efforts  to  ensure  that  the  Parties  take  full  advantage  of  the  opportunities 
offered by the Agreement. 

To support the European Commission’s evaluation of the Agreement,  in  2020 the European 
Commission’s  Directorate-General  for  Trade  (DG  Trade)  awarded  a  contract  for  an 
independent  study  to  a  consortium  led  by  BKP  Economic  Advisors  (BKP).  The  study  was 
undertaken during the period April 2020 to July 2021.  

The present evaluation was conducted by experts from both the EU and partner countries.  

The  ex post  evaluation  analysis  is  part  of  the  EU  policy  to  foster  future  policymaking  in 
accordance with the ‘EU Better Regulation’ policy2. It is not linked to a legal obligation or to 
a planned future reopening of the Agreement. 

The  purpose  of  the  study  was  to  analyse  the  economic,  social,  environmental  and  human 
rights (including labour rights) impact of the Agreement and to determine whether the parties 
needed to further their implementation efforts to ensure that they are taking full advantage of 
the opportunities offered by the Agreement. 

The final report3 of the external study is a source of useful information and economic analysis 
but  does  not  represent  the  Commission’s  views.  In  this  evaluation,  the  Commission 
departments present their assessment of the findings and conclusions set out in the final report 
of the study. 

The  final  report  focuses  on  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  of  the  Agreement  have  been 
reached in terms of the following four criteria listed in the EU’s Better Regulation guidelines 
and toolbox: 

•  Effectiveness: the extent to which the objectives of the Agreement have been achieved 
and  the  factors  influencing  their  achievement,  including  identification  of  any 
unintended consequences. 

•  Efficiency:  the  extent  to  which  the  Agreement  has  been  efficient  in  achieving  its 
objectives:  what  costs  were  associated  with  the  achievement  of  the  objectives  and 
whether  they  have  they  been  proportionate  to  the  benefits  obtained;  what  factors 
influenced  the  costs  and  benefits  and  their  distribution  across  different  stakeholder 

1 Whenever the SWD refers to human rights, this includes labour rights. 
2 Better regulation: guidelines and toolbox (europa.eu) 
3 Webpage of the ex-post evaluation 

2 

 
 
groups; and whether there are any remaining inefficiencies and regulatory costs related 
to the Agreement. 

•  Coherence:  the  extent  to  which  the  Agreement  has  been  coherent  with  current  EU 
trade  policy  and  other  EU  policies  related  to  sustainable  development  and  the 
achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 

•  Relevance:  the  extent  to  which  the  provisions  of  the  Agreement  are  relevant  for 

addressing current trade issues faced by the EU and its partners. 

The  ex post  evaluation  provides  responses  to  a  number  of  evaluation  questions  (Box  1) 
which were contained in the evaluation's terms of reference (ToR). 

As  the  evaluation  questions  are  broad,  they  were  set  out  in  an  evaluation  framework  that 
provides,  for  each  evaluation  question,  the  judgement  criteria,  the  analysis  needed  to 
substantiate  the  findings  and  conclusions  drawn,  and  the  sources  through  which  data  and 
information were obtained. 

The  evaluation  framework  also  links  evaluation  questions  and  judgement  criteria  to  the 
analytical tasks to be performed as specified in the terms of reference for the external study. 
During the reporting phase, an additional question (EQ 1B) related to the Agreement’s impact 
was added to the questions listed in the ToR. 

Box 1: Evaluation questions 

Effectiveness/Impact 

• 

• 
• 

• 

• 
• 
• 

• 

• 
• 

EQ 1A: To what extent have the operational objectives as laid down in Article 4 of the Agreement been 
achieved? 
EQ 1B: What has been the impact of the Agreement? 
EQ  2:  What  are  the  factors  influencing  (either  positively  or  negatively)  the  achievement  of  the 
Agreement’s objectives? 
EQ 3: Has the Agreement had unintended (positive or negative) consequences, and if so, which ones? 

Efficiency 
EQ 4: To what extent has the Agreement been efficient with respect to achieving its objectives? 
EQ 5: To what extent are the costs associated with the Agreement proportionate to the benefits it has 
generated?  Is  the  distribution  of  both  costs  and  benefits  proportionate  among  different  stakeholder 
groups and interests? 
EQ 6: Are there unnecessary regulatory costs (including administrative burden)? 

Coherence 
EQ 7: To what extent has the Agreement been coherent with the EU’s trade and development policies 
and,  in  particular,  with  the  EU’s  commitment  to  sustainable  development  in  trade  policies  as  a 
contribution attainment of the SDGs? 

•  Relevance 
• 

EQ 8: To what extent do the provisions of the Agreement continue to be relevant in order to address 
the current trade needs and issues of the EU, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador? 

The  evaluation’s  methodological  approach  was  to  determine  the  Agreement’s  effect  by 
comparing the present situation (where the Agreement between the Parties has been applied 

3 

 
 
since 2013 in the cases of Peru and Colombia, and since 2017 in the case of Ecuador) with a 
hypothetical situation (where the Agreement is assumed never to have taken place). 

A key source for assessing the quantitative trade and economic effects of the Agreement were 
the economic model simulations4, which were based on official trade and economic statistics. 
These  data  were  complemented  with  official  economic  and  trade  data  from  the  partner 
countries,  which  also  constituted  the  basis  for  the  quantitative  analysis  of  the  Agreement’s 
social  effects.  Sources  for  the  qualitative  analysis  were  existing  studies,  official  documents 
and position papers from both official sources and interested parties and stakeholders5. 

In  addition,  contributions  received  from  more  than  140  stakeholders6  in  the  course  of  a 
comprehensive  consultation  process  were  a  key  source  of  information.  More  specifically, 
consultation activities took place through five ‘pillars’, each with different target groups and 
using  different  communication  channels.  Firstly,  all  key  stakeholders  identified  by  the 
consultants (some 1100 organisations and individuals) as well as the interested public at large 
were  kept  informed  about  the  evaluation  and  its  progress,  activities,  outputs  and  findings 
through an evaluation website, email newsletters and Twitter. Secondly, for all stakeholders, 
an  online  public  consultation  (OPC)  was  open  from  13 January  2021  to  6 May  2021, 
receiving 70 responses.  Thirdly, targeted consultation tools  – in  particular workshops  in  the 
partner countries, an online survey for businesses (including MSMEs) in the EU and partner 
countries,  and  interviews  and  meetings  with  stakeholders  in  the  EU  and  partner  countries  – 
constituted a key instrument for obtaining in-depth information and views on the Agreement 
from  a diverse set  of stakeholders. Fourthly, discussions with  EU civil  society were  held  as 
part of DG Trade’s civil society dialogue (CSD) meetings. Finally, additional meetings with 
EU  institutions  took  place  in  the  context  of  Steering  Committee  meetings  (involving  the 
various departments of the European Commission) and interviews. 

Despite  the  broad  approach  and  solid  methodological  underpinnings  of  the  evaluation,  a 
number  of  limitations  should  be  noted.  Firstly,  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  most 
consultation  activities  had  to  be  conducted  online.  Some  interviews  took  place  physically 
between local team members and stakeholders, but a visit by the core evaluation team to the 
Andean  partner  countries  was  not  possible.  Although  outreach  in  partner  countries  to 
stakeholders  in  rural  areas  was  possible,  thanks  to  relatively  good  internet  connectivity, 
physical  visits  would  have  been  preferable  to  be  able  to  better  assess  actual  effects  on  the 
ground. Secondly, some limitations in data availability and reliability required the substitution 
of  quantitative  analysis  by  qualitative  analysis,  and  in  some  cases  prevented  a  definitive 
assessment  of  causality  between  the  Agreement  and  observed  developments.  Last  but  not 
least,  the  COVID-19  pandemic  affected  not  only  the  consultation  activities  but  also  the 

4 The economic model simulation was prepared by the European Commission (DG TRADE). 
5 All sources used are provided in the main evaluation report and its annexes prepared by the Consortium. 
6  Includes  European  Commission  departments,  Member  States,  other  EU  institutions,  the  governments, 
authorities  and  agencies  of  the  three  partner  countries,  business  organisations  and  individual  businesses,  civil 
society  organisations,  academia,  individual  citizens,  and  representatives  of  international  and  regional 
organisations. 

4 

 
 
findings: first, because data for 2020 are distorted by the effects of the pandemic, and second, 
because  the  pandemic  also  shaped  the  perceptions  of  stakeholders  and  in  particular  their 
views about recent economic and social developments in the Party countries and the reasons 
for those developments. 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1 Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The Agreement was one of the first of a new generation of trade agreements. The Agreement 
is not only about market access and tariff preferences: it also establishes a set of trade rules 
(e.g. on non-tariff barriers, competition, intellectual property rights and trade and sustainable 
development) which aim to  go further than the commitments  made by the  Parties  under the 
WTO. 

At the time of the negotiations, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru were benefiting from unilateral 
preferential  access  to  the  EU  market  under  the  EU’s  Generalised  Scheme  of  Preferences 
(GSP), specifically the GSP+ arrangement. However, the three countries faced the prospect of 
losing  GSP  status  as  a  result  of  the  upcoming  reform  of  the  GSP.  This  meant  that  in  the 
absence of a trade agreement with the EU, the three Andean countries would have run the risk 
of  losing  preferential  access  to  EU  markets  and  face  most-favoured-nation  (MFN)  tariffs 
instead. This would have had a negative impact on their trade flows with the EU. 

The agreement  with  Colombia and Peru  was signed in  June 2012.  It  has been provisionally 
applied  since  March  2013  (in  the  case  of  Peru)  and  since  August  2013  (in  the  case  of 
Colombia). 

Also in 2013, negotiations resumed with Ecuador for its accession to the agreement and were 
concluded  in  July  2014.  The  Protocol  of  Accession  for  Ecuador  was  signed  in  November 
2016 and has been provisionally applied since 1 January 2017. 

Subsequently,  the  Agreement  was  amended  through  the  ‘Additional  Protocol  to  the  trade 
agreement between the EU and its Member States, of the one part, and Colombia and Peru, of 
the other part, to take account of the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the EU’, which 
was adopted in June 2016. 

The  objectives  of  the  trade  pillar  are  outlined  in  Article 4  of  the  Agreement  and  are  as 
follows:  (1)  progressive  and  gradual  liberalising  of  trade  in  goods,  (2)  facilitating  trade  in 
goods, (3) liberalising trade in services, (4) creating an environment favourable to investment, 
(5) liberalising current payments and capital movements, (6) effective and reciprocal opening 
of  government  procurement  markets,  (7)  protecting  intellectual  property  rights  effectively, 
(8) promoting free and undistorted competition, (9) establishing a fair and predictable dispute 
settlement  mechanism,  (10)  promoting  trade  in  a  way  that  contributes  to  sustainable 
development, and (11) cooperating on technical assistance. 

The extent of attainment of these objectives is assessed in Section 4.1. Broadly, however, the 
expectation was that: 

5 

 
 
•  Actions  undertaken  to  implement  the  first  nine  of  these  objectives  would  lead  to 
liberalisation and expansion of trade and investment flows between the Parties. This in 
turn  was  expected  to  foster  greater  progress  in  the  development  of  trade  and 
investment, enhance the competitiveness of companies and promote the integration of 
the  partner  countries  into  the  global  economy  –  and  thereby  contribute  to  faster 
economic growth and higher living standards in the partner countries. 

•  Actions  undertaken  to  implement  the  last  two  of  the  above-listed  objectives  would 
stimulate trade which supports sustainable development, with a particular emphasis on 
protecting the environment and respect for labour rights. This was expected to make a 
contribution to overall sustainable development in the partner countries. 

Further  details  on  the  objectives  and  their  connections  to  multiple  shared  outcomes  and 
impacts  are  described  in  Figure  2:  ‘Intervention  hypothesis  of  the  trade  pillar  of  the  EU-
Central  America  Association  Agreement’  (see  below  Annex  II  on  Methodology).  They  will 
be discussed in greater detail in Section 4.2. 

The Agreement has not yet been ratified by all EU Member States; the ratification process is 
still ongoing7. 

2.2 Point(s) of comparison 

2.2.1  Comparison of key modelling assumptions of earlier ex ante policy analysis 

and the present ex post evaluation 

The negotiations were accompanied by a sustainability impact assessment (SIA) in support of 
the negotiations delivered in October 20098. The SIA studied the likely economic, social and 
environmental  impacts  of  a  potential  multi-party  trade  agreement  between  the  European 
Union and its Member States, and the Andean countries of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. The 
final  report  for  the  SIA  was  delivered  in  October  2009,  and  the  Commission  published  its 
written response in a position paper in November 20109. 

The economic modelling for the SIA was built on two different scenarios. The first scenario 
involved ‘modest’ liberalisation: 

• 

it assumed a 90% reduction of tariffs, a 50% reduction in the estimated cost of barriers 
to trade in services, and cost reductions equal to 1% of the value of trade achieved via 
trade facilitation measures. 

The second scenario was labelled ‘ambitious’: 

• 

it assumed a 97% reduction of tariffs, a 75% reduction in the estimated cost of barriers 
to trade in services, and cost reductions of 3% of the value of trade arising from trade 
facilitation measures. 

7 http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/agreements-conventions/agreement/?aid=2011057) 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/documents-publications/treaties-agreements/agreement/?id=2016044 
8 https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/april/tradoc_146014.pdf 
9https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/09242a36-a438-40fd-a7af-fe32e36cbd0e/library/0bdf774c-2a18-4155-b0ff-

f2bbc76db85c/details?download=true. 

6 

 
 
The baseline scenario in the SIA for each of these modelled liberalisation scenarios assumed 
a  successful  outcome  of  the  Doha  Round  of  multilateral  negotiations  at  the  WTO.  For  the 
purposes of modelling, it also assumed continued enjoyment by the Andean countries of the 
benefits  they  derived  from  GSP+  in  the  event  that  no  trade  agreement  with  the  EU  was 
concluded.  Upon  careful  consideration  from  today’s  vantage  point,  it  become  evident  that 
these assumptions are not viable. The model simulations undertaken for the ex post evaluation 
cover the period 2011 to 2020 and compare the developments of two scenarios – a ‘baseline’ 
with the Agreement in place, and a counterfactual scenario in which the Agreement was not in 
place. 

For the baseline, the following assumptions were made: 

• 

• 

• 

It was assumed that the trade Agreement entered into force at the beginning of 2013 
for  Colombia  and  Peru,  and  at  the  beginning  of  2015  for  Ecuador.  While  the  actual 
dates for the start  of implementation  of the Agreement differ from  these dates, these 
are  the  dates  from  which  the  GSP+  would  have  ceased  to  apply  for  the  partner 
countries.  In  other  words,  from  the  beginning  of  2013/2015  the  preferential  rates  in 
place  in  the  EU  for  the  three  partner  countries  were  a  result  of  the  trade  agreement, 
even though initially they still continued to be under GSP+ terms. 

The baseline also incorporates the EU trade agreements that were applied up to 2020 
(e.g.  CETA  with  Canada  and  EPA  with  Japan),  as  well  as  significant  global  trade 
policy development such as the USA–China tariff war. Accordingly, the tariff changes 
brought  about  by  these  are  included  in  the  baseline  tariffs  considered  for  the 
simulations. 

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU is not considered in the model (as 
it  came  into  effect  only  in  2021),  nor  is  the  impact  of  COVID-19.  Accordingly,  in 
terms of the regions, simulations for the EU represent those for the EU-28. 

For the counterfactual scenario simulating the absence of the Agreement, it was assumed that: 

• 

• 

the three partner countries apply MFN tariffs on imports from the EU throughout the 
whole period; 

the EU applies MFN tariffs on imports from Colombia and Peru from the beginning of 
2013, and on imports from Ecuador from the beginning of 2015 (i.e. that the benefits 
of GSP+ had been lost). 

A notable limitation of the model-based analysis is that it only comprises changes in tariffs. 
Changes in non-tariff barriers – for both goods and services – resulting from the Agreement 
are  not  modelled.  This  means  that  the  simulations  only  capture  part  of  the  Agreement’s 
effects, and in particular any simulated changes in services sectors are exclusively the result 
of indirect adjustment effects across the economies. 

It  is  important  to  state  that  a  direct  comparison  between  the  2009  SIA  and  the  present 
evaluation is difficult due to differences in the methodologies applied and the extent to which 
the outcome of the negotiations (or its approximation) was known at the time of conducting 
the analysis. The SIA is a useful reference point, but it was prepared before the conclusion of 

7 

 
the  negotiations  and  thus  differs  in  its  expectations  from  the  level  of  liberalisation  finally 
agreed.  Conversely,  the  ex post  evaluation  looks  at  how  the  Agreement  has  worked  since  it 
provisionally entered into force. 

Annex II provides a detailed note on the methodology and analytical models used for the ex 
post  evaluation.  Annex  VII  compares  the  results  anticipated  in  the  ex  ante  modelling  from 
2009 with the effects identified in the ex post evaluation of 2022. 

2.2.2  Key findings of the SIA 

Impact on trade and welfare 

The overall economic impact of an EU-Andean FTA was estimated to be very positive, with 
output/income  gains  for  all  economies  in  all  scenarios.  This  is  particularly  noteworthy 
because the Andean countries already had access to the EU market thanks to their GSP tariff 
concessions. 

Trade flows were expected to expand; the effect was expected to be marginal in the EU but 
more  significant  for  the  Andean  countries10.  It  was  also  thought  that  some  small  trade 
diversion effects might be felt vis-à-vis the US and Mercosur. 

Impact on GDP 

In the case of the ambitious modelled scenario, the impact on GDP for the EU was estimated 
at less than 0.1%. For the Andean partner countries, the impact on GDP was estimated to be 
+1.3%  for  Colombia,  +1.9%  for  Ecuador,  and  +0.7%  for  Peru.  No  separate  estimate  was 
provided  for  the  impact  on  GDP  for  the  modelled  scenario  that  assumed  ‘modest’ 
liberalisation. 

Main gains/losses across goods sectors11 

•  For  the  EU:  the  liberalisation  of  trade  with  the  Andean  countries  had  a  moderate 
impact on primary products and processed foods subsectors. There are only very small 
changes in the agriculture and agricultural processed goods sector and a small decline 
in the vegetables, fruit and nuts subsector. 

•  For  the  Andean  countries:  the  vegetables,  fruit  and  nuts  subsector  was  predicted  to 
increase 
in  Colombia  (11.2%)  and  Ecuador  (8.7%), 
contributing a significant share of total national value added in both countries. This is 
almost entirely due to banana production. See further details below. 

its  output  significantly 

10   By 9.9% (Colombia), 7.9% (Ecuador) and 7.2% (Peru). 

11   The  global  effects  of  even  the  most  ambitious  scenario  are  very  small.  The  national  income  effects  for 
Mercosur, USA and the rest of the world are negative, yet positive for the LDCs. However, these effects are 
small in both the short and long run. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
Main sustainability issues by type of impact12 

Social impact 

Positive:  positive  changes  in  average  wages  for  unskilled  workers  were  expected  to  be 
negligible  in  the  EU  and  moderately  positive  in  the  Andean  countries  except  for  Ecuador, 
where  there  might  be  a  short-term  negative  effect  for  low-skilled  workers.  National 
employment effects would be positive in all scenarios. 

Negative: some effects were identified by the SIA as having a possible negative social impact, 
e.g.  in  view  of  the  past  opposition  of  some  local  populations  to  the  extension  of  mining 
operations  or  hydrocarbons  production  sites.  The  SIA  also  mentioned  the  possibility  that  in 
the  large-scale  mining  sector,  restrictions  on  workers’  rights  could  limit  increases  in  real 
wages and hamper substantial improvements in working conditions. In the biofuels and palm-
oil sectors, the SIA suggested that the increase of production could have a potentially negative 
social  impact  in  Andean  countries  given  the  risk  of  displacement  of  populations  and  the 
possible social consequences that could follow.  

Environmental impact 

Positive: the increase in  greenhouse gas emissions was expected to be negligible. The study 
stated only that any increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from an EU-Andean trade 
agreement was not expected to be significant against the background of global emissions. 

Negative:  the SIA pointed out  that the predicted growth  in  the agriculture sector in  Andean 
countries could add pressure on both land and water resources. The study also highlighted the 
risk of generating significant sources of pollution as a consequence of an increase in mining 
activities  or  large-scale  agricultural  production,  or  in  the  event  of  unregulated  expansion  of 
some sectors such as textiles, chemicals, rubber and plastics. Finally, the study suggested that 
the Trade Agreement might have potentially significant impacts in terms of deforestation and 
reduced  biodiversity  as  a  result  of  the  predicted  expansion  of  the  agriculture  and  timber 
industries. 

Key sectoral findings 

The SIA included analyses of primary sectors (agricultural and processed agricultural goods, 
mining and fishing), industrial goods, services and ‘other’. 

Agricultural and processed agricultural goods, mining and fishing 

The  EU  was  expected  to  experience  a  marginal  decline  in  mining.  The  importance  of  the 
mining sector, particularly in Ecuador, was expected to produce a significant expansion in the 
Andean    countries.  The  growth  in  mining  output  was  linked  to  the  growth  in  capital  stock 
through  investment  that  was  assumed  to  occur.  However,  this  expected  expansion  also 

12   The  SIA  did  not  contain  any  dedicated  human  rights  impact  assessment  (HRIA),  as  it  predates  the 

introduction of HRIA in the Commission’s policy analysis of the EU’s trade agreements. 

9 

 
 
 
assumed that the political conditions and negotiations with local populations regarding mining 
expansion in the rural area would be favourable to further large-scale mining development. 

The environmental impacts of increased biofuel production resulting from a trade agreement 
were  expected  to  be  mixed.  Due  to  fears  that  increased  biofuel  production  might  lead  to 
greater food insecurity,  the Andean countries had signalled a preference for cultivating new 
lands rather than for transferring existing cropland to the production of ethanol feedstock. 

Industrial goods 

No major changes were anticipated in sectoral output in the EU, and for most sectors output 
was  unchanged  under  the  different  scenarios.  For  some  Andean  countries,  the  most 
pronounced  changes  were  expected  to  occur  in  ‘machinery  and  equipment’.  Here,  the 
estimated change was +31%, but the sector’s total value-added is only about 0.4%. In the case 
of  Colombia  there  were  some  sectors  with  significant  changes  under  all  scenarios.  For 
example, the output of the ‘motor vehicles and parts’ sector was expected to increase by 25% 
under  the  ambitious  scenario,  but  its  share  in  total  value  added  is  smaller  than  0.5%.  For 
Ecuador,  significant  changes  in  sectoral  output  were  anticipated  only  in  sectors  which  are 
small,  making  these  effects  marginal.  In  the  Peruvian  economy,  output  of  ‘textiles’  and 
‘wearing  apparel’  were  both  expected  to  expand  by  over  3%,  while  the  manufacturing  of 
‘chemical, rubber and plastic products’ was estimated to increase by more than 5%. 

Services 

in 

Liberalisation within the EU-Andean Agreement was expected to lead to greater competition 
from  EU  providers 
insurance, 
the  Andean  countries,  particularly 
telecommunications,  computer  and  related  services,  distribution  services,  and  construction 
and engineering services. The EU is the leading investor in the Andean countries, accounting 
for more than a quarter of total FDI in the region. EU direct investment in Andean countries 
had  significantly  increased  in  the  years  prior  to  the  SIA,  with  EU  companies  taking  part  in 
privatisation processes in services, in the financial system, manufacturing, and mining and oil 
activities. 

in  banking, 

Other 

Investment: the proposed agreement was expected to increase the flow of foreign investment. 
In addition, by improving investor confidence, domestic investment might also be stimulated. 
Investment provisions in the Agreement were expected to have a positive impact on FDI and 
also to have a ‘crowding in’ effect on domestic investment. The increase in growth resulting 
from FDI inflows was expected to have a positive long-term impact on employment. 

Public procurement: additional gains were expected to accrue for Andean exporting firms if 
the proposed agreement helped them to compete for public sector contracts for the supply of 
goods and labour services in the EU countries. 

Trade  facilitation:  the  main  economic  benefit  to  the  Andean  countries  of  trade  facilitation 
provisions  in  a  trade  agreement  was  expected  to  arise  from  efficiency  gains  resulting  from 

10 

 
customs  and  related  procedural  reforms.  These  gains  were  expected  to  contribute  to  an 
improvement  in  the  business  environment  and  to  facilitate  the  growth  of  investment  and 
employment in exports production. 

Intellectual  property  rights:  in  stakeholder  consultations  for  the  study,  civil  society 
organisations  in  the  Andean  partner  countries  expressed  concerns  about  the  extension  of 
intellectual property protections that could potentially increase the price of generic medicines, 
impact agricultural production and reduce food security. 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Current state of play 

Trade in goods13 

EU14 imports from partner countries 

EU  imports  from  Colombia  performed  unevenly  over  time.  They  roughly  doubled  from 
EUR 4 billion  in  2007  to  about  EUR 8  billion  in  2012  to  2014,  and  then  fell  to  EUR 4.8 
billion in 2019. 

EU imports from Peru also initially increased considerably, from EUR 4.2 billion in 2007 to 
more  than  EUR 6  billion  in  2011  and  2012,  and  since  then  have  fluctuated  between 
EUR 5 billion and EUR 6 billion. Imports from Ecuador increased steadily from 2007 to 2017 
(with  the  exception  of  2008,  the  global  financial  crisis  year),  from  EUR 1.8  billion  to 
EUR 3 billion, and since then remained constant at that level until 2019. 

It is, however, important to note that the values of total bilateral trade are affected by the large 
share of mineral fuels (primarily coal) in Colombia’s exports to the EU, ranging from about 
40% to 70% during most of the period considered until 2018. The share then dropped to about 
20% in 2019, reflecting the extreme fluctuations in the world coal price. 

Similarly, a significant share of Peru’s exports to the EU consists of copper ore (ranging from 
14% to 30% in total bilateral export value), the size of which again is heavily dependent upon 
the world market price. 

When  excluding  mineral  fuels  and  ores,  trade  performance  shows  a  more  stable  pattern  of 
exports  from  Colombia  to  the  EU  over  the  period  2007  to  2013,  fluctuating  between 
EUR 2.0 billion and EUR 2.7 billion, and an almost steady increase of Colombia’s exports to 
the EU since 2013, from EUR 2.1 billion to EUR 3.9 billion in 2019. Similarly, non-ore and 

13 Annex VI. Trade in Goods. 

14  The  EU  data  relates  to  EU28  data,  as  the  external  consultant  carried  out  its  assessment  before  Brexit  took 

place, and all statistical references relate to data up to 2019. 

11 

 
 
non-mineral imports from Peru steadily increased from  EUR 3.2 billion in 2013 to  EUR 4.2 
billion in 2019. 

The most important EU imports by sector from the partner countries were as follows: 

•  For  Colombia,  the  sectoral  composition  of  exports  to  the  EU  in  value  terms  has  been 
influenced to a large extent by changes in the price of coal. Thus, in 2013 coal accounted 
for  73%  of  Colombian  exports  to  the  EU,  followed  by  fruit  (11%)  and  coffee  (5%).  By 
2019, Colombia had diversified the range of products exported: fruit accounted for 26% of 
its total exports to the EU, followed by mineral fuels (22%), precious minerals (15%) and 
coffee (12%). 

•  The sectoral composition of EU imports from Peru changed considerably over the period 
2007 to 2019 and shows a much more diversified basket of products exported to the EU. 
In  the  pre-Agreement  period,  they  were  dominated  by  ore  (a  third  of  total  EU  imports 
from Peru in 2012 and 2013) together with rapidly increasing imports of mineral fuels (in 
2012, 12% of total imports from Peru). Since 2013, imports of fruit have grown fastest. In 
2019 they became the EU’s largest import from Peru (24% of total imports, overtaking the 
23% accounted for by ore). 

•  The most important EU imports from  Ecuador are agricultural and fishery products: the 
ten largest imported products  are from the  agriculture, fisheries and forestry sector. The 
most  important  commodities  are  fruit  (about  30%  of  all  imports  from  Ecuador), 
preparations of fish (23%), and fish and crustaceans (22%), followed by cut flowers (7%) 
and cocoa (6%). Changes in the sectoral composition of EU imports from Ecuador since 
the application of the Agreement have been limited. 

EU exports to partner countries 

The  EU’s  (non-mineral  fuels)  exports  to  Colombia  increased  steadily  from  2007  to  2015 
before  dropping  sharply  in  2016  and  then  resuming  the  previous  growth  trend15.  Exports  to 
Peru  during  the  Agreement  period  continued  the  generally  positive  trend  of  the  pre-
Agreement  period,  albeit  at  a  slower  rate.  Exports  to  Ecuador  increased  steadily  until  2015 
before dropping sharply in 2016 during Ecuador’s recession year, and then resumed a growth 
path from 2017 onwards. However, the post-Agreement growth rate for exports to Ecuador is 
much higher than the rate of pre-Agreement growth. 

The most important EU exports to the partner countries by sector were as follows: 

•  EU  machinery  exports  to  Colombia  remain  the  most  important  sector  in  value  terms, 
representing  18%  of  overall  EU  exports  to  Colombia  in  2019.  A  significant  export 
performance was shown by pharmaceuticals (14% of total exports). Other sectors among 
the  top  10  exports  are  vehicles,  plastics,  paper  and  paper  articles,  and  optical  and 
miscellaneous equipment. 

15 Annex VI, Trade in goods. 

12 

 
 
•  The  EU’s  top  five  exports  to  Peru  are  the  same  as  those  to  Colombia,  although  in  a 
slightly  different  order.  Machinery  accounts  for  about  30%  of  total  EU  exports  to  Peru, 
while  electrical  machinery,  vehicles,  pharmaceutical  products  and  optical  and  other 
equipment  each  account  for  5%  to  10%  of  EU  exports.  The  best  performing  sectors 
(among  the  top  10  sectors  in  terms  of  export  growth)  since  the  Agreement  has  been 
applied  were  rail  transport  equipment  (average  annual  growth  of  22%),  pharmaceutical 
products (12%), and miscellaneous chemical products (10%). 

•  The  sector  composition  of  EU  exports  to  Ecuador  is  similar  to  that  of  EU  exports  to 
Colombia  and  Peru:  machinery  exports  (about  20%  of  total  exports),  pharmaceuticals, 
vehicles and electrical machinery. An important difference  when compared to Colombia 
and  Peru  is  the  notable  level  of  exports  of  mineral  fuels  to  Ecuador.  This  is  the  second 
most  important  sector  after  machinery  –  but  it  is  highly  volatile,  in  line  with  price 
fluctuations  in  the  world  market.  Among  the  major  export  sectors,  rail  transport 
equipment,  vehicles,  fish  and  crustaceans  and  paper  have  all  shown  high  growth  rates 
since the Agreement has been applied. 

Bilateral trade balances 

In  terms  of  bilateral  trade  balances,  the  EU  has  had  consistent  although  fluctuating  trade 
deficits with  Ecuador and Peru since 2007.  The  EU had a trade deficit  with  Colombia  until 
2016 with respect to total trade, and a rapidly increasing surplus since then – in effect, the EU 
moved from a trade deficit of EUR -3.0 billion in 2012 to a trade surplus of EUR 2.0 billion 
in  2019.  However,  the  bilateral  trade  balance  between  the  EU  and  Colombia  depends 
significantly  on  the  impact  of  global  coal  prices  because  of  the  high  share  of  coal  in 
Colombia’s  exports  to  the  EU.  Looking  at  non-mineral  fuels  trade  only,  the  EU  has  had  a 
consistent  trade  surplus  with  Colombia,  which  steadily  increased  from  EUR  0.6  billion  in 
2007 to EUR 4.0 billion in 2014 before dropping again and stabilising at  EUR 2.8 billion to 
EUR 2.9 billion since 2016. 

Trade in services 

Trade in services accounts for a substantial share of total trade between the EU and the three 
partner countries, representing between 20% and 40% of combined goods and services trade. 
The actual share varies across the three bilateral relationships,  as well as by the direction of 
trade: Colombia’s services exports to the EU amount to between 40% and 45% of Colombia’s 
overall  exports  to  the  EU  since  2013.  Conversely,  Ecuador’s  services  exports  to  the  EU 
represent  a  much  smaller  share  of  its  total  exports  to  the  EU,  at  about  20%  since  2015. 
Generally, the share of total exports to the EU accounted for by services exports has remained 
constant  over time, with the  exception of Peruvian services  exports to the EU, whose share 
has increased from 15% in 2011 to 30% in 201916. 

16 Services trade data reported here are based on the WTO-OECD Balanced Trade in Services (BaTIS) database 
released  in  January  2021,  which  provides bilateral  services  trade data  by  sector  until  2019  (Liberatore  and 
Wettstein 2021). 

13 

 
 
The  EU  constitutes  an  important  market  for  Andean  partner  countries’  services  exports:  in 
2019, between 20% (Colombia) and 30% (Ecuador and Peru) of total services exports were to 
the EU – these shares are higher than for goods trade. The largest three services export sectors 
to  the  EU  by  any  of  the  Andean  partner  countries  are  travel,  transport,  and  other  business 
services. 

EU  services  exports  show  a  long-term  upward  trend  for  exports  to  Colombia  (from 
USD 2 billion in 2007 to USD 3.5 billion in 2019) and Peru (from USD 1.4 billion in 2007 to 
USD 2.3  billion  in  2019,  and  constant  exports  to  Ecuador  (at  around  USD 1  billion)).  The 
largest three services export sectors from the EU to any of the Andean partner countries are 
commercial services, transport and travel services. 

EU investment in the Andean partner countries 

EU  investment  in  the  three  partner  countries  has  shown  (as  is  quite  usual  for  FDI)  a  high 
degree of volatility. In line with the difference in size of the partner countries, Colombia used 
to  be  the  most  important  destination  (stocks  of  EUR 15  billion  and  above),  although  it  has 
been competing for that position with Peru in the most recent years for which Eurostat data 
are available, 2017 and 2018, after a rapid increase in EU investment in Peru from EUR 10 
billion in 2014 to  almost EUR 17 billion in  2016. Ecuador ranks  third, with EU FDI stocks 
increasing sharply from  EUR 4.0 billion in 2013 to EUR 13 billion in 2015. In terms of the 
relative importance of EU FDI in the partner countries in total EU outward FDI, it is roughly 
proportional to the trade shares, i.e. between 0.1% and 0.35%. Seen from the Andean partner 
country perspective, EU investment is sizable, with the EU accounting for up to half of total 
foreign investment (Table 6-8) and being the largest investor in all three partners. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1. To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 

The  ex post  evaluation  replies  to  the  eight  evaluation  questions  (EQs)  related  to  the 
four evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency,  coherence, and relevance17. More 
details,  including  the  Annex  III.  Evaluation  matrix  and,  where  relevant,  Details  on 
answers to the evaluation questions (by criterion) are provided in Annex III. 

4.1.1.  EFFECTIVENESS: ACHIEVEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT’S OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES 

Evaluation questions EQ 1A: To what extent have the objectives as laid down in Article 4 of 
the  Agreement  been  achieved?  EQ  2:  What  are  the  factors  influencing  (either  positively  or 

17  Section  4  on  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  should  be  read  in  conjunction  with:  Section  1  p. 6  (as  well  as 
Annex II) which explain the relationship between the overall evaluation criteria and the specific evaluation 
questions to be investigated and answered; and Annex III, which relates the specific evaluation questions to 
the  applied  judgement  criteria,  the  analytical  tasks  expected  to  be  performed  in  order  to  investigate  the 
specific evaluation criteria, and the sources of evidence for the investigative work. 

14 

 
 
negatively) the achievements of those objectives? EQ 3: Has the Agreement had unintended 
(positive or negative) consequences, and if so, which ones? 

The extent to which these have been achieved is summarised in the following sections. 

4.1.1.1.  IMPLEMENTATION OF TARIFF LIBERALISATION 

Evidence shows that there has been an  increase in EU bilateral trade with the Andean 
partner countries, which has been beneficial for both  regions. The trade volumes have 
been  balanced  over  the  years;  it  is  a  complementary  trade,  with  the  main  benefits 
accruing  to  sectors  where  the  respective  party  has  a  comparative  advantage  (Andean 
countries  exporting  mostly  agricultural  products  and  the  EU  manufactured  products). 
The  EU  remains  the  third  destination  for  CA  exports,  and  the  third  supplier  of  CA 
(behind the US and China). 

Evidence  also  shows  that  EU  exports  have  been  driven  by  two  factors.  Firstly,  the 
Agreement  effectively  liberalised  tariffs  previously  imposed  on  EU  exports  (while  the 
Andean  partner  countries  already  enjoyed  GSP  preferential  access).  Secondly,  the 
reduction in non-tariff measures (e.g. customs, TBT regulations) facilitated trade. 

All  Parties  have  been  implementing  their  tariff  liberalisation  schedules  in  line  with  the 
Agreement  provisions,  and  transition  periods  for  most  products  are  now  completed. 
Stakeholders interviewed by the evaluation team, including trading companies, confirmed that 
the utilisation of preferential tariffs poses no problems for trade between the Parties. 

In  line  with  this,  the  CGE  model  simulation  results  show  that  the  Agreement  has  led  to 
increases  in  all  bilateral  trade  flows  between  the  Parties,  in  both  directions.  For  Peru  and 
Ecuador, exports to the EU are estimated to have increased more, both in absolute (USD) and 
relative (percentage) terms, than imports from the EU. For Colombia, the opposite is true: the 
EU’s  exports  to  the  country  are  estimated  to  have  increased  by  close  to  USD 3.9  billion 
(26.3%) – the largest change by far among any of the bilateral trade relations covered by the 
Agreement – while its exports are estimated to have increased by USD 268 million (3.9%). In 
relative terms, apart from EU exports to Colombia, the Agreement had the largest impact on 
EU-Ecuador  trade,  with  Ecuador’s  exports  to  the  EU  estimated  as  being  18.7%  higher  than 
they would have been without the Agreement, and the EU’s exports to Ecuador estimated as 
being 12.6% higher. 

The model simulations also show the positive impact of the Agreement for all Parties’ overall 
exports.  However,  the  effect  is  limited,  as  the  Andean  countries  enjoyed  GSP+  preferences 
prior to the application of the Agreement. Sectors where a Party has a comparative advantage 
(such as machinery, equipment and vehicles in the EU;  fruit and vegetables as well as food 
products in the Andean partner countries) have benefited the most from the Agreement. 

15 

 
 
 
 
4.1.1.2.  FACILITATION OF TRADE IN GOODS 

Evidence shows an overall trade increase for the Andean region and that the Agreement 
has had a trade facilitating effect. Despite customs issues having posed a few problems in 
the  implementation  of  the  Agreement,  the  administration  of  customs  rules  has  mostly 
been  in  line  with  the  Agreement.  Areas  identified  for  improvement  include:  raising 
business awareness of the measures on customs and trade facilitation in the Agreement; 
clarifying  application  of  the  direct  transport  rule;  digital  movement  certificates;  and 
approved exporters status. 

Overall,  although  some  irritants  have  been  raised  by  the  Parties  over  time  in  bilateral 
meetings  between  the  Parties,  along  with  issues  raised  by  some  stakeholders,  non-tariff 
measures  have  not  constituted  a  major  burden  for  trade  between  the  Parties  and,  crucially, 
they  have  not  been  erected  as  a  substitute  for  tariff  liberalisation.  At  the  same  time,  more 
progress could have been made in some areas to further facilitate bilateral trade. For instance, 
burdensome import procedures  remain  a difficulty for importers of pharmaceutical  products 
and alcoholic beverages in Colombia. 

Non-compliance  with  rules  of  origin  (RoO)  by  traders  has  not  been  a  problem  in  the 
implementation of the Agreement. 

Three aspects where room for improvement might exist are: 

•  Rules on direct transport between the Parties: According to the Agreement, preferences 
only  apply  to  products  which  are  transported  directly  between  the  Parties.  To  facilitate 
exports  by  companies  with  regional  distribution  centres  (e.g.  in  Panama),  the  EU 
suggested  that  deconsolidation18  of  shipments  should  be  considered  acceptable  under  a 
change to the Agreement; this view was also supported in the evaluation consultations by 
members  of  the  partner  countries’  business  community.  However,  representatives  of  the 
Andean countries remain concerned that there could be difficulties for proper control and 
verification  of  the  eligibility  of  deconsolidated  goods  for  preferential  access,  and  that 
deconsolidated goods could be shipped from ports other than the territory of the EU. 

•  Digital  movement  certificates:  To  simplify  paperwork,  the  Andean  partner  countries 
suggested at the 2020 Customs Subcommittee meeting that the use of digital certificates 
of origin be considered. These were already introduced on a temporary basis in response 
to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  provided  that  after  the  crisis  period  is  over  an  authentic 
EUR.1 certificate is presented upon request. The EU considers that digital certificates are 
not  possible  under  the  Agreement  and  favours  the  use  of  self-certification  under  the 
approved exporter schemes provided for in the Agreement. 

18 ‘Deconsolidation’ is the process of breaking down a single shipment of cargo into several smaller shipments 
and processing those shipments for final inland delivery directly from the port of entry to a store or distribution 
centre. 

16 

 
 
 
 
•  Approved  exporter  status:  The  Agreement  provides  for  the  possibility  of  recognising 
‘approved  exporters’  who  make  frequent  shipments  of  products  under  this  Agreement. 
Approved status would allow such exporters to make use of invoice declarations instead 
of  certificates  of  origin,  which  would  facilitate  trade  for  such  approved  exporters. 
However,  based  on  consultations,  awareness  of  the  approved  exporter  status  among 
businesses in the Andean partner countries appears to be low. 

Tariff  rate  quotas  (TRQs)  have  been  partially  effective  both  in  opening  up  the  Parties’ 
markets for the products covered and in limiting the increase in imports. Exports have not yet 
started  or  increased  for  all  product  categories  covered  by  TRQs.  Some  stakeholders  have 
pointed  out  that  the  preferences  offered  to  Andean  exporters  under  TRQs  have  not  been 
sufficient to kick-start exports and that more assistance for domestic producers is required to 
make them export-ready. Regarding the administration of TRQs, stakeholders consulted had 
no  complaints  about  practices  in  Colombia,  Peru  and  the  EU  and  its  Member  States.  For 
Ecuador,  however,  the  management  of  TRQs  especially  in  the  dairy  sector,  in  combination 
with non-automatic import licencing and the criteria applied for the granting of licences, has 
been a recurrent issue in the meetings of the Subcommittee on Agriculture (most recently in 
2022). The EU claims that the current practice does not comply with the Agreement’s first-
come,  first-served  principle,  violates  WTO  rules,  lacks  transparency  and  creates  uncertainty 
as to whether and when importers will be able to use the applicable preference. It may also 
entail  possible  discrimination  between  different  importers.  Delays  in  issuing  licences  pose 
particular problems for perishable products. Although Ecuador’s Ministry of Agriculture has 
made some changes to the management of quotas in response to demands made by the EU19, 
the  EU  states  that  the  system  remains  cumbersome  and  makes  exports  of  perishable  goods 
particularly difficult. Low (albeit slowly increasing) quota fill rates for dairy products support 
this argument. 

Agricultural safeguards have not been applied, and based on the research undertaken there 
would have been no justification for them. 

Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures do not appear to have created an undue barrier 
to bilateral exports of products concerned by such measures, as shown by the strong increase 
in exports of some such products by all Parties and by the estimated positive overall impact of 
the Agreement on trade in agricultural and food products. 

At the same time, there are certain disagreements between the Parties on a number of issues 
together with concerns over the trade impact of regulatory changes on SPS measures. These 
topics  are  discussed  yearly  in  the  SPS  Subcommittee  meetings  with  continuous  follow-up 
between the Parties. Although views about the effectiveness of these discussions vary across 
stakeholders,  a  number  of  issues  were  solved  under  this  mechanism.  Other  issues  have 
remained  on  the  agenda  for  extensive  periods  of  time,  such  as  the  EU  requirements  for 
maximum residue limits (MRLs) of pesticides, where the Andean countries keep expressing 

19  In  a  recent  letter,  the  Ecuadorian  Ministry  of  Trade  stated  the  intention  to  bring  the  TRQ  system  and  non-

automatic import licensing into line with the Agreement and with WTO rules. 

17 

 
 
their concerns despite the fact that there is no impact on their exports to the EU. Nevertheless, 
collaboration on SPS measures has in general been effective. Furthermore, the very presence 
of the SPS Subcommittee allows the Parties to directly discuss issues related to SPS measures 
(including  planned  regulatory  changes)  in  a  more  detailed  way  than  would  be  the  case  in  a 
WTO context, which would be the alternative in the absence of the Agreement. This in itself 
constitutes  a  benefit  of  the  Agreement.  Finally,  technical  assistance  plays  a  particularly 
important role in the area of SPS issues due to its highly technical nature. 

Some  EU  stakeholders  interviewed  on  the  subject  of  technical  barriers  to  trade  (TBT)  in 
the Andean countries reported that TBTs sometimes seemed to be motivated by sensitivities 
to  import  increases.  However,  most  stakeholders  (in  both  the  EU  and  the  partner  countries) 
also confirmed that TBT issues do not constitute a major concern for them and do not affect 
trade  with  the  respective  partner.  Even  so,  TBT  issues  are  an  area  of  frequent  discussions 
between the Parties. A number of the issues discussed relate to planned changes in technical 
regulations (such as the potential tightening of requirements in  the EU in the context of the 
European Green Deal20 or the Farm to Fork strategy)21 rather than ex post reviews of existing 
regulations or their implementation. This is an indication that cooperation between the Parties 
on  TBT  matters  is  functioning.  Discussions  in  the  relevant  subcommittees  together  with 
follow-up  discussions  have  been  reasonably  effective  in  addressing  a  number  of  the  issues 
raised, even though for other topics progress has been limited. 

4.1.1.3.  FACILITATION OF TRADE IN SERVICES AND INVESTMENT 

The Agreement did not provide for an actual opening-up of services sectors – rather, it 
improved the level of ‘binding’22. Hence no major impact of the Agreement on services 
trade  between  the  Parties  was  to  be  expected.  In  addition,  there  is  no  dedicated 
subcommittee  on  trade  in  services  under  the  Agreement:  discussions  on  services  take 
place in the Trade Committee only on an ad hoc basis. 

The  shares  of  trade  in  services  of  commercial  relations  between  the  Parties  have  remained 
generally  constant  over  time.  The  stability  of  service  export  shares  in  total  export  shares 

20 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  The  European  Green  Deal,  COM/2019/640  final, 
11 December  2019; 
see  https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-
2024/european-green-deal_en. 

information, 

for  more 

21 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  A  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  for  a  fair,  healthy  and 
environmentally-friendly  food  system,  COM(2020)  381  final,  20 May  2020;  for  more  information  and 
documents, see https://ec.europa.eu/food/farm2fork_en. 

22 In trade policy terms there is an important distinction between the conditions that a state ‘applies’ in its market 
through its domestic regulatory framework and the conditions that it ‘binds’ in its WTO General Agreement 
on  Trade  in  Services  (GATS)  schedule,  or  in  bilateral  agreements  with  other  WTO  members.  These 
‘bindings’ create a sort of floor: applied measures can be changed at any time, provided that a state does not 
breach its bound commitments. 

18 

 
 
 
indicates that the Agreement has not disproportionately liberalised goods trade at the expense 
of  services  trade  or  vice  versa.  As  the  Agreement  is  not  intended  to  provide  for  an  actual 
opening of services sectors, but rather to provide greater legal certainty for service suppliers 
with respect to their counterparties (i.e. the ‘binding’ of existing legislation), no major impact 
of the Agreement on services trade between the Parties was to be expected. 

Discussion of issues related to  trade in  services in  the  Subcommittee  on Market  Access  has 
implementation  of 
been 
commitments made by the Parties regarding trade in services were identified. 

limited.  Similarly,  no  complaints  by  stakeholders  on 

the 

The  Agreement  also  provides  predictability  and  security  for  investors  through  specific 
provisions on investment in Chapter 2 of Title IV. As in the case of cross-border services, the 
commitments made do not seek to introduce changes in the applied regulatory framework of 
the Parties. 

In  this  context,  investment  trends  before  and  after  the  application  of  the  Agreement  are  not 
markedly  different,  and  the  share  of  bilateral  investments  in  total  FDI  has  not  significantly 
changed. The sectoral composition of EU investment in the Andean partners has not changed 
either, with the possible exception of EU investment in Ecuador. 

4.1.1.4.  IMPLEMENTATION OF TRADE-RELATED PROVISIONS 

The  Agreement  also  addresses  a  number  of  other  policy  areas  impacting  on  trade 
between  the  Parties,  such  as  government  procurement,  intellectual  property  rights 
including geographical indications, competition, and e-commerce. 
•  On government procurement, disagreements as to its scope and coverage resulted 
in limited participation of EU suppliers in the public procurement market of the 
partner countries. 

•  On  geographical  indications,  there  is  a  growing  interest  in  the  European 
methodology  with  increasing  requests  for  protection  of  the  Andean  GIs  on  the 
EU  market,  corresponding  to  increased  willingness  to  protect  EU  GIs  on  their 
market. 

•  On competition rules, they facilitate consultations and requests for information, 
and  overall  constitute  a  sound  legal  basis  for  cooperation  and  consultations 
between  the  European  Commission  and  the  Andean  partner  countries’ 
competition authorities. 

•  On e-commerce  rules, they have  played  a limited role in implementation except 
in relation to digital movement certificates during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The implementation of the Agreement’s Government Procurement Title has been one of the 
most  difficult  areas,  with  the  most  important  and  longstanding  issue  being  disagreement 
between the EU and Colombia on the Agreement’s coverage of procurement entities. Due to 
Colombia’s  restrictive  interpretation  of  its  commitments,  EU  companies  have  been  denied 
national  treatment  in  some  tendering  procedures,  such  as  those  for  public  utilities  at  sub-
central  level  in  the  transport  field  and  in  the  Corporaciones  autónomas  regionales.  More 
needs to be done to increase transparency and facilitate EU access to government procurement 
markets in the partner countries. For example, EU stakeholders in Colombia consulted for the 

19 

 
 
evaluation  considered  that  the  costs  of  participation,  including  costs  arising  from  excessive 
information  and  documentation  requirements,  were  high.  Regarding  transparency,  only 
Ecuador currently provides easily accessible information about upcoming tenders covered by 
the Agreement23, and the complexity of e-procurement systems in itself constitutes a barrier to 
accessing government procurement opportunities. 

As a result of the remaining barriers and because of the complexities of procurement systems, 
participation of EU suppliers or service providers in the government procurement markets of 
the Andean partners – or vice versa – has remained limited throughout the Agreement period. 

Title  VII  of  the  Agreement  addresses  intellectual  property  rights  (IPR)  in  detail,  both 
regarding substantive aspects of IP protection and enforcement by the Parties. Two elements 
in this area were found to be of particular importance for the evaluation. First, concerns were 
raised  during  the  consultations  about  the  potential  negative  impact  that  might  result  from 
extending the term covered by patent protection on the availability of affordable medicines in 
the Andean partner countries. Second, the provisions on geographical indications (GIs) are of 
particular importance for the EU. Other issues contained in the Agreement and discussed in 
the  annual  meetings  of  the  Subcommittee  on  Intellectual  Property  (such  as  enhanced  IP 
enforcement  to  fight  counterfeiting  and  other  IPR  infringements)  would  contribute  to  an 
environment more conducive to trade and investment. Despite this, overall trade between the 
Parties does not appear to have been substantially affected. 

Geographical  indications:  The  number  of  GIs  protected  under  the  Agreement  varies  across 
the Parties. Of the 117 EU GIs listed in the Agreement, all are fully protected in Colombia, 
106 in Peru (10 did not obtain protection for various reasons, such as claims that the specified 
product is generic, or conflict with existing trademarks), while in Ecuador all 117 EU GIs are 
now  protected,  while  the  last  pending  GI  from  the  initial  list  has  been  protected  as  of  May 
2022.  Conversely,  the  Andean  partners  sought  protection  of  their  GIs  in  the  EU  to  a  more 
limited but also varying extent. The originally negotiated agreement contained, in its Annex 
XIII, 1 GI from Colombia and 3 GIs from  Peru. When Ecuador joined,  1 GI  was  protected 
under the protocol of accession. Subsequently, Colombia achieved protection of 9 additional 
GIs in 2019 and 2 more in February 2021, and 1 more in November 2022. Also in November 
2022,  Peru  achieved  protection  of  6  additional  GIs  and  Ecuador  achieved  protection  of  3 
additional GI. This means that a total of 13 GIs from Colombia, 9 GIs from Peru and 4 GIs 
from Ecuador are now protected in the EU. Three other GIs from Colombia and Ecuador are 
still  in  the  process  of  being  added  to  the  protection.  Stakeholders  in  the  partner  countries 
noted  that  the  GI  approval  process  in  the  EU  was  extremely  slow  –  the  approval  of  the 
Colombian GIs approved in 2019 took 6 years. It should be added that GI standards between 
EU and the three Andean Community countries vary considerably and requests for additional 

23 However, the size of Ecuador’s government procurement market is limited, and has decreased over time due to 
the budgetary constraints which the government has been facing. As a result, it attracts limited interest by EU 
companies; this was confirmed in interviews held with representatives of EU business interests in Ecuador. 

20 

 
 
information were made by the EU on several occasions to clarify the nature of the GIs to be 
protected under the Agreement. 

EU  stakeholders  stated  that  an  explanation  for  the  different  approaches  to  embracing  GIs 
across  the  partner  countries  stems  from  international  competition  between  the  GI  approach 
(favoured by the EU) and the trademark approach (promoted by the USA). With both the EU 
and the USA being important partners for the three countries, it is not easy for them to decide 
which  approach  to  favour.  However,  the  stakeholders  noted  that  Colombia  and  Peru  have 
started to see the benefits of the EU GI approach, as also witnessed by the increasing requests 
for protection of their GIs in the EU, and thus have stepped up their efforts to protect EU GIs 
in turn. 

In terms of enforcement, the Andean partner countries do not actively monitor ex officio the 
respect  for  protected  GIs  in  the  market,  unlike  the  EU  (such  active  monitoring  is  not  an 
obligation  specifically  set  out  in  the  Agreement).  The  EU  Delegations  engage  in  some 
monitoring, and important GIs are also monitored by the rights holders. 

The  Agreement’s  provisions  on  competition  cover  the  establishment  of  general  principles, 
cooperation  and  transparency  through  exchange  of  information  and  consultations,  and 
technical assistance. They also establish the obligation on the Parties to have competition laws 
and  authorities  in  place  and  to  apply  competition  laws  in  a  transparent,  timely  and  non-
discriminatory  manner,  respecting  the  principle  of  due  process  and  the  rights  of  defence. 
Competition matters are excluded from the Agreement’s dispute settlement provisions, and no 
subcommittee  has  been  established  to  discuss  competition  matters;  instead,  notifications, 
cooperation and consultations take place directly between the Parties’ competition authorities. 
Even  before  the  start  of  application  of  the  Agreement,  all  Parties  already  fulfilled  the 
requirement of having competition authorities and  competition laws that are in line with the 
implementation principles established in the Agreement. 

Overall, the competition Title in the Agreement constitutes a sound legal basis for cooperation 
and  consultations  between  the  European  Commission  and  the  Andean  partner  countries’ 
competition  authorities.  The  Agreement  provisions  facilitate  consultations  and  information 
exchange  and  have  in  at  least  some  cases  also  been  formally  quoted  when  requesting 
information from or dialogue with another party’s competition authority. 

The Agreement also includes provisions on e-commerce in Chapter 6 of Title IV. However, 
that  chapter  has  played  a  very  limited  role  in  implementation,  except  as  regards  the  use  of 
digital movement certificates during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Use of the dispute settlement mechanism24 

The Agreement provides for separate dispute settlement mechanisms (DSMs), including that 
covering the TSD Title. 

24 See Chapter 10 of the main evaluation report. 

21 

 
 
No  formal  disputes  under  the  general  DSM  have  been  initiated,  as  the  main  forums  for 
discussion  continue  to  be  the  Trade  Committee  and/or  the  respective  subcommittees  where 
some issues have been discussed over several years. This shows the preference of the Parties 
to keep discussions open despite sometimes limited progress, rather than to resolve the issues 
in a formal dispute settlement procedure. One consideration is that the issues addressed often 
refer to domestic policies which can best be solved through bilateral discussions. 

According  to  the  external  consultant  for  the  evaluation,  the  reluctance  to  initiate  a  formal 
dispute  may  also  prolong  discussions.  Although  the  EU  has  occasionally  indicated  that  a 
formal dispute might be initiated25, this has not yet happened. 

However,  the  Parties  have  resorted  to  the  WTO  DSM  to  resolve  disputes  concerning  WTO 
rules that have an impact on bilateral trade. Thus, the EU initiated two WTO disputes against 
Colombia regarding  Colombia’s treatment  of imported spirits (DS502)  and its anti-dumping 
measures on frozen potatoes (DS591)26. Similarly, Colombia and Ecuador registered as third 
parties in WTO disputes initiated by other countries on certain difficult SPS and TBT issues 
(notably related to palm oil). 

The  TSD  DSM  has  also  not  been  formally  triggered  since  the  start  of  application  of  the 
Agreement. However, the Commission has engaged in a dialogue with  Peru27 and Ecuador28 
further to civil society complaints made in both those countries. 

Some stakeholders from civil society called for the Commission to go beyond the letter of the 
Agreement  and  be  more  active  in  its  engagement  with  partner  countries,  including  a  more 
active use of the existing dispute settlement mechanism. 

25 E.g. in the context of tax treatment of Pisco in Peru, at the 2016 meeting of the Sub-committee on Agriculture. 
26  The  final  and  binding  award  of  the  Appeal  Arbitrators,  published  on  21 December  2022,  confirms  that 
Colombia’s  anti-dumping  investigation  was  flawed  in  several  respects,  including  the  calculation  of  the 
dumping margin and the injury analysis. This was the first WTO appeal dealt with under the ‘Multi-party 
interim appeal arbitration arrangement’, known as the ‘MPIA’. 

27 Implementation of the TSD Title. 
28 Restrictions in the establishment and functioning of trade unions. 

22 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.1.5.  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  THE  TRADE  AND  SUSTAINABLE  DEVELOPMENT 

TITLE 

The  inclusion  of  commitments  on  TSD  is  a  feature  of  the  new  generation  of  trade 
agreements  signed  by  the  EU,  such  as  that  with  Peru,  Colombia  and  Ecuador.  They 
cover commitments to implement  in practice both  core labour standards (as contained 
in  the  ILO  Declaration  on  Fundamental  Principles  and  Rights  at  Work,  adopted  in 
1998)29, and eight key Multilateral Environmental Standards and Agreements (MEAs). 
In addition, the Title also includes specific substantive provisions in relation to various 
thematic  areas  such  as  biodiversity;  sustainable  forest  management;  illegal  fishing; 
climate change issues; and non-discrimination in working conditions, including those of 
legally  employed  migrant  workers.  In  procedural  terms,  the  Agreement  establishes  a 
regular dialogue with civil society as well as a dedicated dispute settlement mechanism. 
All  Parties  reported  tangible  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  TSD  provisions, 
including  core  labour  standards.  In  particular,  progress  was  notable  in  areas  where 
assistance projects have been implemented or the EU was able to take own actions. The 
TSD  Subcommittee  has  provided  an  effective  platform  for  reviewing  developments  in 
their  domestic  environmental  legislation  (including  on  climate  policy),  for  monitoring 
compliance  with  international  obligations,  for  mutual  exchanges  of  information  on 
progress in the implementation of NDCs (in the context of the Paris Agreement), and for 
exchanging information on other key environmental issues. 

All  Parties  have  ratified  the  eight  core  labour  conventions  that  are  identified  in  the 
Agreement.  In  the  TSD  Subcommittee  meetings,  all  Parties  reported  progress  in  the 
implementation of core labour standards30, which also represents an important advance in 
the pursuit of related SDGs. Respect for and promotion of core labour standards has been a 
standing topic in the work of the TSD Sub-Committee, in particular as regards: 

•  Child labour: Parties have taken steps to reduce the incidence of child labour and thus to 
come closer to meeting the commitments of Article 269 of the TSD Title and SDG No 8.7 
(i.e. ‘Take immediate and effective measures to … secure the prohibition and elimination 
of the worst forms of child labour, including recruitment and use of child soldiers, and by 
2025 end child labour in all its forms.’). 

•  Forced  labour:  Parties  have also  taken steps to  combat  forced labour and trafficking in 
human beings in order to meet the commitment of Article 269 of the TSD Title and SDG 

29  On  11 June 2022,  the  International  Labour  Conference  amended  this  Declaration  by  adding  to  it  a  safe  and 
healthy  working  environment  as  a  fifth  principle  and  right.  The  operational  safety  and  health  principle  is 
included in the more recent trade agreements negotiated by the EU, not applied retroactively to the Agreement 
with Peru, Colombia and Ecuador. 

30  Other  topics  frequently  discussed  at  TSD  meetings  included  informal  economy,  tripartite  dialogue  and 

legislative reforms. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
No 8.7 (‘Take immediate and effective measures to eradicate forced labour, end modern 
slavery and human trafficking.’). 

•  Parties  have  systematically  exchanged  information  on  progress  as  regards  freedom  of 
association,  building  on the observations put  forward  by the  ILO  and OECD  regarding, 
among  others,  the  high  level  of  impunity  for  perpetrators  of  violence  against  union 
leaders,  the  continuing  practice  of  negotiating  collective  pacts  with  non-unionised 
workers,  full  alignment  of  legislation  with  ILO  Convention  on  Freedom  of  Association 
and Protection of the Right to Organize or the lack of progress in respecting the right to 
strike. 

•  Labour  inspection  capacity:  Parties  have  systematically  discussed  ways  to 
strengthen labour inspection. The Trade4DecentWork project, financed by the EU and 
with the participation of the ILO, has aimed to strengthen labour inspection capacity, 
especially in rural areas, where it is so necessary. 

•  With  regard  to  non-discrimination  at  work,  the  Parties  have  reported  on  the  steps 
taken to improve the situation of women and disabled persons on the labour market. 

•  The TSD Subcommittee provides a platform to discuss and review the development of 
domestic environmental and climate legislation and the fulfilment of the commitments 
made  in  the  Agreement  by  the  Parties,  monitoring  compliance  with  international 
obligations. 

•  Climate: Parties  have systematically exchanged  information  on the progress  of their 
respective  climate  strategies  and  the  implementation  of  nationally  determined 
contributions (NDCs). 

•  Environment:  Parties  have  exchanged  information  on  domestic  and  international 
developments  on  green  transition,  biodiversity,  deforestation    and  the  circular 
economy in the light of the implementation of international commitments. 

Similarly,  the  dialogue  with  civil  society  provided  for  by  Article 282  of  the  Agreement 
represents a suitable platform for civil society and stakeholders to monitor the implementation 
of  the  trade  and  sustainable  development  provisions  and  enable  stakeholders  to  voice  their 
concerns. 

4.1.1.6.  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  TECHNICAL  ASSISTANCE  AND  STRENGTHENING  OF 

TRADE CAPACITIES 

Technical and financial support has been provided at varying degrees in relation to different 
areas  covered  by  the  Agreement.  For  example,  the  EU  has  provided  technical  assistance  to 
improve  the  (export)  competitiveness  of  MSMEs  in  the  Andean  partner  countries  and  to 
encourage  bilateral  trade.  Also,  some trade  adjustment  support  –  e.g.  for the  dairy  sector  in 
Colombia  –  has  been  provided,  as  well  as  assistance  in  relation  to  labour  issues  (e.g. 
elimination  of  child  labour  and  strengthening  labour  inspection)  and  uptake  of  corporate 
social  responsibility  (CSR)  practices.  A  significant  amount  of  technical  assistance  has  also 
been provided to the Andean partner countries in relation to SPS issues, as well as (on a more 
limited scale – generally limited to participation in trainings and seminars), IPR, competition 

24 

 
and other matters. Some other areas have received less attention to date, such as government 
procurement. 

Stakeholders  noted  that  market  access  commitments,  collaboration  and  technical  assistance 
especially in the more technical areas  – such as SPS, TBT, IPR, government procurement  –
are complementary and are all crucial elements for the success of the Agreement. 

4.1.2.  IMPACT OF THE AGREEMENT 

Going  beyond  the  effectiveness  of  the  Agreement  in  terms  of  achieving  operational 
objectives, evaluation question 1B ‘What has been the impact of the Agreement?’ addresses 
the wider impact of the Agreement across the four main impact dimensions: economic, social, 
environmental, and human rights situation. 

The  following  sections  summarise  the  main  evaluation  findings  for  each  of  these  impact 
dimensions and also present the findings regarding external factors which have influenced the 
effectiveness  and  impact  of  the  Agreement  (EQ  2),  as  well  as  unintended  effects  of  the 
Agreement (EQ 3). 

4.1.2.1.  ECONOMIC IMPACT 

According  to  the  CGE  simulations,  the  Agreement  has  contributed  to  increases  in  overall 
trade for all Parties. These changes in trade flows caused by the Agreement have also led to 
changes in other economic areas. 

The reduction in barriers to trade between the Parties caused by the Agreement is equivalent 
to  a  reduction  in  market  distortions  and  therefore  allows  for  resources  to  be  allocated  more 
efficiently.  As  a  result,  the  economic  effect  of  the  Agreement  on  global  gross  domestic 
product  (GDP)  is  positive,  being  estimated  at  USD 728  million  (comparing  world  GDP  in 
2020 with the Agreement with world GDP in 2020 without the Agreement). 

All four Parties to the Agreement have benefited from an increase in their GDP. In absolute 
terms,  in  2020,  EU  GDP  (measured  at  initial  market  prices)  is  estimated  to  be  higher  by 
USD 1.3  billion  than  it  would  have  been  without  the  Agreement.  Gains  for  Colombia  and 
Peru  are  estimated  at  USD 42  million  and  USD 49  million  respectively,  while  Ecuador’s 
gains are estimated at USD 128 million. 

The Agreement’s impact on sectoral production/output is as follows: 

• 

In the EU, most manufacturing sectors benefit from the Agreement – output increases by 
up to USD 1.2 billion in the vehicles sector (driven by stronger exports to the partners and 
overall),  although  in  relative  terms  the  increases  are  modest,  not  exceeding  0.1% 
compared  to  the  absence  of  the  Agreement.  In  contrast,  two  sectors  are  estimated  to 
register  sizable  declines  in  output:  vegetables  and  fruit  (USD  –279  million),  and  other 
food products (USD –422 million); again, in percentage terms these declines are limited 
(–0.22%  in  the  case  of  fruit  and  vegetables,  and  -0.06%  for  other  food  products).  The 
impact  on  other  good  sectors  is  modest.  Most  services  sectors  are  calculated  to  register 

25 

 
marginal gains resulting from higher domestic demand in response to the small increase in 
GDP. 

The EU’s tariff concessions for banana imports from the Andean partner countries led to 
an  increase  in  bilateral  trade  in  bananas  in  2019/2020  (compared  to  the  situation  that 
would  have  prevailed  without  the  concessions)  ranging  from  a  9%  export  increase  for 
bananas from Peru to almost 16% for Colombia. Banana production in the three countries 
also increased as a result of the Agreement, by 1.7% in Ecuador, 3.9% in Colombia, and 
4.5% in Peru, leading to an increase in welfare in those countries. On the other hand, EU 
banana  producers  were  impacted  negatively,  with  an  output  decrease  of  between  0.5% 
and 0.8%. 

• 

• 

In  Colombia,  the  pattern  across  sectors  is  more  mixed.  Some  sectors  in  which  exports 
have increased as a result of the Agreement have also seen total imports increase, so that 
the net effect on outputs depends on the balance. Thus, output of basic pharmaceuticals, 
machinery  and  equipment,  metal  products,  and  miscellaneous  manufactures  sectors  are 
estimated  to  decrease  despite  increases  in  total  exports,  because  total  imports  have 
increased  by  a  larger  amount.  For  other  sectors,  the  net  effect  on  output  is  positive, 
because  the  export  increase  overcompensates  the  import  increase,  or  because  imports 
decline. This is the case most strongly for chemicals (+USD 136 million or 0.9%), other 
food products (+USD 48 million or 0.4%) and fruit and vegetables (USD +46 million or 
0.9%).  Most  services  sectors  are  estimated  to  benefit  as  a  result  of  the  overall  positive 
economic impact of the Agreement. 

In  Peru,  output  increases  resulting  from  the  Agreement  are  relatively  widely  dispersed 
across sectors. The leading beneficiaries in terms of total export increases, i.e. other food 
products and chemical products, are also the two sectors seeing the largest positive output 
change:  USD  +226  million  or  1.9%  for  other  food  products,  and  USD  +558  million  or 
1.6% for chemical products. Fruit and vegetables, and vegetable oils and fats also register 
output  increases  of  around  1%  as  a  result  of  the  Agreement.  At  the  other  end  of  the 
spectrum,  miscellaneous metals  (USD  -147 million or -0.7%) and basic  pharmaceuticals 
(USD -16 million or -0.9%) are the sectors with the largest estimated contractions. Other 
manufacturing sectors are also estimated to contract somewhat, at between 0.2% and 0.4% 
due  to  the  Agreement,  mostly  as  a  result  of  increasing  total  imports  which  are  not 
mirrored by corresponding export increases. 

•  For  Ecuador,  the  positive  impacts  of  the  Agreement  are  most  concentrated  on  a  limited 
number of sectors, whereas a higher number of sectors experiences modest contractions in 
output.  Among  the  beneficiaries,  the  most  important  ones  are  other  food  products 
(USD +179  million  or  4.1%),  construction  services  (USD  +113  million/0.7%)  and  fruit 
and  vegetables  (USD  +27  million/0.8%).  Conversely,  the  sector  registering  the  largest 
decline in output is motor vehicles (USD -40 million or -4.2%). Other sectors estimated to 
register output declines of 1% to 2% include various manufacturing and some agricultural 
sectors;  the declines  are  primarily explained by import increases which outweigh  export 
increases. 

26 

 
Based  on  the  analysis  undertaken,  the  Agreement  appears  to  have  encouraged  MSMEs  to 
engage in bilateral trade between the Parties. This primarily seems to be a consequence of the 
tariff preferences in combination with the efficient operation of customs. Stakeholders, both 
from the public and from the private sectors, considered that the impact of the Agreement on 
MSMEs has been positive, as it had created many opportunities for expanded sales either as 
direct exporters or as suppliers to exporters. At the same time, they were of the view that the 
positive potential of the Agreement for MSMEs could be improved by providing assistance to 
businesses, including in such matters as compliance with SPS requirements. 

4.1.2.2.  SOCIAL IMPACT 

The  Agreement’s  social  impact  is  assessed  across  a  number  of  areas  and  indicators, 
comprising  employment,  consumer  welfare  and  poverty  effects;  impact  on  the  informal 
economy,  on  women,  on  labour  standards  and  working  conditions;  and  the  effect  on 
CSR/responsible business conduct (RBC). 

Overall,  the  estimated  effects  of  the  Agreement  on  employment  across  sectors  follow  the 
pattern of trade impacts and are most positive in the Andean countries in the fruits, vegetables 
and  nuts  sector,  and  in  fisheries,  notably  in  Ecuador.  In  industry,  sectors  such  as  food 
products, chemical products or textiles (the latter in Colombia and Peru) are also estimated to 
be  beneficiaries  of  the  Agreement.  On  the  other  hand,  in  sectors  such  as  motor  vehicles, 
machinery, and equipment, there has been a decline in employment in the Andean countries, 
with  the  effects  being  most  pronounced  in  Ecuador.  Some  stakeholders  acknowledge  that 
imports  of  machinery  from  the  EU  have  contributed  to  the  increased  competitiveness  of 
certain  sectors  (such  as  food  products)  in  the  Andean  countries  and  support  the  exports  of 
these  sectors  as  well.  In  the  EU,  employment  effects  are  very  limited  in  relative  terms  for 
most sectors. 

The Agreement is likely to have contributed to an increase in overall welfare and to poverty 
reduction, although it is complicated to draw conclusions based on available data. While the 
overall effects are likely to be limited, it is thanks to the Agreement and increased exports to 
the EU that jobs have been created in the Andean countries, mainly in agriculture; that is to 
say, in rural areas which had poverty levels much higher than in urban areas and where the 
labour participation  rate  was lower than in  urban areas (e.g. in  Colombia).  These  additional 
jobs and income opportunities may have benefited people who previously had been inactive 
or  had  insufficient  income,  thus  contributing  to  poverty  reduction.  However,  some 
stakeholders drew attention to groups (such as small agricultural producers on family farms or 
small  producers in  the dairy sector) that may not  have  benefited  from the Agreement  to  the 
same extent as larger enterprises, and/or who may have been negatively affected by increased 
import competition. Moreover, low job quality – including low wage levels in agriculture and 
among  sub-contracted  workers  in  palm  oil  or  mining  sectors  –  reduces  the  positive  welfare 
effects resulting from increased trade. 

The effects of the Agreement for consumers are found to be rather positive, with an overall 
increase  in  availability,  accessibility  and  diversity  of  goods  and  services  thanks  to  the 
reduction of tariffs and non-tariff barriers.  

27 

 
Findings from the analysis suggest that sectors that contribute most to exports from Colombia 
and  Peru  to  the  EU  are  those  that  already  had  lower  levels  of  informality  prior  to  the 
Agreement’s application, and which have managed to lower the levels of informality further 
in  the  period  analysed.  According  to  the  literature  and  data,  these  sectors  have  a  more 
diversified  economy,  are  more  competitive,  are  better  connected  to  the  world  and  are  more 
exposed  to  international  trade  than  the  rest  of  the  country.  In  addition,  the  analysis  of  the 
types  of  jobs  created  since  the  start  of  application  of  the  Agreement  in  selected  exporting 
sectors in Colombia and Peru (agriculture, agro-industry and mining in Peru, and banana, the 
palm oil sector and mining in Colombia) suggests that the Agreement may have contributed to 
the  creation  or  maintenance  of  formal  jobs  in  these  sectors  –  although  their  quality  may 
require  improvement.  This  is  especially  the  case  in  mining  and  the  palm  oil  sector  in 
Colombia and Peru, as well as in agriculture in Peru more broadly, where it is only recently 
that legislative changes have brought about improvements to the rights of workers covered by 
the  special  regime.  In  Ecuador,  the  relation  between  the  Agreement  and  informality  is 
indeterminate and there is no clear pattern between the export impact of the Agreement and 
informality levels. 

The impact of the Agreement on women as workers, entrepreneurs and traders – and hence its 
contribution to the attainment of SDG 5 (gender equality) – has been evaluated primarily on 
the basis of the differential effects of the economic impacts of the Agreement. On this basis, 
estimates from the economic modelling suggest that for the 70%-75% of women in Colombia 
and  Peru  and  a  large  proportion  of  women  in  Ecuador  employed  in  services  sectors,  the 
effects  of  the  Agreement  will  be  very  limited.  Some  positive  impacts  for  jobs  in  wholesale 
and  retail  trade  have  benefited  women,  while  less  positive  effects  (e.g.  in  the  hospitality 
sector) are likely to have been cushioned by the overall growth of the sector over time (at least 
until  the Covid-19 pandemic).  Impacts  for female workers in  agriculture  and manufacturing 
are  likely  to  be  mixed  and  varying  across  sub-sectors,  with  the  overall  effects  for  women 
being smaller than for men. The shares of women in sectors benefiting from exports to the EU 
vary from 7% (banana sector) to 64% (flower sector) in Colombia and are more equal in some 
sectors  in  Peru  (e.g.  52%  in  blueberries  and  61.5%  in  the  textile  and  garment  sector)  and 
Ecuador  (51%  in  the  flower  sector).  Jobs  created  or  preserved  thanks  to  the  Agreement, 
notably  in  rural  areas,  are  likely  to  have  contributed  (even  if  in  a  limited  way)  to  gender 
equality  in  cases  where  they  opened  income-generation  opportunities  for  women.  However, 
as many of these jobs  are in  low-skilled and low-pay categories,  they have not  changed the 
overall disadvantaged position of women in the labour market. Recent legislation adopted in 
the Andean countries aims at preventing discrimination on gender grounds at the workplace31. 

31 In Ecuador, Decreto No 34/2000 ‘Ley de Igualdad de Oportunidades para la Mujer’ aiming to eliminate any 
type  of  discrimination  against  women.  Several  laws  are  in  force  in  Colombia  on  gender  equality,  Peru 
approved its national gender equality policy in 2019; it included an assessment of the gender pay gap and, in 
item  4.3,  measures  for  ‘strengthening  the  formal  labour  market  inclusion  of  women’.  There  is  also  a  law  in 
Peru prohibiting wage discrimination on gender grounds, which came into force on 28 December 2017 (Ley 
No 30709). 

28 

 
 
Findings  related  to  female  entrepreneurship  are  similar.  The  Andean  countries  and  the  EU 
have  taken  measures  to  support  female  entrepreneurs  and  traders  that  have  contributed  to 
economic and social development, poverty reduction and women’s economic empowerment. 
Women-led businesses are often small and operate in sectors with low profitability (e.g. some 
services  sectors)  or  where  high  entry  barriers  or  regulatory  barriers  in  international  trade 
increase  the  costs  of  presence  in  the  market  or  impede  international  activity  (e.g.  food 
products, textiles, and garments). However, the situation has been improving thanks in part to 
contributions  received  from  the  EU  to  support  both  legislative  initiatives  (such  as  the 
Colombian  Law  on  Entrepreneurship  adopted  in  2020)  and  programmes  for  women 
entrepreneurs  –  such  as  the  Peruvian  programmes  ‘Mujer  Produce’  (woman  produces)  and 
‘Ella exporta’ (‘She exports’). 

To  determine  to  what  extent  the  Agreement  may  have  contributed  to  attaining  SDG 8 
(sustainable  development  and  full  and  productive  employment  and  decent  work  for  all, 
including respect for ILO core labour standards), the external study examined its influence on 
the observing of labour standards and working conditions in the Andean partner countries. 

The  study  found  that  the  Agreement  has  contributed  by  providing  a  forum  for  discussion 
about  working  conditions  and  a  framework  for  assistance  projects,  including  on  labour 
inspections  in  rural  areas.  The  strengthening  of  labour  inspections  and  improvement  of 
working  conditions  in  sectors  exporting  to  the  EU,  including  health  and  safety  at  work, 
minimum  wages,  working  times  and  social  security  coverage  have  systematically  been 
reviewed and included as points for discussion in the meetings of the TSD Subcommittee32. 

• 

In Colombia, the government has taken  action to address  some  challenges related to 
working  conditions.  These  include  strengthening  the  capacity  of  labour  inspection 
services  and  increasing  the  [legal]  minimum  wage.  The  implementation  of  projects 
jointly with the ILO with funding provided by the EU has contributed to increasing the 
capacity  to  address  health  and  safety  at  work  in  certain  sectors  (e.g.  in  the  coffee 
supply  chain).  In  this  area,  the  European  Commission  is  also  contributing  to  the 
Vision  Zero  Fund  by  providing  EUR 1.8  million  from  the  EU  programme  for 
employment  and  social  innovation  (EaSI).  The  funds,  destined  for  a  project  for 
improving  occupational  safety  and  health  (OSH)  in  the  global  coffee  supply  chain, 
have been used to finance actions in Colombia (one of the world’s leading producers) 
aimed  at  addressing  health  and  safety  at  work,  including  the  development  of 
guidelines  and  training  courses  in  response  to  the  COVID-19  crisis.  The  EU  also 
provides  assistance  for  sustainability  and  decent  work  in  the  coffee  supply  chain 
focusing on ensuring fair working conditions, elimination of child labour, addressing 
informality,  and  respect  for  human  rights.  In  this  regard,  the  European  Union’s 
programme  for  employment  and  social  innovation  (EaSI)  in  association  with  the 
International  Labour  Organisation  (ILO)  is  developing  a  project  called  ‘Sustainable 

32 Agreed minutes of the meetings are available at: https://circabc.europa.eu/ui/group/09242a36-a438-40fd-a7af-

fe32e36cbd0e/library/13387f3e-ebf0-4750-9781-6d7dbaf54d67?p=1&n=10&sort=modified_DESC. 

29 

 
 
supply  chains  to  build  forward  better’.  This  project  aims  to  promote  decent  work  in 
global supply chains and to address decent work challenges and opportunities in five 
selected supply chains and countries, including the coffee supply chain in Colombia. 

• 

In  Peru,  the  government  has  also  taken  steps  to  improve  job  quality,  e.g.  through 
changes in the special regime in agriculture, strengthening capacity and extending the 
network  of  labour  inspection,  and  extension  of  health  care  insurance  and  social 
security coverage to a larger share of workers. Moreover, projects with the ILO have 
been implemented focusing on improved respect for health and safety at work in some 
sectors,  such  as  construction  and  the  agro-exporting  industry.  However,  job  quality 
(including  in  sectors  exporting  to  the  EU)  remains  a  challenge  that  should  be 
addressed  through  effective  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the  existing 
legislation  and,  in  sectors  covered  by  special  regimes,  putting  workers’  rights  on  a 
similar  footing  to  the  rights  of  workers  under  the  general  labour  regime.  Moreover, 
technical  assistance  projects  with  the  EU,  the  ILO  and  Latin  American  countries 
should  continue,  with  the  aim  of  strengthening  labour  inspection  capacity,  labour 
formalisation  and  respect  for  labour  standards  and  health  and  safety  at  work.  In  this 
regard,  the  EU  is  planning  to  support  an  ILO  project  that  aims  to  find  innovative 
solutions for formalisation in Latin America and the Caribbean, because the very high 
number of workers and firms in the informal economy is one of the most characteristic 
features of the labour markets in the region. This is a structural and persistent problem 
that in recent years has affected around 50% of workers in the region, even during the 
growth  decade.  In  2019,  before  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  there  were  around  140 
million  informal  workers  in  LAC.  In  addition,  in  May  2022  the  EU  organised  a 
TAIEX  workshop  with  the  three  Andean  countries  to  exchange  best  practices  and 
policy developments on tackling informality in the labour market. 

• 

In Ecuador, job quality has been closely related to the macroeconomic situation there 
and changes in its trade  environment.  Thus, the fall of global oil prices followed by 
the economic slowdown in  Ecuador had an impact  on employment, wage levels  and 
public revenues, including the ability to hire labour inspectors. The Agreement seems 
to  have  played  a  role  in  improving  labour  rights  and  working  conditions  in  Ecuador 
through the creation of additional export opportunities. 

Finally, in Article 271 of the Agreement, the Parties agree to promote best business practices 
related to corporate social responsibility (CSR) and to encourage the development and use of 
flexible, voluntary and incentive-based mechanisms that can contribute to coherence between 
trade practices and objectives of sustainable development. 

The  evaluation  report  confirms  that  the  Andean  partner  countries  have  pursued  domestic 
policies encouraging the application of CSR practices, and these efforts have been supported 
by  the  EU  through  assistance  projects  and  dialogue  under  the  TSD  Title.  The  evaluation 
report also finds that civil society from both the EU and the Andean countries also contributed 
to  the  CSR  process,  in  particular  with  the  joint  submission  to  the  TSD  Committee  held  in 

30 

 
 
 
Lima  in  2017  which  emphasised  the  role  that  the  National  Action  Plan  on  Business  and 
Human  Rights  adopted  in  Colombia  could  play  in  encouraging  respect  for  human  rights  by 
enterprises. 

The report considers it probable that trade with the EU, notably exports in the flower sector, 
vegetables, fruits and nuts, and textiles have contributed to a broader trend of promoting CSR 
practices,  respect  for  human  rights  and  labour  and  environmental  standards  through 
customers’  expectations.  This  is  corroborated  by  the  findings  of  the  business  survey 
conducted  for  the  evaluation,  in  which  around  one  third  of  enterprises  said  they  had 
strengthened  their  CSR  practices  as  a  result  of  the  operation  of  the  Agreement.  Equally, 
around one third stated that they had strengthened their corporate policies for human rights, 
labour or environmental standards. 

4.1.2.3.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

The impact of the Agreement on climate change in 2020 has been assessed by combining the 
following  effects:  changes  in  gross  global  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  caused  by 
changes in output due to tariff liberalisation under the Agreement; changes in GHG emissions 
arising  from  land  use,  land-use  changes  and  forestry  (LULUCF)  in  the  Andean  partner 
countries; and the potential impact of the Agreement on governance and standards relevant for 
climate  change.  Based  on  these  analyses,  the  net  quantified  impact  of  the  Agreement  is  a 
small decrease in global GHG emissions, as shown in Annex IX. 

The impact of the Agreement on biodiversity and natural resources is based on an analysis 
prepared  by  the  consultant  team  for  the  purposes  of  the  ex-evaluation  report.  This  analysis 
focused on the potential effects of tariff cuts on land-use change and permanent deforestation 
in  the  Andean  countries,  the  Agreement’s  effects  on  sustainability  of  governance  related  to 
natural  resources,  and  two  case  studies  on  shrimp  production  in  Ecuador  and  avocado 
production in Peru. Given the scarcity and limited availability of information, the biodiversity 
impact analysis does not provide findings on the environmental impact of other (mono)crops 
traded between the EU and the Andean countries. 

Based on this assessment it can be concluded that the negative impact of the Agreement on 
biodiversity  and  natural  resources  was  very  small.  This  overall  finding  is  derived  from  the 
following component analyses: 

As  regards  deforestation,  the  analysis  has  highlighted  the  variety  of  circumstances  in  the 
partner countries. In Colombia, the expansion of commercial agriculture has been correlated 
with deforestation, but the analysis has found that such changes are only marginally attributed 
to the impact of the Agreement, accounting for roughly 0.5% of the total deforestation driven 
by commercial agriculture observed over the period of the Agreement. It is unlikely that this 
deforestation occurred in the most (biodiverse) intact areas in Colombia. 

For Ecuador and Peru, conversely, there is no evidence of deforestation driven by agriculture. 

The TSD Title has had a marginally positive impact on the biodiversity and natural resources 
of  the  partner  countries.  The  meetings  of  the  TSD  Sub-Committee  proved  to  be  a  relevant 

31 

 
platform  to  flag  and  discuss  environmental  issues  related  to  biodiversity  and  natural 
resources. With the adoption of EU legislation such as on deforestation33, this forum may also 
serve  to  inform  on  the  scope  and  details  of  such  policy  measures  and  to  discuss  with  all 
Parties matters of compliance. 

With  respect  to  other  environmental  impact  areas,  it  is  estimated  that  the  Agreement  had  a 
small  negative  impact  on  water  availability  and  quality  in  Colombia,  mostly  caused  by 
increased  agricultural  production,  although  increased  demand  for  sustainable  products  may 
have compensated for a proportion of the negative effects. In Ecuador and Peru, the impact of 
the  Agreement  on  water  is  estimated  to  be  marginally  positive,  as  tariff  reductions  seem  to 
have benefited agricultural sectors with lower water footprints. 

For  waste  management,  the  main  effects  of  the  Agreement  are  likely  to  be  related  to  the 
improvement  of  the  environmental  framework  in  Colombia  (e.g.  the  ban  on  single-use 
plastics), Ecuador and Peru. In all three Andean countries, the promotion of circular economy 
practices in key sectors, including agriculture, have led to certain improvements with regard 
to waste management. 

Pilot  activities  such  as  the  one  carried  out  by  the  United  National  Industrial  Development 
Office  in  Colombia,  promoting  an  integrated  approach  to  sustainable  artisanal  gold  mining, 
are valuable contributions to tackling the issue of water quality and waste management due to 
river-based mining activities. 

4.1.2.4.  HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT 

Three  trade-related  human  rights  covered  by  the  Agreement  were  selected  for  an  in-depth 
evaluation: freedom of assembly and association, the right to join and form trade unions, and 
child  labour.  The  evaluation  also  covered  in  detail  other  non-trade-related  human  rights, 
notably the right to water. 

For other human rights, the initial screening and scoping analysis showed that the Agreement 
could  have  had  only  very  minor  effects,  and  these  were  not  analysed  further.  Similarly,  no 
effects  on  the  human  rights  situation  in  the  EU  were  determined,  and  the  detailed  analysis 
therefore focused solely on the three Andean partner countries. 

The TSD chapter covers trade-related human rights. For example, it reaffirms the obligations 
of  the  Parties  regarding  freedom  of  association34  as  laid  down  in  ILO  Fundamental 
Conventions No 87 and No 98, which cover freedom of association, the right to organise and 
collective  bargaining,  as  well  as  respect  for  core  labour  standards  so  as  to  promote  decent 
terms and conditions of work and a balance between workers and employers in the workplace. 
In  addition,  Article 277  includes  undertakings  by  the  Parties  not  to  lower  existing  levels  of 

33 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the making available on the Union 
market as well as export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and 
forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010. 

34 Article 269(3)(a). 

32 

 
 
protection  with  respect  to  labour  rights,  referring  to  both  the  legal  framework  and 
implementation  of  the  existing  laws,  in  a  manner  affecting  trade  or  investment  between  the 
Parties. According to the analysis carried out by the consultant, the Agreement has had mixed 
but  overall  small  effects  on  the  right  to  freedom  of  assembly  and  association,  including  the 
right to join and form trade unions in the Andean partner countries. 

•  The situation of trade unions in Colombia over the last decade was mainly shaped by 
the  security  situation  in  Colombia,  the  Labour  Action  Plan  adopted  with  the  US, 
political  dialogue  with  the  EU,  and  macroeconomic  developments  which  influenced 
the  creation  of  formal  jobs  in  some  sectors  while  preserving  structures  with  sub-
contracted workers in other sectors (e.g. in mining). There were multiple violations of 
the  right  to  freedom  of  association,  as  recorded  by  the  ILO  as  well  as  the  EU,  in 
particular  with  respect  to  collective  agreements  with  non-unionised  workers.  The 
Commission  is  closely  following  a  case  related  to  a  complaint  brought  by  one 
organisation active in the mining sector on sub-contracting. The Agreement is likely to 
have had some impact on these developments. Overall, in all sectors of the economy 
the number of collective agreements has increased. Technical assistance projects and 
capacity  building  together  with  dialogue  under  the  TSD  Title  between  the  European 
Commission  and  partner  country  governments  along  with  civil  society  engagement 
have  had  positive,  although  limited,  effects.  Bilateral  discussions  with  Colombia  in 
areas of common interest (mesas sectoriales), for example on social and labour issues, 
were  launched  in  202235.  The  first  discussion,  held  in  July  2022,  dealt  with  the 
eradication of child labour and labour inspections. 

• 

In Peru, multiple violations have been recorded by the ILO and the EU with respect to 
freedom  of association36.  Some stakeholders  report  that increased  competition  linked 
to  the  Agreement  has  led  to  a  number  of  violations,  in  particular  the  practice  of 
temporary contracts or sub-contracted workers (e.g. in  mining)  which makes  it more 
difficult for workers to organise. The Commission is following closely a case related 
to  a  complaint  brought  by  one  organisation  active  in  the  mining  sector  on  sub-
contracting. The economic analysis shows that agricultural sectors in Peru have grown 
as  a  result  of  the  Agreement.  That  means  that  more  employment  and  economic 
opportunities  have  been  created.  However,  the  overall  number  of  people  working 
under temporary contracts in the agricultural sector has increased, which implies that 
job creation has mainly occurred in short-term and not long-term contracts. In fact, by 
creating  favourable  conditions  for  trade  and  encouraging  economic  activity  in  these 
sectors,  the  Agreement  may  have  contributed  indirectly  to  preserving  the  special 
regimes.  In  any  case,  discussions  under  the  TSD  Title  about  the  effective 
implementation  of  the  ILO  fundamental  conventions  (including  on  freedom  of 
association and collective bargaining) kept the attention of the Parties focused on the 

35 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/memorandum-understanding-eu-colombia_en. 
36  ILO  recorded  multiple  complaint  procedures  on  freedom  of  association  cases;  13  of  them  are  active  –  see 

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:20060:0:FIND:NO: 
20060:P20060_COUNTRY_ID,P20060_COMPLAINT_STATU_ID:102805 1495810 

33 

 
 
 
need to seek improvements, notably in response to civil society complaints. A TAIEX 
workshop  on  ‘Labour  conflict  management:  restorative  practices’  was  held  on  8–
9 June 2017 in Peru. The aim was to collaborate with the Peruvian government in the 
establishment of an effective system of out-of-court settlement of conflicts and to help 
solve labour law disputes amicably. A road map to this effect was adopted as a result 
of the workshop. Another TAIEX workshop on labour conflict management was held 
on  6-7 October  2020  between  the  EU  and  Peru.  Experts  from  the  European 
Commission  and  Member  States  and  participants  from  public  authorities  and  social 
partners from Peru attended the event. The aim of the workshop was to contribute to 
the  strengthening  of  social  dialogue  and  follow  up  on  efforts  made  to  establish  an 
effective dispute resolution system in the context of labour rights in Peru. 

• 

In Ecuador, in the period 2012 to 2019, six complaints were submitted to the ILO on 
freedom  of  association.  Trade  union  activity  in  Ecuador  is  low  due  to  national 
regulations on the formation of trade unions (minimum 30 workers per enterprise) and 
the high level of informality. The Commission is following closely the case related to 
the complaint brought by an organisation active in the banana sector and has reiterated 
its  support  for  ILO  work  on  the  enforcement  of  labour  standards,  in  particular  with 
regard to the requirements for training and registration of trade union organisations in 
Ecuador. With respect to child labour37, the Agreement includes commitments of the 
Parties  regarding  practical  implementation  of  the  already  ratified  ILO  Fundamental 
Conventions  No 138  (on  minimum  age)  and  182  (on  worst  forms  of  child  labour), 
which  includes  the  abolition  of  child  labour.  The  child  labour  incidence  in  all  three 
Andean  countries  is  often  related  to  rural  areas,  poverty  and  informal  economic 
activities.  However,  the  governments  have  taken  many  initiatives,  including  in 
cooperation  with  the  private  sector,  international  organisations,  the  EU,  NGOs,  and 
other  countries  from  Latin  America  to  prevent  and  eliminate  child  labour  through 
awareness-raising campaigns, providing jobs for adult household members, improving 
labour  inspection  capacity,  encouraging  better  school  attendance,  and  promoting 
certification schemes. In this context, the Agreement may have contributed to reduced 
child  labour  incidence  through  creating  job  opportunities  for  adults,  mainly  in 
agriculture but also in the textile, garment, and mining sectors. 

In  relation  to  the  overall  human  rights  situation  (i.e.  going  beyond  trade),  the  evaluation 
focused  on  violence  against  human  rights  defenders  and  trade  union  activists,  where 
Colombia has traditionally witnessed very high levels, even though there has been a decrease 
in  murder  and  attack  rates  against  trade  unionists  in  the  years  of  implementation  of  the 
Agreement. 

The  evaluation  report  considers  that  the  Agreement  served  as  a  lever  to  support  political 
dialogue  between  the  EU  and  Colombia.  The  Commission  and the  EEAS  regularly  monitor 

37 Article 269(3)(c) 

34 

 
 
 
the  situation  in  Colombia  and  hold  high-level  meetings  on  human  rights  with  Colombia,  in 
addition  to  the  cooperation  provided  to  international  partners  including  the  UN  Verification 
Mission and the Human Rights Office. 

As for Ecuador, over the past decade it has made progress with respect to the protection of the 
right to peaceful assembly. 

Based on the consultant’s assessment of the results of the economic analysis, literature review 
and stakeholder consultations, no significant impact of the Agreement on the right to water 
was  detected.  The  baseline  analysis  indicates  that  all  Andean  countries  had  faced  water 
pressure  issues  prior  to  the  application  of  the  Agreement,  attributable  to  various  factors 
including  the climate characteristics  of certain  areas  and regions, a fairly low percentage of 
the  rural  population  with  access  to  safe  drinking  water  facilities  (especially  in  Peru),  and 
water pollution/pressure caused by business activities. 

4.1.2.5.  INFLUENCING  FACTORS  FOR  ACHIEVEMENT  OF  THE  AGREEMENT’S 

OBJECTIVES 

Evaluation  question  2  analysed  ‘What  are  the  factors  influencing  (either  positively  or 
negatively) the achievement of the Agreement’s objectives?’ 

Factors  influencing  the  achievement  of  operational  objectives:  the  expansion  of  trade  in 
goods  between  the  Parties  has  been  facilitated  by  the  fact  that  the  work  of  implementing 
authorities  and  agencies  is  relatively  advanced.  As  a  result,  the  implementation  of  tariff 
changes, RoO and paperwork related to SPS and TBT has not faced any major impediments. 
There  are  still  discussions  about  the  administration  of  TRQs  in  Ecuador  and  about 
government procurement at sub-central level in Colombia. 

Factors  influencing  the  achievement  of  impact  (i.e.  the  Agreement’s  contribution  to 
sustainable  economic  growth  through  the  increase  in  trade  between  and  of  the  Parties):  the 
implementation  of  the  Agreement  has  taken  place  mostly  in  an  adverse  global  trade 
environment.  The  slowdown  of  globalisation,  increasingly  protectionist  tendencies  from  an 
increasing number of countries and the retreat of GVCs all had a dampening effect on trade at 
a  global  level  that  also  affected  trading  activities  by  the  Parties  even  before  COVID-19 
became  a  global  pandemic  in  early  2020.  Another  factor  limiting  the  positive  economic 
impact of the Agreement has been productive capacity constraints, in particular by MSMEs in 
the  Andean  partner  countries  and  especially  when  compared  to  the  high  standards  and 
consumer expectations in the EU. 

In terms of social impacts, one factor influencing developments in the Andean countries has 
been the arrival of a high number of migrant workers from Venezuela in the last few years, 
putting pressure on receiving communities and public services, and influencing the situation 
in local labour markets. 

35 

 
4.1.2.6.  UNINTENDED EFFECTS OF THE AGREEMENT 

Evaluation  question  3  asks  whether  ‘the  Agreement  [has]  had  unintended  (positive  or 
negative) consequences, and if so, which ones?’ 

A  broad  range  of  such  unintended  effects  was  identified  at  the  negotiation  stage,  in 
particularly  in  the  2009  EU-Andean  Trade  Sustainability  Impact  Assessment  (SIA) 
(Development  Solutions,  CEPR,  and  University  of  Manchester  2009),  mostly  relating  to 
undesirable  social  and  environmental  impacts  associated  with  increased  output  and  sectoral 
production shifts. 

However,  the  effects  anticipated  in  the  SIA  have  been  only  partially  confirmed  in  the 
evaluation.  In  particular,  because  the  Agreement’s  economic  impact  has  been  more  limited 
than  originally  expected,  the  ‘significant  environmental  and  social  challenges’  (p. 124) 
identified in the SIA tended to be rather small (and mixed), as indicated in Annex VI. Trade 
in Goods. 

4.1.3.  EFFICIENCY OF THE AGREEMENT 

4.1.3.1.  EFFICIENCY  OF  THE  AGREEMENT  REGARDING  ACHIEVEMENT  OF 

OBJECTIVES 

Evaluation questions EQ 4, 5 and 638 seek to determine the extent to which the Agreement has 
been  used  by  traders  and  whether  there  could  have  been  other,  less  costly  mechanisms  or 
instruments  to  achieve  the  same  results.  Indicators  used  to  evaluate  the  responses  to  these 
questions are the level of utilisation of the preferences provided by the Agreement (including 
of TRQs) and the extent of trade diversion caused by it. 

The  potential  benefits  of  a  trade  agreement  in  liberalising  trade  between  the  parties  and  in 
reducing or eliminating trade barriers can be compromised if the procedures required in order 
to secure those benefits  are excessively burdensome or bureaucratic. In other words, traders 
may forgo the benefits and prefer to pay duties rather than subject themselves to an onerous, 
bureaucratic procedure for requesting certificates, rules of origin confirmations, etc. 

For  this  reason,  the  preference  utilisation  rate  is  taken  as  a  proxy  measure  of  efficiency.  It 
focuses on the extent to which the Agreement has actually contributed to smoother import and 
export  processes,  with  minimal/tolerable  levels  of  administrative  burden  from  the  point  of 
view of the economic operators involved. 

Preference utilisation39 in the EU on Andean exports has been high for all partner countries. 
On  average  over  the  period  since  the  start  of  application  of  the  Agreement,  utilisation  rates 

38  To  what  extent  has  the  Agreement  been  efficient  with  respect  to  achieving  its  objectives?  EQ  5:  To  what 
extent  are  the  costs  associated  with  the  Agreement  proportionate  to  the  benefits  it  has  generated?  Is  the 
distribution of both costs and benefits proportionate among different stakeholder groups and interests? EQ 6: Are 
there unnecessary regulatory costs (including administrative burden)? 
39  2021  Implementation  and  Enforcement  of  EU  Trade  Agreements  -  Preferential  utilisation  on  EU  imports 
(europa.eu) 

36 

 
 
were about 97% for Colombia, 98% for Peru, and 99% for Ecuador. Preference utilisation on 
EU exports to the Andean countries was lower, ranging (in 2020, the last year for which data 
are available) from 66% in Peru to 72% in Ecuador and 78% in Colombia. 

Overall,  therefore,  the  use  of  preferences  has  been  rather  satisfactory  over  the  period  of 
implementation of the Agreement. It should also be noted that the use of preferences on EU 
exports to the Andean partner countries has improved over time (in 2014 it was 42% in Peru 
and 56% in Colombia). The use of preferences on Andean partner country exports to the EU 
is slightly higher than the use of preferences under GSP prior to the start of the Agreement. 
For TRQs40, the finding is similar to that just described for tariff preference utilisation. There 
was a high take-up of TRQs on Andean partner country exports for those products where they 
are  competitive,  and  a  lower  but  increasing  take-up  of  TRQs  on  EU  exports  to  the  Andean 
partners (see: Annex VIII. Utilisation TRQ s). 

At an aggregated level, the Agreement mostly shows a common pattern: for the three Andean 
partners together, exports to the EU in 2020 are higher by USD 1.5 billion than they would 
have been without the Agreement. For the same period, the net export creation effect for the 
EU was USD 2.7 billion. 

Ultimately,  the  Agreement’s  efficiency  in  achieving  its  objectives  must  be  assessed  against 
alternative  trade  policy  instruments  such  as  unilateral  preferences  or  liberalisation, 
development cooperation, or subsidy schemes. These options were either: not available for the 
EU (unilateral  preferences and development  cooperation had previously  been granted to  the 
partner  countries  but  had  to  be  ended  as  a  result  of  their  reaching  higher  middle-income 
status);  would  arguably  have  caused  larger  distortions  (such  as  subsidy  schemes);  or  would 
have  been  less  targeted  (unilateral  liberalisation).  As  such,  the  Agreement’s  efficiency  in 
relation to the objectives has been high. 

4.1.3.2.  INSTITUTIONAL EFFICIENCY, COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE AGREEMENT 

In terms of institutional efficiency, the Trade Committee and the eight subcommittees have 
played  a  useful  role  in  providing  a  forum  for  an  overview  of  trade  relations  between  the 
Parties,  and  the  Trade  Committee  exercised  its  formal  decision-making  power  to  ensure 
operation of the Agreement and its institutional structures. However, for the most contentious 
issues, Parties have tended to reiterate the positions expressed previously in the subcommittee 
meetings, while the Trade Committee has struggled to perform as a superior body in resolving 
issues that could not be addressed by the subcommittees. To get around this issue in future, 
greater  reliance  could  be  placed  on  Article 12  of  the  Trade  Committee’s  mandate  (which 
allows for high level political involvement – of trade ministers and the Trade Commissioner – 
to resolve issues where the technical committees have been unable to agree)41. 

40 Annex VIII on utilisation of TRQs. 

41 This approach was already taken in 2022, in the IX Trade Committee meeting held in Ecuador. 

37 

 
 
The  evidence  gathered  in  the  external  study  showed  that  all  Parties  agree  that  the  Contact 
Points  (established  under  the  TSD  Title)  have  performed  their  role  well  and  that  they 
represent  an effective element of the institutional  structure in preparation for joint  meetings 
and  their  follow-up,  for  planning  cooperation  activities  and  for  addressing  concerns.  The 
Parties  also  agree  that  TSD  Sub-Committee  meetings  have  provided  a  valuable  forum  for 
exchanging  information  about  the  Agreement’s  implementation,  notably  for  implementation 
priorities,  for  discussing  needs  for  technical  assistance  or  for  expressing  interest  in 
cooperation  activities,  for  acknowledging  efforts  made  by  the  Parties  (e.g.  to  reduce  child 
labour) and for encouraging new actions. However, there are areas for further improvement. 
Representatives from the domestic mechanisms established by the Agreement, also known as 
domestic  advisory  groups  (DAGs),  take  the  view  that  communication  and  inclusiveness 
within  the  dialogue  with  civil  society  could  be  improved.  In  line  with  Article 281,  these 
domestic mechanisms do not participate in the discussions between the Parties. Their advisory 
role is therefore focused on submitting proposals (e.g. for cooperation activities) and raising 
concerns based on the results of the monitoring activities carried out by the Parties. 

The domestic mechanisms  of each Party  are expected to  hold  their meetings (1-4 a year) to 
discuss implementation and prepare for the annual meeting42. In practice, their workings vary 
significantly between the Parties: 

•  The  EU  DAG  holds  regular  meetings;  the  European  Commission  takes  part  in  these 
meetings to exchange information and discuss proposals. The Commission considers these 
exchanges  highly  valuable  and  has  used  the  meetings  to  reflect  on  ways  to  support  the 
domestic  mechanisms  in  the  Andean  partner  countries  and  to  boost  dialogue  among  the 
Parties for better monitoring of the Agreement. 

• 

• 

In Colombia, progress has been made over time in the establishment and operation of an 
independent  domestic  mechanism.  A  process  of  dialogue  between  representatives  from 
civil society and the Colombian government has started, as well as with the EU as part of 
the  Article  282  dialogue  with  civil  society.  The  submission  setting  out  the  views  of  the 
employers’ and the workers’ representatives as contributions to the 2022 meeting could be 
used to gauge the vitality and independence of the domestic mechanism. 

In Ecuador, the domestic mechanism was renewed in 2021, through a broad consultative 
process  involving  departmental  as  well  as  national  level.  Over  time,  the  domestic 
mechanism  has  increasingly  worked  in  close  coordination,  while  transparency  in  the 
composition has facilitated the establishment of contacts with the EU Delegation and the 
EU DAG, and the sharing of best practices. Ecuador has also created a digital repository 
to  allow  stakeholders  to  access  the  documents  necessary  for  the  functioning  of  the 
domestic mechanism. 

42  Article 281  of  the  Agreement  leaves  the  choice  of  the  format  of  the  domestic  consultative  groups  to  the 
discretion  of  the  parties  and  sets  out  few  requirements  for  them.  The  overarching  requirement  should  be  that 
these  mechanisms  are  effective  in  exercising  their  role  in  monitoring  implementation  of  the  TSD  Title  and 
providing advice to the Parties. 

38 

 
 
• 

In Peru, the government’s choice has been to consult – in line with the provisions of the 
Agreement  –  existing  domestic  labour  and  environment  committees.  On  labour,  the 
consultative committee is  the National  Labour  and Employment Promotion Council, the 
main  tripartite  forum  for  the  discussion  of  labour  and  social  protection  policies.  On 
environment, Peru can rely on a variety of consultative structures – either technical groups 
or  national  commissions  –  which  all  include  government  representatives,  private  sector 
and  civil  society.  In  particular,  the  National  Commission  on  Climate  Change  has  been 
identified  as  the  main  forum  for  discussing  the  implementation  of  the  Agreement.  The 
Commission remains very willing to work with Peru and is  committed to accompanying 
efforts to  improve  the operation of the designated consultative mechanism  and of  social 
dialogue in Peru. 

In  line with  Article 282  of the Agreement,  every year  the Parties hold  a  dialogue with  civil 
society where implementation of the TSD Title is discussed publicly. This dialogue between 
governments and civil society at large constitutes one of the key elements of implementation 
of the TSD Title.  EU funding  has improved the prospects  for direct  participation  as  well as 
the possibility of attending remotely. 

In  addition  to  the  provisions  of  the  Agreement,  “DAG-to-DAG”  meetings  have  been  held 
annually. These meetings have provided an opportunity for members of the DAGs to discuss 
the implementation of the TSD Title in a more restricted forum, and to work on joint positions 
to be shared with the Parties, typically during the dialogue with civil society meetings. Such 
documents  contain  recommendations  to  the  Parties  on  issues  of  concern  related  to  the 
implementation  of  the  sustainability  provisions of  the  Agreement;  they  are  intended  to  be  a 
way of holding the Parties to account. 

The Commission supports timely and fact-based pertinent submissions as useful tools to help 
monitor the implementation of the Agreement. To this end, the Directorate-General for Trade 
has  funded  a  comprehensive  project  supporting  civil  society  organisations  (CSOs)  and  is 
preparing to launch a follow-up phase. 

Regarding the proportionality and distribution of costs and benefits, the economic analysis 
shows that all Parties to the Agreement register a net benefit in terms of higher GDP43. The 
main  direct  beneficiaries  are  exporters  and  importers,  with  their  suppliers  and  customers 
(including consumers) also benefiting. On the other hand, governments (through lower public 
revenues) and import-competing businesses and their employees (through reduced output and 
a reduction in associated profits, wages and employment) pay the costs. 

The  administrative  costs  for  the  Parties  arising  from  the  annual  meetings  and  follow-up 
activities are not found to be unduly high in comparison with the benefits of the Agreement. 
Moreover,  the  experience  during  the  Covid-19  period  showed  that  increased  use  of  remote 
meetings is possible and could help to further reduce administrative costs. 

43  Annex  X.  Changes  in  GDP (at  initial  market  prices)  in  EU  and  Partner  countries  caused  by  the  Agreement 

(year 2020). 

39 

 
 
4.1.4.  POLICY COHERENCE OF THE AGREEMENT 

Evaluation question 7 assesses to what extent the Agreement has been coherent with the EU’s 
trade and development  policies and, in  particular, with  the EU’s commitment to  sustainable 
development in trade policies as a contribution attainment of the SDGs. The question assesses 
whether the Agreement remains coherent for the Parties’ trade needs and objectives almost a 
decade after it was negotiated, and in a global trade context that has changed considerably to 
address the current trade needs and issues of the EU, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. 

The Agreement is coherent with the EU’s overall trade policy, with the EU’s commitment to 
the SDGs and the EU’s environmental policies both at the time of negotiation and the start of 
application,  as  well  as  during  the  period  of  its  application  until  now.  In  other  words,  the 
Agreement continues to be coherent with EU trade policy as it stands today. 

Stakeholder  views  on  the  Agreement’s  coherence  with  wider  EU  policy  objectives  are 
divided.  A  large  majority  of  stakeholders  who  responded  to  the  OPC  considered  that  the 
Agreement is either fully or at least somewhat aligned with the EU’s trade policy. However, 
some  stakeholders  took  the  view  that  the  Agreement  is  ‘not  at  all  aligned’  with  the  EU’s 
commitments  to  attainment  of  the  SDGs,  the  promotion  of  decent  work,  or  vEU 
environmental policy objectives (Figure 1). They also took the view that the Agreement is not 
aligned  with  the  aims  and  objectives  of  the  EU’s  approach  to  trade  and  sustainable 
development (TSD) as set out in the 2018 15-point action plan. EU-based respondents, as well 
as the submissions received from civil society, trade unions and individuals, were particularly 
critical of the Agreement’s lack of coherence with wider EU policy objectives in place today. 

However,  based  on  the  findings  presented  in  the  ex  post  evaluation,  even  if  new  EU  trade 
policy objectives and priorities have emerged or evolved during the last 10 years, in terms of 
overall impact the Agreement is still a powerful tool to implement the policies. 

Figure 1: Distribution of views on the Agreement’s alignment with EU policy objectives 
(number and % of responses) 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

i) Current EU trade policy

36

ii) EU’s commitment to SDGs

iii) EU's commitment to promote decent work

iv) EU environmental policies

20

21

22

11

7

9

16

26

28

27

7

7

8

10

9

Fully aligned

Somewhat aligned

Not at all aligned

I don’t know/ no opinion

Source: OPC responses 

40 

 
 
 
4.1.4.1.  COHERENCE WITH EU TRADE POLICY 

When the Agreement was negotiated and entered into force (2013), it fully reflected the EU’s 
trade  policy  objectives  and  priorities  and  hence  was  coherent  with  EU  trade  policy  at  that 
time. Subsequently, new  EU trade  policy  strategies were adopted  first  in  2015 and  again  in 
2021. The 2015 Trade for All strategy sought to address new economic realities such as global 
value  chains,  the  digital  economy  and  the  importance  of  services;  it  also  touched  upon  the 
issues  of  competition,  e-commerce,  protecting  innovation  and  regulatory  cooperation.  The 
2021  Open,  sustainable  and  assertive  trade  policy  aims  at  building  on  the  EU’s  trade 
openness so as to contribute to economic recovery through support for the green and digital 
transformations. It has a renewed focus on strengthening multilateralism and reforming global 
trade rules to ensure that they are fair and sustainable. It also provides for strengthened rules 
to tackle competitive distortions. 

In June 2022, the Commission adopted its Communication ‘The power of trade partnerships: 
together  for  green  and  just  economic  growth’.  The  Communication  strengthens  the 
cooperation-based  approach  in  TSD  implementation,  emphasising  the  participation  of  and 
support for civil society. At the same time, the new policy puts the focus on implementation 
and enforcement, including through remedial actions, which strengthens the role that EU trade 
agreements can play to protect international standards on climate, environment and labour. In 
line  with  this  Communication,  the  Commission  is  bringing  its  outcome  also  to  the 
implementation of the trade agreement with the Andean countries. 

While not an integral part of the Agreement as signed, new topics such as the development of 
global  value  chains,  services  trade,  digital  trade,  e-commerce  and  the  green  and  digital 
transformation  are  a  critical  aspect  of  the  discussions  held  in  the  subcommittees  and  Trade 
Committee,  contributing  to  coherence  with  the  Agreement’s  implementation  and  impact  on 
the ground. 

Similarly,  most  of  the  elements  contained  in  the  new  TSD  policy  linked  to  the  recent 
developments  can  be  rolled  out  within  the  existing  FTA  framework  and  the  Commission  is 
working towards this objective in cooperation with the partner countries. 

4.1.4.2.  COHERENCE  WITH  EU  POLICIES  AIMED  AT  ATTAINING  THE  SDGS  AND 

THE EU’S COMMITMENT TO THE DECENT WORK AGENDA 

In  the  Agreement,  the  Parties  express  their  commitment  to  sustainable  development  and 
respect  for labour rights  in line with the established practice at the time of the Agreement’s 
negotiations.  Since  then,  the  2015  ‘Trade  for  All’  strategy  not  only  aimed  at  responding  to 
new economic realities;  it also included a commitment to using EU trade policy to promote 
its 
sustainable  development  and  human  rights.  The  Agreement’s  TSD  Title  and 
implementation are coherent with this approach. 

41 

 
 
4.1.4.3.  COHERENCE WITH EU ENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES 

Since  the  signing  of  the  Agreement,  major  developments  have  taken  place  with  respect  to 
environmental policies in the EU. Milestone achievements include the ratification of the Paris 
Agreement in 2016, the adoption of the European Green Deal in 2019 and the release of the 
EU biodiversity strategy for 203044 in 2020. 

The  European  Green  Deal  is  one  of  six  strategic  priorities  for  the  EU  for  the  period  2019-
2024. Among others flagship initiatives, in 2020 the Commission adopted the Farm to  Fork 
strategy  and  in  November  2021  it  adopted  the  proposal  for  a  regulation  to  prohibit  the 
importation  of  products  linked  to  deforestation  and  forest  degradation,  irrespective  of  the 
legality of the source. 

The European Green Deal identifies diplomacy and trade policy as the means to promote and 
enforce sustainable development across the globe and to support the EU’s green transition. In 
addition, environmental objectives have also gained a more prominent and integral role in the 
2021 EU trade policy. 

In terms of the coherence of the Agreement with the EU’s environmental policies, the external 
study found that the Agreement was broadly coherent with the policies in place at the time of 
signature of the Agreement. 

4.2. How did the EU intervention make a difference and for whom? 

The  evaluation  criterion  of  EU  added  value  investigates  changes  that  are  attributable  to  the 
EU intervention, over and above what could reasonably have been expected from  actions at 
national level by EU Member States. It is intended to provide verification of compliance with 
the subsidiarity principle. 

In the present study EU added value has not been specifically addressed because trade policy 
falls under an exclusive competence of the Union as defined by Article 3 TFEU of the Lisbon 
Treaty45.  In  this  case,  the  question  of  EU  added  value  is  answered  by  the  efficiency  and 
effectiveness analysis (points 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of this report). 

44 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030.  Bringing  nature 
back into our lives, COM(2020) 380 final, 20 May 2020. 

45  Article 3  TFEU  of  the  Lisbon  Treaty  defines  the  following  areas  as  exclusive  EU  competences:  the 
competition rules within the internal market, the customs union, the common commercial  policy, monetary 
policy  for  the  Euro  countries,  the  conservation  of  marine  biological  resources  under  the  common  fishing 
policy and the conclusion of international agreements. 

42 

 
 
4.3. Is the intervention still relevant? 

Evaluation question 846 assesses whether the Agreement remains relevant for the Parties’ trade 
needs and objectives almost a decade after it was negotiated, and in a global trade context that 
has changed considerably47. 

Among  the  current  trade  needs  of  the  Andean  partner  countries  are  the  need  to  further 
diversify  exports,  ensure  greater  inclusivity  of  trade,  and  ensure  the  sustainability  of 
production for export (but also domestic) markets. 

The Agreement is relevant for these issues. The elimination of tariffs and trade facilitation has 
created  a  basis  for  export  diversification  by  the  Andean  countries,  and  some  diversification 
(mostly  within  the  agriculture  and  food  production  sectors)  has  indeed  taken  place.  The 
number  of  exporters  has  grown,  and  MSMEs  have  also  benefited  from  the  Agreement, 
contributing to an expansion of export-driven production and a more inclusive distribution of 
the  benefits  of  trade.  The  TSD  Title  provides  a  framework  for  addressing  sustainable 
development issues related to bilateral trade. Technical assistance and cooperation have also 
taken place in this regard (and have had some success); at the same time it is clear that among 
stakeholders  there  are  disagreements  regarding  the  effectiveness  of  these  measures,  mainly 
among civil society representatives. 

As already mentioned in the previous section on coherence, trade needs and issues in the EU 
have evolved considerably since the Agreement was negotiated. The new trade strategies have 
highlighted  the  following  trade  needs  of  the  EU:  prioritising  global  value  chains  (GVCs), 
services trade, digital trade and e-commerce, the role of trade policy in the green and digital 
transformation,  and an increased focus on enforcement. Considerations about  issues such as 
strengthening due diligence across supply chains, the European Green Deal, and the Farm to 
Fork  strategy  attest  to  the  important  changes  that  have  taken  place  in  respect  of  the  EU’s 
needs  to  which  the  Agreement  and  bilateral  trade  between  the  EU  and  the  Andean  partner 
countries also has to respond in order to remain relevant. 

Civil society has raised concerns about the effectiveness implementation of the environmental 
and social sustainability issues and the way their inputs are addressed under the TSD Title. 

Overall,  the  Agreement  remains  relevant  in  the  sense  of  providing  a  floor  for  promoting 
bilateral  trade  and  trade  and  development  of  the  Parties  more  generally.  However,  the  new 

46 Q8: To what extent do the provisions of the Agreement continue to be relevant in order to address the current 

trade needs and issues of the EU, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador? 

47  The  evaluation  of  relevance  ‘looks  at  the  relationship  between  the  needs  and  problems  in  society  and  the 
objectives  of  the  intervention’  (Better  Regulation  Tool  #47,  p. 351).  Like  the  evaluation  of  coherence,  the 
relevance  of  the  Agreement  can  be  assessed  statically,  determining  the  degree  to  which  the  Agreement 
addressed the trade needs and problems at the time of its start, and dynamically, i.e. determining the degree 
to which the Agreement addresses the trade needs and problems of the Parties  today. The main focus is on 
this latter question. 

43 

 
 
challenges,  needs  and  issues  that  have  arisen  both  for  the  EU  and  the  Andean  partner 
countries since the signing of the Agreement require further attention. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1. Conclusions 

In  general  terms,  the  Commission  departments  agree  with  the  conclusions  of  the  evaluation 
report that the Agreement is well balanced and ambitious, offering substantial gains on both 
sides  on  market  access  and  rules.  The  Commission  considers  valid  the  observation  that  the 
Agreement has gradually opened up markets on both sides and has contributed to the stability 
and predictability of the trade and investment environment, thus promoting the diversification 
of export-oriented trade both in terms of operators and in terms of number of products. 

At the same time, in line with the outcomes of the Commission TSD review of June 2022, the 
Commission  is  implementing  concrete  measures  to  strengthen  the  effectiveness  of  labour, 
sustainable  development,  climate  change  and  environmental  commitments  of  the  TSD  Title 
using  the  current  provisions  of  the  Agreement  associated  with  relevant  EU  legislation 
(autonomous trade instruments), notably the forthcoming EU Regulation on deforestation-free 
supply chains, the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, and the proposed EU Directive 
on corporate sustainability due diligence. 

The vast majority of the TSD review action points can already be implemented by the Parties 
at this stage or by means of a decision of the bodies established under current trade agreement 
(under  the  EU-Colombia-Peru-Ecuador  FTA,  the  TSD  Subcommittee  and/or  the  Trade 
Committee). The Commission departments are reaching out to the Andean authorities in this 
regard. However, providing  for the possibility  of temporarily withdrawing trade preferences 
(applying  ‘trade  sanctions’)  as  a  measure  of  last  resort  in  cases  of  serious  violations  of  the 
ILO Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work or material breaches of the Paris Agreement 
would require a reopening of the Agreement. 

Once  the  Agreement  has  been  fully  ratified  by  all  EU  Member  States,  the  Commission 
services  will  propose  a  targeted  update  in  order  to  fully  implement  the  action  points  of  the 
TSD policy review. 

5.1.1.  EFFECTIVENESS 

The  analysis  of  the  impact  on  trade  and  other  economic  indicators  shows  that  the  overall 
effects of the Agreement on trade, GDP, welfare, consumers and workers in the EU and in the 
Andean countries have been moderately positive. All Andean countries are estimated to have 
gained in terms of welfare and income. 

The  Agreement  has  been  effective  with  regard  to  the  achievement  of  operational 
objectives. On the positive side, tariff liberalisation has taken place as planned, and has led to 
higher levels of trade in goods – both bilaterally and globally – than would have been the case 
in  the  absence  of  the  Agreement.  The  relative  overall  limited  increase  in  the  goods  trade  is 
partly a consequence of the fact that the Andean partner countries already enjoyed preferential 

44 

 
 
 
access  to  the  EU  market  under  the  GSP+  arrangement  in  the  years  before  the  FTA  entered 
into force. However, following the review of the GSP mechanism, the Andean partners would 
have lost such preferences in the absence of a trade agreement. 

Customs procedures and other non-tariff instruments have not been used by the Parties  as a 
substitute for tariffs. 

The external study shows that while tariffs have largely been eliminated for trade between the 
EU and the Andean countries, there is still room for improvement regarding the reduction of 
non-tariff  measures.  This 
involves  considering  simpler  procedures,  agreeing  on 
internationally  recognised  standards  and  avoiding  unnecessary  duplication  of  conformity 
assessments or other administrative procedures. 

Diversification  in  the  Andean  partner  countries  –  in  terms  of  both  the  products  which  they 
export and the numbers and nature of companies (mainly micro and small and medium-sized 
enterprises)  engaged  in  exporting  –  has  improved  since  the  provisional  application  of  the 
Agreement.  Nonetheless,  the  EU  market  is  still  challenging  for  Andean  companies  when  it 
comes to competing in markets for more complex products. 

It  is  difficult  to  measure  the  effectiveness  of  the  Agreement  in  facilitating  trade  in  services 
and bilateral investment. Services sectors have played a limited role in the implementation of 
the  Agreement.  The  opening  of  government  procurement  markets  has  not  led  to  increased 
participation  in  those  markets  by  suppliers  and  providers  from  the  respective  other  Party  to 
the Agreement. 

Progress has been made in the registration and enforcement of GIs, although there is room for 
improvement  regarding  enforcement,  an  area  which  the  Commission  intends  to  continue 
emphasising. The Agreement’s articles on competition also constitute a sound legal basis for 
cooperation  and  consultations  between  the  European  Commission  and  the  Andean  partner 
countries’ competition authorities. 

The effectiveness of the dispute settlement provisions of the Agreement is difficult to assess, 
as  no  complaint  has  ever  brought  under  the  Agreement.  The  fact  that  about  half  of  the 
disagreements identified  have been solved through the institutional mechanism set up in the 
Agreement  indicates  that  this  approach  works.  At  the  same  time,  the  fact  that  some  formal 
disputes  have  been  tabled  at  the  WTO  may  indicate  a  reluctance  on  the  part  of  certain 
stakeholders to rely on the dispute settlement provisions provided by the Agreement. 

The Commission departments take note of the evaluation report's assertion that the assessment 
of  the  TSD  Title's  effectiveness  and  its  implementation  faces  analytical  challenges.  The 
Commission  considers  highly  plausible  that  a  direct  and  tangible  impact  can  indeed  be 
identified  in  areas  where  assistance  projects  have  been  implemented.  Considering  the 
difficulties  of  identifying  concrete  direct  impacts  of  the  Agreement,  the  Commission 
departments  confirm  their  commitment  to  using  the  institutional  dialogue  established  under 
the  TSD  Title,  including  the  specific  dialogue  with  civil  society,  as  an  essential  tool  to 
identify, prioritise, and act upon TSD matters, in particular counting on the input from civil 
society organisations. 

45 

 
5.1.2.  IMPACT 

The  Commission  departments  welcome  the  conclusion  that  the  impact  of  the  Agreement 
overall has been positive. The economic modelling undertaken for the study suggests that the 
Agreement has led to a small increase in GDP in all Parties and globally. Generally, sectors 
in  which  the  Parties  have  comparative  advantage  are  those  which  have  benefited:  in  the 
Andean  partner  countries  especially  agriculture  and  food  products,  but  also  some  (mostly 
light) industries; and in the EU industrial sectors, led by machinery and the automotive sector. 
Because of this strengthening of sectors with existing comparative advantage, the Agreement 
has so far had a limited  effect  on export diversification in  the Andean  countries  on  a  wider 
scale.  However,  diversification  within  the  primary  sector  has  occurred  (i.e.  a  shift  from 
extractives  to  agriculture)  with  the  increase  in  agricultural  products  exported.  Likewise, 
diversification of exporters has taken place, including an increase in exporting MSMEs. 

Among  the  social  impacts,  sectoral  employment  shifts  follow  the  economic  changes.  In  the 
EU, effects are negligible; in the Andean partner countries, the strongest positive effects are in 
the  vegetable,  fruits  and  nuts  sector,  as  well  as  other  agri-food  sectors,  while  there  are 
contractions in a number of industrial sectors. The Commission takes note that the impact on 
welfare and poverty, as well as  on consumers, is estimated to be positive but rather limited. 
The Commission considers that even if the gender-related impact of the Agreement is hard to 
detect, this has not prevented the EU from allocating support programmes. The Commission 
concurs with the conclusions of the study that as far as working conditions and labour rights 
are  concerned,  although  the  Andean  partner  country  governments  have  taken  measures  to 
improve job  quality, issues remain in  terms  of labour inspection, trade union  operation, and 
special 
labour  regimes  for  selected  (agricultural)  sectors.  Finally,  corporate  social 
responsibility  (CSR)  practices  have  expanded,  a  positive  trend  which  was  supported  by  the 
increased  trade  between  the  Andean  countries  and  the  EU  that  has  resulted  from  the 
Agreement. 

The  environmental  impact  of  the  Agreement  is  in  line  with  the  earlier  SIA  findings.  The 
impact overall is found to be small, consistent with the small economic impacts, and mixed. 
The impact on global GHG emissions is slightly positive. Overall effects on biodiversity are 
marginal.  No  effect  on  deforestation  is  found  in  Ecuador  and  Peru,  but  a  small  increase  in 
deforestation  arising  from  agricultural  activity  was  found  in  Colombia  (about  0.5%  of  total 
deforestation arising from agricultural activity). Other environmental effects are marginal. 

The impact of the Agreement on the human rights situation in the Andean partner countries 
has  been  limited,  and  no  impact  was  determined  in  the  EU.  A  mixed  and  limited  overall 
impact  was  found on the right to  freedom  of assembly and association.  The  Agreement has 
contributed  to  the  creation  of  employment,  but  much  of  this  was  by  means  of  temporary 
contracts  which  may  have  limited  the  capacity  of  the  workers  to  properly  organise.  The 
situation in Colombia is shaped by the security situation there; in recent years Colombia has 
witnessed  a  general  decrease  in  the  rates  of  murder  and  attacks  of  trade  unionists.  The 
Agreement may have contributed to reducing child labour by creating more job opportunities 
for adults. The Agreement itself has not had a significant overall impact on the right to water, 

46 

 
but  this  is  starting  from  a  baseline  in  which  all  the  Andean  partner  countries  faced  water 
pressures prior to the application of the Agreement. 

5.1.3.  EFFICIENCY 

The  Agreement’s  efficiency  in  relation  to  the  objectives  is  evaluated  as  high:  preference 
utilisation is high and the extent of trade diversion is in line with other trade agreements. 

The efficiency of the institutional components of the Agreement is assessed as mixed: The 
Trade  Committee  and  the  subcommittees  have  played  a  fundamental  role  as  forums  for  the 
exchange  of  information  and  views,  but  performance  with  regard  to  the  resolution  of  trade 
irritants between the Parties has been mixed, in particular whenever different interpretations 
of the Agreement were concerned. 

Dialogue  with  civil  society  representatives,  notably  with  advisory  groups  or  domestic 
mechanisms (DAGs), constitutes one of the key elements of implementation of the TSD Title 
in  particular.  The  Commission  departments  acknowledge  the  value  that  the  work  and 
meetings of the DAGs (and their joint  positions) bring to the discussion of issues related to 
the implementation of the Agreement's provisions on sustainability. This work also feeds into 
the meetings for the dialogue with civil society. 

The  Commissions  recognise  that  DAGs  have  performed  unevenly  in  their  function  as 
consultative groups across the Parties, primarily as a result of differences in capacity and in 
the availability of resources. The Commission departments are willing to continue considering 
ways  to  further  facilitate  the  contribution  of  the  DAGs  and  support  of  civil  society 
organisations more broadly in this context, including additional EU funding as appropriate. 

5.1.4.  COHERENCE 

The coherence of the Agreement with the EU’s overall trade policy at the time of its signing 
was high. In particular, the TSD Title (for example) reflected the EU’s prevailing policies and 
strategies  regarding  sustainable  development.  In  terms  of  its  effects  and  impact,  the 
Agreement is also broadly coherent with environmental policy objectives and with the EU’s 
commitment to the SDGs and Decent Work agenda, even bearing in mind the evolution of the 
EU objectives and policies since the signature of the Agreement. 

In some of these issues, an additional effort is needed to enhance the Agreement’s relevance 
for current trade challenges faced by the EU and the Andean partner countries (e.g. effective 
implementation  of  ILO  core  labour  standards  and  enhancing  sustainable  development 
including the relations and participation of DAGs and regulatory cooperation). However, this 
has not prevented the newer environmental policy objectives from becoming central elements 
of discussions between the Parties, as demonstrated by the extensive coverage in the relevant 
subcommittees  of  the  respective  policies  on  climate  action  and  on  circularity,  including 
plastics,  deforestation  and  biodiversity.  As  per  the  June  2022  TSD  Communication,  the 
Commission departments reiterate the intention to use trade agreements to facilitate dialogue 
with trade partners on these matters and, as appropriate, support trading  partners in meeting 
the sustainability  requirements of the EU trade-related autonomous instruments.  In terms  of 

47 

 
coherence  with  EU  trade  policy  objectives  and  priorities,  the  Agreement  does  not  conflict 
with the new priorities (and therefore there is no incoherence). 

5.1.5.  RELEVANCE 

The Agreement’s relevance for the trade needs and issues of the Parties is mixed and is 
closely related to the evaluation of coherence. The Agreement has been and remains relevant 
in  the  sense  of  providing  a  basis  for  fostering  bilateral  trade  and  the  overall  trade  and 
development of the Parties. However, the new challenges, needs and issues that have arisen 
both for the EU and the Andean partner countries since the signing of the Agreement are not 
present per se in the legal framework that was approved and therefore the Agreement itself, its 
implementation and its results address these issues in only a limited way. 

5.2. Lessons learned 

The  lessons  learned  from  the  evaluation  and  the  recommendations  are  presented  in  the 
following sections, grouped by evaluation criterion. The Commission departments’ views on 
the recommendations are presented as annotations. 

5.2.1.  EFFECTIVENESS 

Some  lessons  learned  from  the  ex post  evaluation  and  recommendations  to  further  improve 
the effectiveness of the Agreement, also shared by the Commission departments, are: 

•  Further  measures  to  facilitate  trade  could  be  considered,  including  promotion  of  the 
approved exporter scheme and a review of the Agreement’s provisions on direct transport 
to ensure eligibility for preferences. 

•  Technical  assistance  is  needed  to  ensure  that  exporters  of  products  covered  by  SPS 

requirements can keep benefiting from the preferences offered by the Agreement. 

•  Actions such as Access to Market Days or similar could be envisaged to encourage more 

new exporters to take advantage of the Agreement, especially MSMEs. 

• 

In  the  external  study,  the  consultants  suggested  setting  up  a  dedicated  services 
subcommittee.  The  Commission  analysed  the  number  of  services  issues  raised  and 
discussed during these 10 years and concluded that only one irritant fell under the services 
remit.  That  discussion  took  place  during  the  8th  meeting  of  the  Market  Access 
Subcommittee. In view of the low number of services issues raised during the period, the 
possibility  of  transferring  discussion  of  such  matters  to  another  subcommittee  and  the 
requirement  for  all  Parties  to  agree  in  modifying  the  terms  of  the  Agreement,  the 
Commission favours keeping the current framework in place. 

5.2.2.  IMPACT 

Some lessons learned and recommendations to further improve the impact of the Agreement, 
also shared by the Commission, are: 

48 

 
•  Although  the  Andean  partner  countries  are  all  upper  middle-income  countries,  the 
capacity  of  many  businesses  –  in  particular  MSMEs  –  to  engage  in  trade  with  or  take 
advantage  of  value  chains  linked  to  the  EU  is  limited.  Technical  assistance  therefore 
remains important to provide support enabling MSMEs to improve their productivity and 
competitiveness and benefit from the Agreement. 

•  The Agreement  has been  positive  for job creation, but  the nature of those jobs  (whether 
formal or informal) and their quality also play a role in the economic situation of workers 
and their families. It is therefore important that in addition to creating the conditions for 
new  jobs,  all  the  Andean  partner  countries  pay  sufficient  attention  to  the  issue  of  job 
quality. 

•  To further strengthen working conditions  and labour rights,  technical  assistance projects 
involving  the  EU,  the  ILO  and  the  partner  countries  should  continue,  with  the  aim  of 
strengthening  labour  inspection  capacity,  labour  formalisation,  and  respect  for  labour 
standards and health and safety at work. 

•  The Commission departments note that the EU funds a variety of programmes and tools to 
provide  support  to  the  areas  of  working  conditions  and  labour  rights,  among  others  the 
EU-ILO  Supply  Chain  Project,  EUROsociAL+,  and  the  Vision  Zero  Fund  Initiative. 
TAIEX resources have also been mobilised to tackle problems such as labour informality. 
In  the  same  vein,  recent  actions  in  Colombia  and  Ecuador,  implemented  via  ILO,  have 
increased the capacity of the rural labour inspection services. 

•  The analysis of the social impacts of the Agreement was made more difficult by the lack 
of data disaggregated by gender and sector. It would be helpful to encourage the Andean 
partner countries to gather statistics showing gender-disaggregated employment data and 
to include this issue in future policy dialogue, under either the TSD Title or other relevant 
chapters. 

•  Measures  should  be  taken  to  avoid  a  situation  where  the  opportunities  and  incentives 
provided by the Agreement might be exploited in a way that contributes to deforestation. 
In  this  respect  the  new  EU  deforestation  regulation  will  be  key  in  supporting  this 
objective. 

•  The Commission  notes that the three partner countries already participate in  several EU 
regional programmes related to biodiversity, illegal trade in wildlife, and climate change 
(EUROCLIMA, AL-INVEST Verde, EL PACcTO, etc.) and will continue to be engaged 
in these areas in the context of the future programming exercise (2021-2027). 

•  Colombia,  Ecuador  and  Peru  will  also  all  be  beneficiary  countries  of  the  new  regional 
Amazon Basin programme (AMAZONIA+) which will be launched in 2023 and will be 
implemented through Member State organisations and the JRC. The programme will work 
with local and regional governments as well as local communities and indigenous peoples 
to fight deforestation and forest degradation. 

49 

 
5.2.3.  EFFICIENCY 

Some  lessons  learned  and  recommendations  to  further  improve  the  efficiency  and 
implementation mechanisms of the Agreement, also shared by the Commission departments, 
are: 

•  The role of the Trade Committee as a decision-making body and in particular the role it 
can play in problem-solving could be enhanced, in particular in cases where discussions at 
the  working  level  in  subcommittee  meetings  do  not  bring  about  a  satisfactory  outcome 
over time. The period since the Agreement entered into force has shown the difficulty of 
unblocking  stalemated  positions.  The  Trade  Committee  should  provide  political 
momentum  for  problem-solving,  including  by  repackaging  issues  affecting  different 
chapters,  holding Trade  Committee meetings at  a  political  level  on an ad hoc basis,  and 
involving ministers for trade and the Commissioner responsible for trade (as provided for 
in  Article 12)  to  help  advance  the  discussions.  The  Commission  takes  note  of  these 
recommendations as it prepares future engagements of the Trade Committee. 

•  Regarding the strengthening of the TSD Sub-Committee for addressing implementation 

shortcomings related to TSD issues, the evaluation recommends the following: 

o  Issues of concern related to the implementation of the TSD Title should continue 
to  be  addressed.  Examples  are  the  commitment  not  to  encourage  trade  or 
investment  by  reducing  levels  of  protection,  and  to  properly  enforce  labour  or 
environmental  laws,  as  well  as  commitments  to  implement  ILO  core  labour 
standards and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) properly in practice. 
This exchange of information constitutes the basis on which the Parties can further 
discuss and determine whether any actions are required. 

o  Recognising that addressing certain issues or improving a given situation may take 

time, the use of cooperation activities should continue. 

o  If  needed,  matters  blocked  at  a  technical  level  should  be  escalated  to  the  Trade 

Committee. 

•  The  ex post  evaluation  report  also  identifies  various  options  to  possibly  foster 
cooperation  between  the  Parties  and  civil  society.  The  first  option  would  be  to 
strengthen  domestic  dialogue  between  governments  and  civil  society, 
including 
consultations  before  TSD  Sub-Committee  meetings.  This  would  give  civil  society  more 
opportunities to express their views, share results of monitoring and formulate proposals, 
which  would  then  be  included  in  a  briefing  for  the  TSD  Sub-Committee  meeting. 
Secondly, to enable civil society dialogue with all Parties, dedicated meetings between the 
members  of  the  TSD  Sub-Committee  of  all  Parties  and  all  advisory  groups  or  domestic 
mechanisms (DAGs) should be held as part of the joint annual meeting. Alternatively, the 
Parties could envisage inviting members of domestic advisory groups to participate in the 
part of the TSD Sub-Committee meeting dedicated to the follow-up of discussions from 
the  previous  year  and  to  the  presentation  of  new  findings  from  implementation 

50 

 
monitoring. Finally, more active and frequent use of virtual (i.e. online) meetings of both 
the domestic consultative mechanisms (DAGs) and between  these and the Parties  to the 
agreement could help  civil society advance  its priorities, work on opinions, and monitor 
activities through remote connections. 

• 

In relation to the above recommendations, the EU regularly consults with the EU domestic 
advisory group before the meetings. As regards the Andean partner countries, the practice 
is progressively gaining traction. Consultations took place prior to the meeting of the TSD 
Subcommittee  in  2022  and  were  acknowledged  by  civil  society  stakeholders  during  the 
dialogue with civil society. 

•  The  Commission  departments  also  agree  with  enhanced  support  to  the  partner  country's 
domestic  consultation  mechanisms,  as  recommended  by  the  evaluation  report.  For 
instance,  the  Commission  supports  the  idea  that  the  EU  DAG  could  organise  additional 
meetings  or  workshops  with  invited  speakers,  opening  up  the  possibility  of  addressing 
topics  from  the  broad  spectrum  covered  by  the  TSD  Title.  Such  workshops  should  be 
open to civil society from the Andean countries so as to help develop capacity. 

•  Capacity-building  measures  and  additional  support  (including  financial  support  to  allow 
for  a  secretariat)  to  the  non-EU  DAGs/domestic  consultative  mechanisms  could  also  be 
provided. Such support should normally be provided by the respective governments, but 
in cases where resource or capacity constraints of the partner country governments do not 
allow for such support, the EESC or INTPA could step in to provide technical or financial 
support.  This  support  would  reply  to  the  call  from  some  DAGs  for  support  to 
institutionalise the DAG by setting up a permanent secretariat. 

•  The creation of a capacity building measures  would not only institutionalise the domestic 
mechanism but would also facilitate communication between the different DAGs and with 
the authorities. 

•  A  secretariat  would  strengthen  domestic  dialogue  between  the  government  and  civil 
society,  including  consultations  before  the  TSD  Sub-Committee  meetings,  where  civil 
society  could  express  views,  share  the  results  of  monitoring,  and  formulate  proposals, 
which  would  then  be  included  in  the  TSD  Sub-Committee  discussions.  It  would  enable 
civil  society  dialogue  with  all  Parties  through  dedicated  meetings  between  interested 
parties, advisory groups or domestic mechanisms. It would also improve communication 
about  the  scope  and  level  of  authority  and  powers  of  the  TSD  Title  and  the  TSD  Sub-
Committee so as to avoid creating unrealistic expectations about what the TSD Title can 
achieve. 

•  More  broadly,  the  Commission  departments  recognise  that  input  from  civil  society 
organisations, through well-substantiated and evidence-based contributions, is essential to 
identify,  prioritise,  and  act  upon  TSD  matters.  The  cooperation  and  exchanges  between 
the  EU  stakeholders  and  their  partner  organisations  abroad  are  also  essential,  including 
those with the DAGs. 

51 

 
•  The  Commission  considers  the  dialogue  with  civil  society  to  be  a  suitable  format  for 
contributions  from  a  broad  spectrum  of  stakeholders.  The  Commission  counts  on  this 
active  involvement  to  continue  and  strengthen  over  the  years  ahead.  To  this  end,  the 
Directorate-General for Trade of the European Commission has extended to 2024 funding 
earmarked for supporting civil society organisations, including those based in the partner 
countries, and is preparing to launch a follow-up phase. DG Trade is also fully engaged in 
communication  with  civil  society  organisations  in  relation  to  complaints,  including 
enhancing information on how to make full use of the Single Entry Point. 

5.2.4.  COHERENCE 

Based  on  these  conclusions,  a  list  is  set  out  below  of  some  lessons  learned  and 
recommendations also shared by the European Commission to improve the coherence of the 
Agreement with other EU policies: 

▪  Taking into account the framework established by the Agreement, its implementation 
should now also cover the new issues and priorities set in the 2015 and 2021 EU trade 
strategies, such as the green transformation or the TSD review. 

▪  The  Agreement  has  been  and  remains  relevant  for  fostering  bilateral  trade  and  the 
overall trade and development of the Parties. Its modernisation could, nevertheless, be 
envisaged  so  that  the  Agreement  addresses  all  new  areas  of  the  relevant  trade  and 
investment relationship between the EU and the Andean countries, notably in the area 
of sustainability. In particular, the Commission is open to engaging with the Andean 
partners and initiating the process for review of the Agreement with the particular aim 
of strengthening, among other elements, the enforcement mechanism of the TSD Title. 
This  would  include  introducing  a  compliance  phase;  evaluating  the  possibility  of 
applying  trade  sanctions  in  serious  instances  of  non-compliance  with  the  ILO 
fundamental  principles  and  rights  at  work;  introducing  a  reference  to  the  Paris 
Agreement as an essential element; and incorporating provisions on gender. 

▪  Such modernisation could only be envisaged once the Agreement is fully ratified and 
if all Parties agree in engaging in this direction. It is important to note the procedural 
steps that would be required for such modernisation, including a scoping exercise with 
all the Parties so as to clarify their wishes, and on the EU side an impact assessment 
and Commission recommendation to the Council to open negotiations and negotiating 
directives. 

▪ 

In  the  meantime,  several  actions  mentioned  in  the  TSD  review  could  be  deployed 
without  reopening  the  Agreement.  The  Commission  is  already  working  with  the 
partners to improve mutual interactions among the DAGs. 

52 

 
▪  The  Commission  is  already  engaged  in  ongoing  communication  with  European  civil 
society.  In  this  context,  the  revised  Operating  Guidelines  published  in  June  202248 
facilitate public  access  to the Single Entry Point. Domestic  advisory  groups  (DAGs) 
can file collective complaints on violations of TSD commitments and – if warranted – 
represent the interests of a party located in a partner country. 

▪  The evolution  of international  labour standards  should  be monitored  and  included  in 

our discussions with the members of the Agreement. 

▪  The Commission has also taken action – via the proposal for a Regulation49 – to  tackle 
deforestation  and  forest  degradation,  which  are  among  the  main  drivers  of  climate 
change  and  biodiversity  loss50.  The  Regulation,  expected  to  be  formally  adopted  in 
early 2023, would introduce mandatory due diligence rules for operators that place a 
certain number of agricultural and industrial commodities51 and their derived products 
on the EU market or export from it. 

5.2.5.  RELEVANCE 

Some lessons learned and recommendations to improve the relevance of the Agreement also 
shared by the European Commission are: 

•  Although  new  issues  are  discussed  between  the  Parties  in  annual  meetings  of  the  Trade 
Committee  and  subcommittees  and  their  follow-up,  cooperation  on  practical  measures 
related  to  them  could  be  expanded.  This  need  not  necessarily  take  place  as  part  of 
implementation of the Agreement in a strict sense but could be undertaken as a flanking 
measure.  Examples  include  further  cooperation  on  fostering  organic  and  fair  trade  to 
enhance  the  sustainability  of  productive  activities  fostered  by  the  Agreement,  and  an 
enhanced focus on ways to develop bilateral trade in services. 

•  Some  of  the  current  trade  issues  –  such  as  digital  trade  or  the  consequences  of  the 
European  Green  Deal  or  the  Farm  to  Fork  strategy  for  trade  –  are  not  addressed  in  the 
Agreement  per  se.  Nevertheless,  the  scope  of  the  Agreement  and  the  institutions 
established  under  it  provide  a  framework  for  discussing  and  addressing  them  in  the 

48 Operating guidelines for the Single Entry Point and complaints mechanism for the enforcement of EU trade 

agreements and arrangements operational_guidelines.pdf (europa.eu). 

49  REGULATION  COM(2021)  706  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT  AND  OF  THE  COUNCIL  on  the 
making  available  on  the  Union  market  as  well  as  export  from  the  Union  of  certain  commodities  and 
products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/201. 

50 This would be in line with (and thereby anticipating) the forthcoming law to prevent imports that contribute to 
deforestation, building on the Commission Communication on Stepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore 
the World’s Forests (available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/communication-eu-action-
protect-restore-forests_en.pdf), as well as national strategies of the Andean countries, which aim to prevent 
deforestation. 

51 The initial scope of commodities will be beef, wood, palm oil, soya, coffee, cocoa, rubber. The product scope 

is meant to be progressive, meaning that it will be reviewed periodically. 

53 

 
 
implementation  of  the  Agreement.  These  topics  could  also  be  an  integral  part  of  any 
scoping related to the possible modernisation of the Agreement. 

•  To  ensure  the  continued  relevance  of  the  Agreement  for  today’s  trade  issues,  further 
efforts on implementation and follow-up are required. Such efforts will be very much in 
line with the EU’s increased focus on the enforcement of trade agreements.  

54 

 
 
ANNEX I: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

1.  Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

Lead DG: European Commission Directorate-General for Trade, DG Trade 

Decide  reference  number:  PLAN/2018/2807  -  TRADE  -  Ex post  evaluation  of  the  EU-
Colombia/Ecuador/Peru trade agreement’ 

2.  ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

An  Inter-service  Steering  Group  (ISG)  was  established52  on  17/05/2019  for  the  purpose  of 
reviewing  and  finalising  the  terms  of  reference;  supporting  the  evaluation  work  and  the 
evaluation  project  manager  in  steering  the  evaluation  by  monitoring  the  progress  of  the 
evaluation,  by  providing  comments  and  by  assuring  the  quality  and  objectivity  of  the 
evaluation  reports;  analysing  the results of the evaluation  in  view of the subsequent  follow-
up; and contributing to the Staff Working Document. 

The  ISG included all other relevant  services of  the Commission:  DG Agriculture and Rural 
Development;  DG  Budget;  DG  Climate  Action;  DG  Competition;  DG  Communications 
Networks,  Content  and  Technology;  DG  International  Cooperation  and  Development;  DG 
Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion;  DG  Energy;  DG  Environment,  DG  Statistical 
Authority  of  the  European  Union;  Foreign  Policy  Instruments;  DG  GROW  for  Internal 
Market,  Industry,  Entrepreneurship  and  SMEs;  DG  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries,  DG 
MOVE for Mobility and Transport; DG Research and Innovation; DG SANDE for Health and 
Food Safety, Secretariat-General, Legal Service, DG Trade, DG Taxation and Customs Union 
and the European External Action Service (EEAS). 

The  ISG  met  6  times:  on  22 May  2019  [ToR],  14 May  202053  [Kick  off],  02 July  202054 
[Inception], 03 March 202155 [Draft Interim], 15 September 202156 [Draft Final] and 18 May 
202257 [SWD]. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

The  evidence  for  the  impact  assessment  report  was  gathered  through  various  activities  and 
from different sources: 

-  A  quantitative  econometric  modelling  simulation  (Annex  II.  Methodology  and 

Analytical models used) 

52 Ares(2019)3255213 - 17/05/2019. 
53 Ares(2020)2991724 - 09/06/2020. 
54 Ares(2019)4401330 - 17/05/2020. 
55 Ares(2021)1715245 - 09/03/2021. 
56 Ares(2021)5782093 - 22/09/2021. 
57 Ares(2022)4028329 - 31/05/2022. 

55 

 
 
- 

- 

Input by stakeholders to the public consultation (Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - 
Synopsis report) 

January 2022. External Consultant’s Final Report – Vol. I: Main Report of the Ex post 
evaluation  of  the  implementation  of  the  Trade  Agreement  between  the  EU  and  its 
Member States and Colombia, Peru and Ecuador. 

3.  CHANGES INTRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO THE OPINION OF THE RSB 

The RSB opinion was overall positive and was accompanied by several recommendations that 
mostly  concern  the  Agreement’s  assessment  of  efficiency,  coherence  with  EU  initiatives  in 
the area of sustainability as well as the need for a clearer and more detailed explanation of the 
extent to which the Agreement’s objectives have been attained. 

Accordingly, a number of changes have been introduced that include, inter alia, a description 
of  the  specific  objectives  of  the  Agreement  and  the  actions  undertaken,  including  those 
relating to TSD; new sections on EU investments in the Andean partner countries, reflecting 
in  a  more  comprehensive  way  the  impact  of  the  Agreement;  and  planned  or  already 
undertaken  actions/initiatives  aimed  at  increasing  the  coherence  of  the  Agreement  with  the 
most recent developments on trade and sustainable development. A new Section in Annex V 
presents the results of the stakeholder consultation activities. 

56 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

The evaluation followed the methodology as briefly laid out in the 2019 evaluation roadmap58 
and  was  further  guided  by  the  Better  Regulation  tools.  The  evaluation  assesses  the  impact, 
effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and coherence of the Agreement: 

•  Regarding  impact,  it  evaluates  to  what  extent  the  Agreement  has  contributed  to 
sustainable  development  in  all  its  dimensions  –  economic,  social  (including  human 
rights  and  labour  rights)  and  environmental  –  and  whether  and  to  what  extent  the 
potential impacts as expected at the time of its negotiation have occurred. 

•  At the level of the operational objectives as set out in Article 4 of the Agreement, the 
evaluation assesses the effectiveness of the Agreement to reduce tariffs and facilitate 
and  promote  trade  and  investment  through  the  different  measures  and  areas  of 
cooperation between the Parties as foreseen in the Agreement. 

• 

• 

It evaluates the Agreement’s efficiency in relation to the resources used (including the 
existence of unnecessary costs and legal complexities in relation to achievement of the 
objectives). 

It  assesses  the  Agreement’s  relevance  with  respect  to  the  trade  and  economic  needs 
and challenges  facing  the EU, Colombia, Peru,  and  Ecuador, both  at  the  time of the 
Agreement’s signing by the Parties and today. 

•  And it evaluated the Agreement’s coherence with the objectives of EU trade and other 
external  policies  that  were  in  place  at  the  time  of  the  negotiations  and  as  they  have 
evolved up to the present. 

To address this set of complex issues, the evaluation is based on a diverse set of sources and 
inputs, and uses different methods and analytical tools. 

The evaluation builds on four main types of inputs and sources: 

•  Previous  studies  of  the  Agreement  –  such  as  the  2009  Sustainability  Impact 
Assessment  (SIA)  ‘EU-Andean  Trade  Sustainability  Impact  Assessment’,  the 
Commission’s  studies  assessing  the  economic  impact  of  the  Agreement  with 
Colombia  and  Peru  (2012)  and  with  Ecuador  (2016),  as  well  as  the  Commission’s 
annual  reports on the implementation  of the Agreement, as well as relevant  research 
published  by  third  parties  –  constituted  both  an  important  source  of  factual 
information  and  data  and  a  point  of  reference  to  compare  the  evaluation  findings 
against. 

•  An evaluation study commissioned to an external contractor59 served as an important 
input  into  the  evaluation.  The  external  study  employed  a  mix  of  quantitative  and 

58 Ref. Ares(2019)1299958 - 26/02/2019. 

57 

 
 
qualitative  methods,  including  case  studies,  as  well  as  extensive  consultations.  The 
external contractor also used the results of the Commission’s economic modelling (see 
description  below)  as  a  source  for  their  own  analysis.  The  external  study’s  findings, 
conclusions  and  recommendations  were  discussed  with  and  within  the  Commission 
services. The main part of this report indicates where Commission views differ from 
the external evaluation team’s views. 

•  Statistical  data  from  EU  sources  –  notably  Eurostat  data,  e.g.  on  bilateral  trade  and 
economic and social aspects in the EU – and other official sources – such as statistics 
published  and  provided  by  the  partner  countries,  UN  COMTRADE  data  for  global 
trade –  and  complementary  data  published  by  academic  sources,  business  and  civil 
society organisations were used for quantitative analysis. 

•  Consultations  (as  explained  in  more  detail  in  Annex  V)  were  used  to  collect 

qualitative data and view from a wide range of stakeholders. 

In terms of the methodology used, in a first, conceptual stage, the Agreement’s intervention 
logic was  clarified  and  made explicit (see  Figure 2 below), and on this  basis the evaluation 
framework and matrix was designed (see Annex III for more detail). 

For each of the judgement criteria as defined in the evaluation matrix, a specific methodology 
was developed and applied – although all of these methodologies shared a common principal 
methodological  approach:  to  determine  the  Agreement’s  effect  by  comparing  the  actual 
situation with the Agreement in place with a hypothetical counterfactual situation of the world 
where  the  Agreement  would  not  be  in  place.  However,  the  degree  to  which  this 
methodological  approach  could  be  applied  varied:  for  some  economic  effects  (and  non-
economic  effects  directly  derived  therefrom,  such  as  employment  effects),  the  use  of  the 
economic  model,  as  described  below,  guaranteed  that  the  effect  of  the  Agreement  could  be 
isolated  from  others  factors  that  in  reality  also  affect  trade  and  economic  development.  For 
other  impacts,  the  evaluation  resorted  to  descriptive  statistical  analyses  and  qualitative 
assessments based on data and information obtained from  a variety of sources, among them 
consultations  of  stakeholders  being  highly  important.  In  each  case,  the  evaluation  aimed  to 
show  the  causal  link  between  the  Agreement  and  any  observed  development  (contribution 
analysis). It is an inherent limitation of the evaluation that this causal link in many instances 
cannot be proven (except for the economic modelling, which in turn has other limitations, as 
explained below)60, although the methods used and the quality assurance applied (see below) 
ensure the robustness of the analysis and conclusions. Regarding the causal chains related to 
the Agreement’s non-economic impact, the two main ones considered were: 

59 Detailed information about the external contractor’s approach, activities and outputs produced are available at 

the evaluation study website http://andean.fta-evaluation.eu. 

60  Methodologies  to  avoid  this,  such  as  randomised  control  trials,  cannot  be  used  in  the  context  of  FTA 

evaluations. 

58 

 
 
• 

Indirect  (economic)  channel:  The  Agreement  leads  to  changes  in  bilateral  trade 
between  the  Parties,  which  lead  to  broader  changes  in  production  and  economic 
structures,  and  these  in  turn  have  non-economic  impact  (such  as  changes  in 
employment and wages, working conditions, environmental effects. 

59 

 
 
Figure 2: Intervention Logic of the EU-Colombia/Peru/Ecuador Trade Agreement 

60 

To cooperate for technical assistance Operational objectives(Article 4)Specific objectives (Recitals)To establish an effective dispute settlement mechanism To promote and collaborate on sustainable developmentTo progressively and gradually liberalise trade in goodsTo progressively liberalise trade in servicesTo effectively protect intellectual property rightsTo reciprocally open public procurement marketsTo facilitate trade in goodsTo create and environment for increasing investment To ensure free competitionTo liberalise and expand trade and investment flows To promote international trade in a way that contributes to the objective of sustainable developmentPolicy instrumentEU-Colombia/Peru/Ecuador Trade Agreement Intermediate objectives (Recitals)To foster trade and investment  progress To promote competitiveness of companiesTo promote integration into world economy To ensure trade takes place  respecting labour rights and protecting the environmentGlobal objectives (Recitals)Economic growthRaising living standardsSustainable developmentTo liberalisecurrent payments and capital movements Main assumptions (at the level of efficiency):-The utilisation rate of the Agreement is high (EQ4)-The Agreement will note lead to trade diversion (EQ4)-The costs associated with the Agreement are proportionate to the benefits it has generated (EQ5)-The Agreement does not lead unnecessary regulatory costs (EQ6)Main assumptions (at the level of effectiveness, impact and relevance)-The positive impact of the Agreement is inclusive (and does not benefit only a limited number of stakeholders) (EQ5)-The Agreement does not lead to negative unintended consequences (EQ3)-The Agreement leads to trade diversification (EQ4)-Changes in context do not impact negatively the expected benefits of the Agreement/ The parties remain committed to the Agreement despite the evolving context (EQ8)Main assumptions (at the level of coherence):-The Agreement is coherent with EU Trade Policy and other EU policies  (EQ7)EQ1A /EQ2/EQ3EQ1B /EQ2/EQ3 
 
•  Direct effects: Provisions in the Agreement, notably in the TSD Title, have direct 
effects on social, labour and environmental issues by creating obligations on, or 
encouraging  certain  behaviour  by,  the  Parties,  as  well  as  through  providing  a 
framework for mutual consultations and monitoring. 

The  methodological  approaches  for  the  various  evaluation  dimensions  can  be 
summarised as follows61: 

The evaluation of the Agreement’s economic effects was based, first and foremost, on the 
economic  modelling  (see  below),  complemented  with  descriptive-statistical  analysis  – 
notably in  areas where  modelling results are not robust or unavailable, such as trade in 
services,  investment,  government  procurement,  and  when  assessing  the  impact  of  non-
tariff issues generally – as well as qualitative information. The breadth of methodologies 
used is large, in response to the diversity of topics considered (see tasks 9.1 to 9.15 in the 
evaluation  matrix  shown  in  Annex  III  and  the  indications  of  the  ‘required  analysis’ 
there). 

The  same  approach  was  followed  for  the  analysis  of  social  effects  (in  a  broad  sense), 
although  the  use  of  modelling  results  was  limited  to  few  social  indicators,  such  as 
employment  effects.  Therefore,  most  of  the  social  impact  evaluation  was  based  on  a 
comparison  of  quantitative  descriptive-statistical  and  qualitative  analysis.  The  main 
approach was to first describe the situation in the EU and partner countries and changes 
over time regarding the subject matter, as well as factors influencing observed trends, in 
order  to  determine  in  the  second  step  in  which  way  and  to  what  extent  the  Agreement 
might  have affected the  analysed aspects.  The sources of information varied depending 
on the specific issues addressed (see tasks 10.1 to 10.5 and 10.7 to 10.8 in the evaluation 
matrix shown in Annex III and the indications of the ‘required analysis’ and ‘sources of 
evidence’ listed there). 

For  the  evaluation  of  the  Agreement’s  environmental  impact,  the  two  main  causal 
channels  mentioned  above  were  analysed.  The  methodology  acknowledges  four  impact 
channels to distinguish the ways in which the Agreement may have created impacts on 
the various areas of the environment: The scale effect (the impact created from increased 
production as a result of the Agreement), the structural effect (the dynamic effect of the 
Agreement on the growth and contraction in production in different sectors), technology 
effects  (impacts  triggered  through  increased  efficiencies  from  increased  competition  or 

61  Key  issues  related  to  the  evaluation  methodology  are  described  in  detail  in  the  external  contractor’s 

inception report, available at https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/159036.htm 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
from  a transfer in  environmental  goods and services)  and potentially  the  product  effect 
(impact via changes in production standards and use of goods in a country, e.g. through 
strengthened  environmental  policies  and  regulation).  Where  possible,  a  quantitative 
analysis was carried out, using the economic modelling results (changes on output) as the 
starting  point.  For  environmental  impact  areas  where  a  model-based  approach  was  not 
possible,  quantitative  statistics  and  trends  were  analysed,  complemented  by  qualitative 
research. Specifically, the following impact areas were analysed: 

•  Climate  change,  with  a  focus  on  the  Agreement’s  impact  on  the  major  GHG 

emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide). 

•  To assess the Agreement’s potential impact on biodiversity, its effects on land use 
change,  specifically  deforestation  that  may  have  been  caused  by  changes  in 
agricultural  production  was  analysed  using  a  new  methodology  developed  in 
cooperation  with  DG  ENV.  In  addition,  effects  on  marine  biodiversity  arising 
from changes in shrimp production in Ecuador were assessed, as well as impacts 
on the governance of natural resources through the TSD Title; the latter two areas 
qualitatively. 

•  Effects on other environmental impact areas (air quality, water, waste & circular 
economy)  were  analysed  based  on  qualitative  and,  where  possible,  quantitative 
data,  by  establishing  a  baseline  and  exploring  developments  in  environmental 
performance since the implementation of the Agreement, considering in particular 
relevant provisions in the Agreement’s TSD Title. 

The  human  rights  analysis  focused  on  how  the  Agreement  may  have  affected  the 
enjoyment  of specific human rights  in  all the Parties and the ability of the state Parties 
involved  to  fulfil  or  progressively  realise  their  human  rights  obligations.  The  analysis 
relied on the methodology for human rights impact assessments (HRIA) as established by 
the United Nations Human Rights Council (2011) and the European Commission (2015): 
this  provides  for  a  first  screening  and  scoping  analysis  of  the  groups  of  human  rights 
potentially  affected  (positively  or  negatively)  by  the  Agreement,  and  then  a  further  in-
depth analysis of the potentially most affected human rights (or groups of human rights). 
The  normative  background  for  the  analysis  was  constituted  by  the  international  human 
rights  normative  framework,  including  the  core  UN  human  rights  treaties  and 
conventions, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, relevant regional 
human rights treaties, core ILO conventions, as well as relevant, domestic legislation and 
customary international law. 

Complementing  the  overall  evaluation,  ten  case  studies  were  prepared  as  part  of  the 
external evaluation study. Their purpose is to illustrate some of the more general findings 
as  well  as  to  address  issues,  through  a  ‘deep-dive’,  which  are  not  very  suitable  to  be 
analysed at an economy-wide or sectoral level. The selection of case studies was guided 

62 

 
 
 
by  the  following  criteria  and  considerations  to  ensure  representativeness:  First, 
geographically, case studies cover effects  in,  and interests across,  all Parties. Likewise, 
some  case  studies  are  country-specific  while  others  are  cross-country.  Second, 
thematically, care was taken that cases studies address economic, social, environmental 
and human rights issues in a balanced way. Box 2 provides a list of the case studies; the 
full case studies are available in Volume 3 of the final external evaluation study62. 

Box 2: List of case studies prepared as part of the evaluation 

1.  Review of specific services and investment issues: the impact of the Agreement 

on tourism 

2.  Implementation of the Agreement’s public procurement provisions in Colombia 

3.  Effect of the Agreement on sustainable farming practices and production: the case 

of bananas 

4.  Changes  in  informal  employment  in  selected  sectors  in  Colombia,  Peru  and 

Ecuador involved in exports to the EU 

5.  Export  diversification  and  spatial  effects  of  the  Agreement:  the  case  of  tropical 

fruit production in Nariño, Colombia 

6.  The Experience of MSMEs with the Agreement 

7.  Incidence of child labour and respect for children’s rights in sectors in Colombia, 

Peru and Ecuador involved in exports to the EU 

8.  Freedom  of  association  in  sectors  in  Colombia,  Peru  and  Ecuador  involved  in 

exports to the EU 

9.  The Impact of the Agreement on Biodiversity: The Case of Avocado Production 

in Peru 

10. Climate  Change  –  Impacts  of  the  Agreement  on  LULUCF  Emissions  in  the 

Andean countries 

Despite the broad approach and solid methodological underpinnings of the evaluation, a 
number  of  limitations  need  to  be  noted.  First,  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  most 
consultation  activities had to  be implemented online. Some interviews could  take place 
physically  between  local  team  members  and  stakeholders,  but  a  visit  of  the  core 

62 Available from http://andean.fta-evaluation.eu/en/resources-2/study-outputs. 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
evaluation team to the Andean partner countries was not possible. Although the outreach 
in partner countries to stakeholders in rural areas was possible, thanks to relatively good 
internet connectivity, physical visits would have been preferable to assess actual effects 
on the ground. Second,  some limitations in  data availability and reliability required the 
substitution  of  quantitative  by  qualitative  analysis,  and  in  some  cases  prevented  a 
definitive  assessment  of  causality  between  the  Agreement  and  observed  developments. 
Third,  the  Covid-19  pandemic  has  not  only  affected  the  consultation  activities  but  also 
the  findings,  because,  first,  data  related  to  2020  are  distorted  by  the  effects  of  the 
pandemic,  and  second,  the  pandemic  has  also  shaped  perceptions  of  stakeholders  and 
their  views  regarding  recent  economic  and  social  performance  in  the  Parties,  and  their 
underlying  reasons.  Despite  these  issues,  however,  we  consider  that  the  evaluation 
findings,  conclusions  and  recommendations  are  valid  and  robust,  as  a  result  of  the 
diversity of sources and tools used and the rigid quality assurance undertaken. 

In this respect, the quality of factual information and evaluation findings presented in the 
evaluation  report  has  been  assured  through  an  internal  and  external  review  process 
undertaken primarily at the level of the external study, which provided the main source 
for data and analysis. Each report produced by the external contractor was first presented 
in draft form and subjected to a review and comments by both the Commission services 
and external stakeholders, including the partner country authorities and non-state actors. 

Analytical (computable general equilibrium, CGE) model description63 

For  the  CGE  simulations,  the  Commission  used  the  (standard)  dynamic  Global  Trade 
Analysis  Project  (GTAP)64  CGE  model  (GTAP-dyn)  and  Version  10a  of  the  GTAP 
database,  using  2014  as  the  base  year.  GTAP-dyn  is  a  recursively  dynamic  applied 
general  equilibrium  model  of  the  world  economy  extending  the  comparative  static 
framework  of  the  standard  GTAP  model  developed  by  Hertel  (1997)  to  a  dynamic 
framework  by  incorporating  international  capital  mobility  and  capital  accumulation, 
while  preserving  the  features  of  the  standard  GTAP,  such  as  constant  returns  to 
production  technology,  perfectly  competitive  markets  and  product  differentiation  by 
countries of origin (the so-called Armington assumption). The GTAP model is one of the 
few globally recognised economic multi-region models for the analysis of trade policies; 
as the standard model has been used, no specific peer review of the model was required. 
However,  the  specific  assumptions  and  aggregations  used  for  the  evaluation  were 
provided to and vetted by the contractor of the external evaluation study. 

63  A  more  detailed  description  of  the  model  is  provided  in  appendix  D  of  the  external  contractor’s 
inception report, available at https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/html/159036.htm. 

64  Detailed 
https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/. 

information 

about  GTAP, 

the  model 

and 

the  database, 

is 

available 

at 

64 

 
 
 
 
Two  important  model  features  concern  the  economic  sectors  and  regions  that  are 
distinguished. The model used for the evaluation has the following set-up: 

•  Sectors:  For  the  modelling,  the  65  sectors  distinguished  in  Version  10a  of  the 
GTAP  database  were  kept  at  a  very  disaggregated  level,  keeping  59  sectors 
(primarily  aggregating  various  services  sectors  with  a  high  prevalence  of 
government  provided  services).  This  allowed  an  analysis  of  the  Agreement’s 
effects on sectors to the maximum extent made possible by the GTAP model. 

•  Regions: The model aggregates the 141 GTAP regions into 22 regions. This level 
of  aggregation  is  higher  than  for  sectors  but  inevitable  given  the  low  sector 
aggregation, to keep the model manageable. 

Although  the  level  of  aggregation  overall  poses  no  problem  for  the  evaluation  of  the 
Agreement’s  effects  in  the  Parties  and  that  least  developed  countries  are  spread  across 
different aggregate regions (Rest of Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, Rest of the World) limited 
the  possibility  for  the  evaluation  to  analyse  the  Agreement’s  effects  on  third  regions, 
notably on LDCs. This has been remedied by taking Sub-Saharan Africa as a proxy for 
LDCs in the model-based analysis of impacts on the LDCs. 

The model simulations cover the period 2011 to 2020 and compare the developments of 
two scenarios – a ‘baseline’ with the Agreement in place, and a counterfactual scenario 
in which the Agreement would not have been in place. 

For the baseline, the following assumptions were made: 

• 

It was assumed that the Agreement entered into force at the beginning of 2013 for 
Colombia and Peru, and at the beginning of 2015 for Ecuador. While the actual 
dates  for  the  start  of  implementation  of  the  Agreement  differ  from  these  dates, 
these  are  the  dates  from  which  the  GSP+  would  have  ceased  to  apply  for  the 
partner  countries.  In  other  words,  from  the  beginning  of  2013/2015  the 
preferential rates in place in the EU for the three partner countries were a result of 
the Trade Agreement, even though initially they still continued to be under GSP+ 
terms. 

•  The baseline also incorporates the EU trade agreements that have been applied up 
to  2020  (e.g.  CETA  with  Canada  and  EPA  with  Japan),  as  well  as  significant 
global trade policy development such as the USA–China tariff war. Accordingly, 
the  tariff  changes  brought  about  by  these  are  included  in  the  baseline  tariffs 
considered for the simulations. 

•  The withdrawal of the UK from the EU is not considered in the model (as it came 
into  effect  only  in  2021),  nor  is  the  impact  of  the  Covid-19  pandemic. 
Accordingly, in terms of the regions, simulations for the EU represent those for 

65 

 
 
 
the EU. In terms of the impact of Covid-19, projections of GDP (taken from the 
IMF) and labour force (taken from the ILO and the Centre d’Études Prospectives 
et  d’Informations  Internationales,  CEPII)  made  before  the  pandemic’s  outbreak 
were used. 

The exclusion of Covid-19 and the UK’s withdrawal is justified from a methodological 
point of view because the aim of the analysis is to isolate the effects of the Agreement 
from other factors impacting on trade. 

For the counterfactual scenario simulating the absence of the Agreement, it was assumed 
that: 

•  The three partner countries apply MFN tariffs on imports from the EU throughout 

the whole period; 

•  The  EU  applies  MFN  tariffs  on  imports  from  Colombia  and  Peru  from  the 
beginning of 2013, and on imports from Ecuador from the beginning of 2015. 

An important limitation of the model-based analysis is that it only comprises changes in 
tariffs. Changes in non-tariff barriers – for both goods and services – resulting from the 
Agreement are not modelled. This means that the simulations only capture a part of the 
Agreement’s  effects,  and  in  particular  any  simulated  changes  in  services  sectors  are 
exclusively the result of indirect adjustment effects across the economies. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON  ANSWERS  TO 
THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

Evaluation questions (EQs) were provided in the ToR for the external evaluation study 
and were slightly amended by the contractor, by adding one evaluation question (EQ 1B) 
specifically  focusing  on  the  Agreement’s  impact  in  the  various  dimensions.  The 
evaluation  questions  cover five  of the six  evaluation criteria. EU added  value has not 
been  included  in  the  evaluation,  because  the  Agreement  falls  under  the  EU’s  exclusive 
competence for the common commercial policy according to TFEU Article 3(1)(e). The 
evaluation question are linked to the remaining evaluation criteria as follows: 

Effectiveness and Impact 

•  EQ 1A: To what extent have the operational objectives as laid down in Article 4 

of the Agreement been achieved? (effectiveness) 

•  EQ 1B: What has been the impact of the Agreement? (impact) 

•  EQ  2:  What  are  the  factors  influencing  (either  positively  or  negatively)  the 

achievement of the Agreement’s objectives? (impact and effectiveness) 

•  EQ  3:  Has  the  Agreement  had  unintended  (positive  or  negative)  consequences, 

and if so, which ones? (impact and effectiveness) 

Efficiency 

•  EQ 4: To what extent has the Agreement been efficient with respect to achieving 

its objectives? 

•  EQ 5: To what extent are the costs associated with the Agreement proportionate 
to  the  benefits  it  has  generated?  Is  the  distribution  of  both  costs  and  benefits 
proportionate among different stakeholder groups and interests? 

•  EQ 6: Are there unnecessary regulatory costs (including administrative burden)? 

Coherence 

•  EQ 7: To what extent has the Agreement been coherent with the EU’s trade and 
development  policies  –  and  in  particular,  with  the  EU’s  commitment  to 
sustainable  development  in  trade  policies  as  a  contribution  attainment  of  the 
SDGs? 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
Relevance 

•  EQ 8: To what extent do the provisions of the Agreement continue to be relevant 
in order to address the current trade needs and issues of the EU, Colombia, Peru 
and Ecuador? 

Responses to the evaluation questions are provided in the main body of the SWD. 

68 

 
 
 
The  evaluation  matrix  in  the  table  below  provides  the  evaluation  questions,  the  judgement  criteria  (JC)  for  each  question,  the  analysis  needed  to 
substantiate findings and conclusions made in the evaluation report, and the sources through which data and information have been obtained. The matrix 
also links the evaluation questions and judgement criteria to the analytical tasks to be performed according to the ToR for the external evaluation study. 

Evaluation 
questions 
EQ 1A: To what 
extent have the 
operational 
objectives as laid 
down in Article 4 
of the Agreement 
been achieved? 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (ToR) 

Sources of evidence 

JC 1A.1: To what extent has the 
Agreement led to the progressive and 
gradual liberalisation of trade in goods? 

JC 1A.2: To what extent has the 
Agreement led to the facilitation of trade 
in goods through, in particular, the 
application of the agreed provisions 
regarding customs and trade 
facilitation, standards, technical 
regulations and conformity assessment 
procedures and sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures? 

• Task 9.1: Analyse the evolution of trade in goods 

between the EU, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador (Bullet 
Points 1&2: descriptive statistical analysis of trends and 
developments in key areas, such as aggregated trade in 
goods, as well at different levels of disaggregation) 

• Evolution of bilateral tariffs 
• Task 9.1: Analyse the evolution of trade in goods 

between the EU, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador (Bullet 
Points 8: Impact of the Agreement in relation to the 
creation, persistence, reduction or removal of NTMs) 
• Task 9.4: Determine the impact on implementation of the 

•  Time series analysis of 
COMEXT and UN 
COMTRADE statistics 
(for bilateral/total trade) 
and UNCTAD TRAINS 
(for tariffs) 
•  Desk research 
•  FTA legal provisions 
•  Reports from Trade 
Committee and Sub-
committee meetings 

Agreement of the various institutional structures 
(Assessment of progress made by the Sub-committees 
on: Customs, Trade Facilitation and Rules of Origin; 
TBT; SPS) 

• Task 9.5: Analyse to what extent the implementation of 
the customs and trade facilitation-related provisions of 
the Agreement have simplified or complicated life for 
key stakeholders (sectoral perspective to establish which 
sectors score low or are hit hard) 

•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 
•  Online consultation 
•  Business survey 
•  Case studies 

69 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (ToR) 

Sources of evidence 

JC 1A.3: To what extent has the 
Agreement led to the progressive 
liberalisation of trade in services? 

JC 1A.4: To what extent has the 
Agreement led to the development of an 
environment conducive to an increase in 
investment flows and, in particular, to 
the improvement of the conditions of 
establishment between the Parties, on the 
basis of the principle of non-
discrimination? 
JC 1A.5: To what extent has the 
Agreement led the liberalisation of 
current payments and capital 
movements related to direct investment? 
JC 1A.6: To what extent has the 
Agreement led to the effective and 
reciprocal opening of government 
procurement markets of the Parties? 

• Task 9.6. Analyse the implementation of the Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures chapter of the Agreement 

• Task 9.3: Analyse the evolution of trade in services 

•  Analysis of time series 

(statistical analysis of trends and developments since the 
start of the Agreement in aggregate services trade) 

trade in services statistics 
(from Eurostat, OECD and 
UNCTAD) 

• Task 9.3: Analyse the evolution foreign direct 
investment (statistical analysis of trends and 
developments since the start of the Agreement in foreign 
direct investments) 

•  Analysis of time series 
investment statistics at 
different levels of 
disaggregation 

•  Stakeholder consultations 
•  Case studies 

• Task 9.3: Analyse the evolution foreign direct 

•  Same as JC 1A.4 

investment (analysis of liberalisation of current 
payments and capital movements related to direct 
investment) 

• Task 9.7: Analyse the implementation of the 

Government Procurement chapter of the Agreement 
(inter alia the share total value of procurement by all 
levels of government in the partner countries) 

JC 1A.7: To what extent has the 
Agreement led to the adequate and 
effective protection of intellectual 
property rights, in accordance with 

• Task 9.4: Determine the impact on implementation of the 

Agreement of the various institutional structures 
(assessment of progress made by the Sub-committee on 
Intellectual Property Rights) 

70 

•  Analysis of time series 

procurement statistics at 
different levels of 
government 
•  Case study 
•  Analysis of time series 

statistics on GI products 

•  FTA legal provisions 
•  Meeting documents (Sub-

 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (ToR) 

Sources of evidence 

international rules in force between the 
Parties, while ensuring a balance 
between the rights of intellectual 
property right holders and the public 
interest? 
JC 1A.8: To what extent has the 
Agreement led to tackle anticompetitive 
practices in an effective and efficient 
manner? 

JC 1A.9: To what extent has the 
Agreement led to the establishment of an 
expeditious, effective and predictable 
dispute settlement mechanism? 
JC 1A.10: To what extent has the 
Agreement led to promoting 
international trade in a way that 
contributes to the objective of 
sustainable development, and to work 
undertaken in order to integrate and 
reflect this objective in the Parties’ trade 
relations? 
JC 1A.11: To what extent has the 
Agreement ensured that the cooperation 
of the Parties for technical assistance 
and the strengthening of the trade 
capacities contributes to the 

• Task 9.8: Analyse the implementation of other areas of 
the Agreement (statistics on GI products in particular 
agri-food products) 

committee) 
•  Desk research 
•  Interviews 

• Task 9.8: Analyse the implementation of other areas of 

the Agreement (competition policy) 

• Task 9.4: Determine the impact on implementation of the 
Agreement of the various institutional structures (assess 
effectiveness of dispute settlement mechanism) 

•  Desk research 
•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 
•  Online consultation 
•  Business survey 
•  Desk research 
•  Interviews 

• Task 10.1: Analyse the effects of the implementation of 
the Trade and Sustainable Development (TSD) chapter 
of the Agreement. 

• Task 10.2: Examine the impact on implementation of the 
Agreement of the institutional structure established by or 
resulting from the Trade and Sustainable Development 
chapter 

•  Desk research 
•  FTA legal provisions 
•  Meeting documents 
•  EESC Information Report 
•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 
•  Online consultation 

• Task 9.6. Analyse the implementation of the Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures chapter of the Agreement 
(assess to which extent the capacity building and 
technical assistance provided by the EU to Colombia, 
Peru and Ecuador have been effective to implement the 

•  Desk research 
•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 
•  Online consultation 
•  Surveys on the impact of 

71 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 

EQ 1B: What has 
been the impact of 
the Agreement? 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (ToR) 

Sources of evidence 

implementation of the Agreement, and to 
the optimal utilisation of the 
opportunities offered by it according to 
the existing legal and institutional 
framework? 
JC 1B.1: What has been the economic 
impact of the Agreement? 

Agreement) 

the Agreement on SMEs 

•  CGE Model 
•  Analysis of merchandise 
trade, reviewing growth 
trends per product lines 
and measuring the 
evolution of the 
diversification of exports 
over time using indicators 
such as for example 
concentration ratios or the 
Herfindahl-Hirschman 
Index (HHI). 

•  Stakeholder consultations: 
survey, interviews and 
workshops 
•  SME Survey 

• Task 9.2: Based on DG Trade’s modelling results, 

present the overall economic impacts of the Agreement 
in terms of key macroeconomic and sectoral variables. 

• Task 9.1: Analyse the evolution of trade in goods 

between the EU, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador (Bullet 
Point 6: Diversification of exports and imports; Bullet 
Point 10: Investigation of whether new enterprises 
started to export or whether enterprises already 
exporting started to export new products) 

• Task 9.10: Analyse the impact of the Agreement on 

diversification of bilateral trade (concentration ratios or 
the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI)) 

• Task 9.9: Analyse the impact of the tariff concession 

granted by the EU for imports of bananas 

• Task 9.11: Analyse the impact of the Agreement on 

SMEs 

• Task 9.13: Analyse the impact of the Agreement on the 

budgets of the EU and the partner countries 

• Task 9.14: Analyse the impact of the Agreement on EU 

Outermost Regions (ORs) 

• Task 9.15: Analyse the impact of the Agreement on 
developing countries and Least Developed Countries 

72 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (ToR) 

Sources of evidence 

JC 1B.2: What has been the social 
impact of the Agreement? 

• Task 9.12: Analyse the impact of the Agreement on 

consumers 

(LDCs) 

• Task 10.3: CGE modelling / effects of the Agreement on 
wages, sectoral employment and household income at 
the macro level 

• Task 10.4: Assess whether and by how much the 

Agreement has improved on working conditions and the 
four pillars of the ILO Decent Work Agenda, as well as 
poverty reduction, and gender equality in the EU and 
partner countries 

• Task 10.5: Informal economy and informal employment 

in Colombia, Peru and Ecuador 

• Task 10.7: Corporate social responsibility; 
• Task 10.8: Gender equality 
• Task 10.6: Assessment of the environmental effects 
(Ex post changes in natural resource intensity, global 
transport, and GHG emissions due to the Agreement 
compared to the counterfactual scenario without the 
Agreement) 

JC 1B.3: What has been the 
environmental impact of the Agreement? 

JC 1B.4: What has been the human 
rights impact of the Agreement? 

• Task 11: Analyse the effects of the implementation of 

the Agreement on human rights 

73 

•  Trade and social statistics 
•  CGE modelling results 
•  Desk research 
•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 
•  Online consultation 

•  CGE model results: CO2 

emissions, sectoral outputs 

•  Additional quantitative 

analysis 
•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 
•  Online consultation 
•  Case studies 
•  Desk research 
•  CGE model results 
•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (ToR) 

JC 1B.5: To what extent are the actual 
impacts of the Agreement in line with the 
expected impacts as laid out in the EU-
Andean trade sustainability impact 
assessment? 
JC 2.1: What are the factors that have 
influenced positively the achievements 
of these objectives? 
JC 2.2: What are the factors that have 
influenced negatively the achievements 
of these objectives? 

JC 3.1: What social, human rights, 
environmental and/or economic impacts 
have resulted from the Agreement which 
were not intended? 
JC 3.2: Have there been any positive 
unintended effects? 
JC 3.3: Have there been any negative 
unintended effects? 
JC 4.1: To what extent have the 
preferences of the Agreement been 
utilised? 

EQ 2: What are the 
factors influencing 
(positively or 
negatively) the 
achievement of the 
Agreement’s 
objectives? 
EQ 3: Has the 
Agreement had 
unintended 
(positive or 
negative) 
consequences, and 
if so, which ones? 

EQ 4: To what 
extent has the 
Agreement been 
efficient with 
respect to achieving 

Sources of evidence 

•  Online consultation 
•  Case studies 
•  Desk research: 

comparative review of 
effects anticipated in the 
SIA and effects identified 
in the evaluation 

• Task 8: Assess the EU-Andean Trade Sustainability 

Impact Assessment (‘SIA’)  

• Identification of factors influencing the achievements of 

•  All sources of evidence / 

those objectives as part of the analysis listed above 

methodological tools listed 
under EQ1 

• Identification of stakeholder groups that have been 

affected by the Agreement in an unintended manner 
• Identification of the Agreement’s effects on economic, 
environmental, labour or human rights aspects as listed 
above 

•  CGE model results 
•  Desk research 
•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 
•  Online consultation 
•  Surveys on the impact of 
the Agreement on SMEs 

• Task 9.1: Analyse the evolution of trade in goods 

between the EU, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador (Bullet 
Point 4: Preference utilisation rate and foregone duty 
saving of economic operators of all Parties; Bullet Point 
5: Use of tariff rate quotas) 

•  Analysis of the preference 
utilisation rate and tariff 
rate quotas based on data 
provided by the 
Commission 

74 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 
its objectives? 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (ToR) 

Sources of evidence 

JC 4.2: How does the Agreement 
compare to existing preference schemes 
of the EU? 

• Task 9.1: Analyse the evolution of trade in goods 

between the EU, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador (Bullet 
Point 3: Development of trade in goods against 
previously applicable GSP+ tariffs (zero tariff vs. tariff 
greater than zero under GSP+; Bullet Point 9: 
Comparison of the development of trade in goods 
between the signatory countries with a suitable reference 
group of countries) 

JC 4.3: To what extent has the 
Agreement led to trade diversion? 

EQ 5: To what 
extent are the costs 
associated with the 
Agreement 
proportionate to the 
benefits it has 
generated? Is the 
distribution of both 
costs and benefits 
proportionate 
among different 
stakeholder groups 
and interests? 

JC 5.1: What costs have been involved 
in the Agreement implementation (e.g. 
foregone tariff revenue, costs of 
committee/ working group/DAG 
meetings, compliance costs for 
businesses)? 
JC 5.2: How do these costs compare to 
the benefits, e.g. in terms of GDP 
increases? 
JC 5.3: Is the distribution of costs and 
benefits proportionate among different 
stakeholder groups and interests? 

• Task 9.1: Analyse the evolution of trade in goods 

between the EU, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador (Bullet 
Point 7: Trade diversion) 

• Identification of input and cost types related to the 

implementation of the Agreement 

• Calculation of economic impact of the Agreement (based 

on CGE results) 

• Analysis of the foregone tariff revenues due to tariff 

reductions 

• Estimation of overall budgetary consequences of the 
Agreement for the EU by considering effects of GDP 
increases on EU revenue, foregone tariff revenues due to 
tariff reductions between EU and the partner countries, 
and changes in trade volumes with other trade partners 
(results of analysis of Task 9.13: Analyse the impact of 
the Agreement on the budgets of the EU and the partner 
countries) 

75 

•  Regression analysis in 
order to investigate 
whether the GSP status of 
a product had a significant 
increase on trade 
development 

•  Analysis of COMEXT and 
COMTRADE data with a 
suitable reference group of 
countries (and Bolivia) 

•  CGE model results 
•  Analysis of COMEXT and 

COMTRADE data  
•  CGE model results 
•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 

EQ 6: Are there 
unnecessary 
regulatory costs 
(including 
administrative 
burden)? 
EQ 7: To what 
extent has the 
Agreement been 
coherent with the 
EU’s trade and 
development 
policies – and in 
particular, with the 
EU’s commitment 
to sustainable 
development in 
trade policies as a 
contribution for 
attainment of the 
SDGs? 
EQ 8: To what 
extent do the 
provisions of the 
Agreement 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (ToR) 

Sources of evidence 

• Identification of stakeholder groups that have been 

affected by the Agreement in disproportionate manner 
• Identification of input and regulatory costs (including 

administrative burden) related to the implementation of 
the Agreement 

• Identification of areas where costs reductions could be 

achieved 

•  Document review 
•  Interviews 

• Identification of areas of (lack of) coherence between the 
Agreement/ key principles of current EU trade policy 
and EU’s commitment to sustainable development in 
trade policies as a contribution attainment of the SDGs? 

•  Document review 
•  Description of the 

Agreement (Task 4) 

•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 

JC 6.1: What are the regulatory costs 
(including administrative burden) 
associated with the Agreement? 
JC 6.2: What scope, if any, has there 
been to achieve the objectives at a lower 
cost? 
JC 7.1: How do the provisions of the 
Agreement compare with the principles 
of current EU trade policy? 
JC 7.2: How do the provisions of the 
Agreement compare with EU’s 
commitment to sustainable development 
in trade policies as a contribution 
towards attainment of the SDGs? 

JC 8.1: What are the current trade issues 
faced by the EU, Colombia, Peru and 
Ecuador? 
JC 8.2: To what extent can the 

• Identification of key trade issues currently faced by the 

EU, Colombia, Peru and Ecuador 

• Qualitative assessment of stakeholders concerning the 
possibility of the Agreement to address the issues, and 

•  Interviews and document 
review regarding working 
of the specialised 
committees and working 

76 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 
continue to be 
relevant in order to 
address the current 
trade needs and 
issues of the EU, 
Colombia, Peru and 
Ecuador? 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (ToR) 

Sources of evidence 

provisions of the Agreement be used to 
address these issues? 
JC 8.3: Which trade issues are unlikely 
to be addressed by the Agreement? 

identification of issues which may not be resolved 
through the Agreement 

groups established under 
the Agreement 

•  Workshops 
•  Online consultation 
•  Surveys on the impact of 
the Agreement on SMEs 
and consumers 

•  Case studies 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS [AND, WHERE RELEVANT, TABLE ON SIMPLIFICATION AND BURDEN REDUCTION] 

Assessing the costs and benefits of a trade agreement is not straightforward. Throughout the evaluation, different types of costs and benefits accruing to 
different  societal  groups  across  all  the  partner  countries  have  been  identified;  a  peculiarity  of  trade  agreements  is  that  impacts  in  the  non-EU  partner 
countries constitute an important element of the assessment. Costs and benefits in the EU are, as a result of the EU single market, identified for the EU as 
a whole. The following table summarises the identified effects, i.e. costs, benefits, and net costs/benefits following to the maximum degree possible the 
Better Regulation tools 56-58. A table on Simplification and burden reduction is not applicable to the Trade Agreement and is therefore not presented. 

Overall, from a societal perspective, the Agreement provides a clear net benefit: the increase in welfare, as proxied by the GDP increase by far outweighs 
the identified incremental costs caused by the Agreement in terms of compliance costs (mostly accruing to administrations) and indirect costs. 

Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation65 

Citizens/Consumers  

Quantitative / Comment 

Businesses 

Quantitative / Comment 

Administrations 

Quantitative / Comment 

Costs 

Direct compliance 
costs 

Adjustment costs  None identified 

Businesses facing stronger import competition from the respective 
other party: reduction in sales/output – identified by sector. 

None identified 

65 All identified costs and benefits are recurrent. Where costs and benefits differ between societal groups in the EU and the Andean partner countries, this is specified in the respective 
cells. Where no costs or benefits have been identified in the evaluation regarding a specific costs or benefit component, that component has been omitted from the table. 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers  

Quantitative / Comment 

Businesses 

Quantitative / Comment 

Administrations 

Quantitative / Comment 

Administrative 
costs 

None identified 

Regulatory charges  None identified 

Sectors with largest output declines calculated in the CGE model 
(2020; for all sectors, see Table 6-7 in external study): 
•  EU: other food products (-€422 m), vegetables, fruits, nuts (-

€279 m) 

•  Colombia: basic pharmaceuticals (-€40 m), machinery (-

€30 m) 

•  Ecuador: automotive (-€40 m) 
•  Peru: metals (-€147 m) 
Also, increased competitive pressure on sugar producers in EU 
Outermost Regions. 

Costs related to additional paperwork for trading under the 
Agreement (preferential origin certificates): these are optional, as 
traders can choose to trade under MFN. Thus: 
•  0 if trading under MFN 
•  Lower than benefits from using tariff preferences (if they were 
higher, traders would trade under MFN to minimise net costs) 

Charges for issuing preferential certificates of origin these are 
optional, as traders can choose to trade under MFN. See 
administrative costs 

Enforcement costs   

Information and 
monitoring 

Costs related to preparation and participation in domestic 
mechanisms and monitoring under TSD Title: 
•  Not quantified 

None identified 

79 

None identified: Agreement uses 
already existing forms and 
procedures also used in other FTAs. 

Reduction in tariff revenues: 
•  EU: -€424 m 
•  Colombia: -€771 m 
•  Ecuador: -€28 m 
•  Peru: -€44 m 
Charges for issuing certificates of 
origin should reflect cost of service, 
hence zero net cost. 

Costs related to preparation and 
participation in annual meetings: 
•  Not quantified 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Indirect costs 

Environmental 
costs 

Social costs 

Citizens/Consumers  

Quantitative / Comment 

Businesses 

Quantitative / Comment 

Administrations 

Quantitative / Comment 

Costs related to ongoing dialogue: 
•  Not quantified 
Preparation of annual reports: 
•  Not quantified 
Costs related to monitoring under 
TSD Title: 
•  Not quantified 

Not quantified but estimated to be limited. Potential regionally limited/localised costs in terms of contribution to deforestation in Colombia, and pressure on 
biodiversity and water quality in areas where crops/products benefiting from tariff preferences under the Agreement (e.g. shrimps, avocados, bananas) are 
grown/produced. 

None identified 

None identified 

Employment reallocation away from sectors facing 
increased competition. Sectors with largest declines 
calculated in the CGE model under the model 
assumption that total employment has not changed (2020 
compared to a situation where the Agreement would not 
be in place; for all sectors, see Table 7-1 in external 
study): 
•  EU: vegetables, fruits, nuts (-0.2%) 
•  Colombia: basic pharmaceuticals (-1.3%), wool (-

1.1%), machinery (-0.7%) 

•  Ecuador: wool (-5.1%), automotive (-4.3%), metals (-

2.4%) 

•  Peru: basic pharmaceuticals (-1.0%), metals (-0.8%)  

Costs related to 
human and labour 
rights, and working 
conditions 

An expansion of practices such as forced labour or child 
labour as a result of the Agreement is not generally 
found (and indeed actions have been taken to reduce 
such practices – see under benefits below). However, it 

None identified 

As a result of closer monitoring as 
well as consumer expectations in 
EU markets, administrations in 
Andean partner countries have 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers  

Quantitative / Comment 

Businesses 

Quantitative / Comment 

cannot be excluded that products involving forced labour 
might have been integrated into value chains and placed 
on the EU market. 

Benefits 

Direct benefits 

Economic & social 
benefits 

Employment gains in sectors benefiting from the 
Agreement. Sectors with largest gains calculated in the 
CGE model under the model assumption that total 
employment has not changed (2020 compared to a 
situation where the Agreement would not be in place; for 
all sectors, see Table 7-1 in external study): 
•  EU: automotive (+0.1%), machinery (+0.06%) 
•  Colombia: metals (+1.6%), transport equipment 

(+1.2%), vegetables, fruits, nuts (+1.2%) 

•  Ecuador: other food (+3.8%), cereals (+2.7%), fishing 

(+2.0%) 

•  Peru: other food (+1.8%), chemicals (+1.5%), 

vegetables, fruits, nuts (+1.3%) 

Total effects on employment/wages: not quantifiable 
due to CGE model specifications but expected to be 
proportional to output increase (see below ‘wider 
economic benefits for societal groups’, for businesses) 

For individual traders: the use of tariff preferences constitutes a 
cost reduction/profit increase – this is optional (see administrative 
costs above). Thus: 
•  0 if trading under MFN 
•  >0; and higher than compliance costs if using preferences. 
Preference utilisation of the Agreement is very high (close to 
100% for Andean exporters) respectively increasing (for EU 
exporters, latest values ranging from 56% for exports to Peru to 
72% for exports to Colombia); this shows that a large majority of 
traders considers the Agreement to provide a net benefit. 
Exporting businesses overall: increase in exports as calculated 
by CGE model – identified by sector (mirror to adjustment costs 
above). Sectors with largest benefits (2020; for all sectors, see 
Table 6-2 in external study): 
•  EU: Automotive (€1.0B); machinery (€661 m) 
•  Colombia: Chemicals (€128 m); vegetables, fruits, nuts 

(€62 m); other food (€57 m) 

•  Ecuador: other food (€220 m); vegetables, fruits, nuts (€30 m) 
•  Peru: other food (€202 m); chemicals (€196 m); garments 

81 

Administrations 

Quantitative / Comment 

incurred additional costs for 
enforcement of labour standards, 
e.g. by expanding labour inspection 
services. However, the level of 
attribution to the Agreement 
remains unclear, and no 
quantification has therefore been 
made. 

Not quantified. Increase in 
government revenues – higher tax 
collection due to net positive impact 
on businesses and economic growth. 
Net effect of tariff revenue losses 
and increase in other tax collection 
likely to be negative for Colombia, 
and insignificant for EU, Ecuador 
and Peru. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers  

Quantitative / Comment 

Businesses 

Quantitative / Comment 

Administrations 

Quantitative / Comment 

Benefits from 
consultations and 
dialogue 

Civil society groups have benefited from the consultation 
mechanisms established by the Agreement under the 
TSD Title both through the possibility to raise issues 
covered by the Title with the own authorities, and at the 
level of all Parties. Groups in Andean partner countries 
have also used the possibility to complain with the EU 
about alleged non-compliance of their authorities with 
the provisions of the Agreement, respectively ILO 
conventions. While there is disagreement across 
stakeholders regarding the level to which such 
complaints have been successful in remedying the 
situations, the Agreement provides an additional avenue 
for non-state actors to raise issues, which would not exist 
in the absence of the Agreement. Quantification of this 
benefit is not possible. 

Indirect benefits 

(€57 m) 

Combined net benefit for all businesses (i.e. deducting 
adjustment costs for import-competing sectors as listed above) – 
total increase in exports across all sectors as calculated by CGE 
model: 
•  EU: €2.7B 
•  Colombia: €587 m 
•  Ecuador: €52 m 
•  Peru: €308 m 

Indirect benefits for businesses from the mechanisms for 
consultations and dialogue arise from the fact that it is easier to 
report on (and correct) administrative decisions by which 
businesses are aggrieved: these can be raised to the own 
authorities who can then raise them with the partner country 
concerned through the consultation mechanisms. While the 
number of actual cases where this has happened is limited (and 
not always a solution has been found through bilateral 
consultations), the possibility of this type of mechanism alone 
may have had a disciplining effect on the Parties’ authorities. 
Quantification of this benefit is not possible. 

82 

Although impossible to quantify, 
the Agreement has established a 
framework for dialogue between the 
Parties’ administrations covering all 
areas of the Agreement (including 
trade related issues such as 
competition, government 
procurement, intellectual property 
rights, and trade and sustainable 
development issues), which has 
allowed to address and solve 
irritants, inform about and create 
understanding for upcoming policy 
changes. Stakeholders representing 
the authorities of all Parties 
confirmed that the creation and 
maintenance of open bilateral 
communication channels was one of 
the key benefits of the Agreement. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers  

Quantitative / Comment 

Businesses 

Quantitative / Comment 

Wider economic 
benefits for societal 
groups 

Not quantified due to CGE model constraints, but 
estimated as larger than costs: 
• 

increase in availability, accessibility and diversity of 
goods and services thanks to reduction of tariffs 
•  positive (but limited) impact on welfare and poverty 

Combined net benefit for all businesses (i.e. deducting 
adjustment costs for import-competing sectors as listed above) – 
total increase in output across all sectors as calculated by the 
CGE model (2020; for all sectors, see Table 6-7 in external 
study): 
•  EU: €5.7B (+0.01%) 
•  Colombia: €422 m (+0.06%) 
•  Ecuador: €236 m (+0.17%) 
•  Peru: €672 m (+0.16%) 

Administrations 

Quantitative / Comment 

None identified 

Wider economic 
benefits – total 
society 

Increase in GDP, as measured through the CGE modelling (2020): 
•  EU: €1.3B (0.01% of GDP) 
•  Colombia: €42 m (0.01% of GDP) 
•  Ecuador: €128 m (0.16% of GDP) 
•  Peru: €49 m (0.03% of GDP) 

Environmental 
benefits 

Reduction in global gross greenhouse gas emissions (-0.7Mt CO2eq) – as calculated based on the CGE model, i.e. only considering tariff change effects and not 
considering LULUCF emissions. (Shift of production from (more emission-intensive) third countries to (less emission-intensive) EU) 

Benefits related to 
human and labour 
rights, and working 
conditions 

Labour standards in sectors exporting (more) to the EU 
have benefited from the Agreement: for example, as 
noted by stakeholders, given that flower exports to the 
EU accounted in 2019 for 10% of the Colombian total 
exports in this sector, expectations of European 
customers possibly played a role in exercising pressure 
on Colombian producers to respect labour standards. 
Similar examples were mentioned for other sectors. 
Regarding child labour, the Agreement may have 
contributed to reduced incidence through creating formal 
job opportunities for adults, mainly in agriculture 
respectively in rural areas. 
Through dialogue under the TSD Title the Agreement 

The Agreement and technical assistance provided by the EU 
have contributed to the promotion of CSR practices in the 
Andean countries and among companies involved in trade with 
the EU, and respect for human rights and labour and 
environmental standards through certification schemes. 
Enhanced certification has strengthened the competitiveness of 
businesses and allowed them to export at premium prices to the 
EU.  

None identified 

83 

 
 
 
 
Citizens/Consumers  

Quantitative / Comment 

Businesses 

Quantitative / Comment 

Administrations 

Quantitative / Comment 

has led to benefits for the human and labour rights 
situation in areas where assistance projects have been 
implemented or where the EU side was able to take own 
actions. In other areas where improvements are noted – 
such as eradication of child labour, formalisation of 
work, or strengthening trade unions, actions were already 
taken prior to the Agreement’s start of application. 
Although dialogue with the EU under the Agreement is 
likely to have encouraged their continuation but it is 
difficult to attribute the positive developments to the 
Agreement. Quantification of these benefits is not 
possible. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT 

1. Introduction 

Stakeholder consultations have been an essential element of this evaluation of the impact 
of the trade  agreement between the European  Union  and its Member States, of the one 
part, and Colombia, Ecuador and Peru, of the other part. The consultations did not apply 
to  one single area of analysis but  fed into all parts of the evaluation  (economic, social, 
environmental,  human  rights,  and  sectoral  analyses,  as  well  as  horizontal  issues).  The 
consultation  process  served  to  engage  with  all  interested  parties,  contribute  to  the 
transparency of the evaluation, and identify priority areas and key issues. 

In order to have a balanced view from across society, stakeholders that participated in the 
consultations were selected taking into account: 

1.  Different roles and functions they perform, including government representatives and 
related  government  agencies,  businesses  and  business  associations  (exporters,  trade-
related services, etc.), trade unions, NGOs, academia, civil society, and think tanks; 

2.  Different thematic areas in which they have expertise: labour and social issues, human 
rights,  environmental  issues,  sectoral  (agriculture,  textiles,  machinery,  chemicals, 
etc.). 

2. Overview of overall stakeholder involvement 

This section describes the different consultation tools applied in the evaluation, as well as 
the  number  of  stakeholders/participants  per  consultations  tool  and  per  country  and 
potential challenges experienced during implementation of the consultation strategy. 

Open public consultation 

An online Open Public Consultation for the Evaluation of the FTA between the EU and 
its Member States and Colombia, Ecuador and Peru was open for an initial period of 12 
weeks,  but  extended  to  align  with  other  elements  of  the  consultation  process.  It  was 
launched  on  13 January  2021  and  open  until  06 May  2021.  The  questionnaire  was 
available in English, French, German and Spanish. It not only included a general survey 
on the implementation  and impact  of the  trade agreement, as well as specific questions 
regarding each of the impact dimensions (economic, social, human rights, environment). 
All  citizens,  organisations  and  public  authorities,  regardless  of  where  they  are  located, 
are welcome to participate in this survey. (Further, a separate survey for businesses with 
topic-specific questions was carried out, which allowed business stakeholders to answer 

85 

 
 
 
 
 
tailor-made  questions  more  relevant  to  them;  the  business  survey  was  additional  to  the 
OPC and not part of it). 

A total of 70 respondents participated in the online public consultation. About 60% of the 
respondents  were  from  the  three  partner  countries,  and  EU  respondents  came  from 
Belgium,  Spain  Portugal,  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  the  Czech  Republic,  France, 
Hungary, Italy, and Romania. 

By type of respondent, 30 responses (43%) represented business interests (comprised of 
companies and business associations), 13 (18%) civil society (NGOs, environmental and 
consumer organisations, and academia), seven (10%) respondents provided their views as 
individuals  (EU  and  non-EU  citizens),  another  seven  (10%)  were  from  public  sector 
entities, and 13 (19%) were from other stakeholders (including trade unions). 

Workshops 

The  consortium  organised  stakeholder  workshops  in  Colombia,  Peru,  and  Ecuador  in 
March  2021  (consultations  in  the  EU  were  held  as  part  of  DG  TRADE’s  civil  society 
dialogue  meetings  and  individual  interviews).  These  workshops  had  a  dual  purpose  of 
presenting and discussing the work conducted. They served to share preliminary results 
and to receive feedback on these, as well as to gather additional input for the evaluation. 
The  workshops,  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic  prevented  the  consortium  from 
organising  physical  meetings.  Instead,  online  Webex  meetings  were  organised;  each 
workshop was held for two half-days. 

In  each  of  the  workshops,  a  balanced  number  and  type  of  participants  was  targeted  to 
ensure a good representation of the different types of stakeholders. Furthermore, locally 
recognised  speakers  provided  more  information  of  the  local  context  (economy, 
competitiveness,  environment,  human  rights,  and  other  issues)  to  both  attract  attendees 
and to start the discussion during the workshop itself. Sufficient time was made available 
for  an  interactive  discussion  with  participants,  and  a  discussion  leader  ensured  that  the 
discussion  was  balanced,  and  different  views  were  heard.  The  table  below  provides  an 
overview of the workshops and the number of workshop participants in each country. 

Table 1 Overview of stakeholder workshops 

Country 

Colombia 

Ecuador 

Peru 

Workshop data 

02 & 05 March 2021 

11 & 12 March 2021 

17 & 18 March 2021 

86 

of 

workshop 

Number 
participants 
85 
participants) 
64 
participants) 
52 
participants) 

organisations 

organisations 

organisations 

(297 

(97 

(103 

 
 
 
In each case, organisations covered government and public sector entities; the respective 
EU Delegation, business associations as well as individual businesses, representatives of 
the  EU  business  community  in  the  country,  trade  unions,  academia,  civil  society 
organisations  working  on  a  diverse  range  of  issues  including  human  rights,  labour  and 
social  issues,  and  environmental  protection,  and  individual  citizens.  More  details  about 
the workshops, including the lists of participating organisations are available in separate 
workshop reports66. 

Interviews 

For more detailed discussions with stakeholders, the consortium also conducted personal 
interviews  with  about  150  stakeholders  (mostly  organisations,  and  some  individual 
interviewees). These interviews helped to obtain more detailed information on the impact 
of the trade chapters of the Agreement. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, most interviews 
were  held  virtually,  although  evaluation  team  members  based  int  eh  partner  countries 
could  hold  some  physical  meetings.  While  the  majority  of  interviews  were  conducted 
one-to-one,  on  some  occasions,  these  took  place  in  the  form  of  group  interviews.  The 
interviews  complemented  the  economic,  sectoral  and  sustainability  analyses.  The 
interviews  were  conducted  with  a  balanced  representation  of  the  different  types  of 
stakeholders,  including  representatives  of  trade  and  industry  associations,  companies 
including  SMEs,  civil  society  and  environmental  organisations,  government  academics 
and  other  (sector  and/or  local)  experts.  The  table  below  provides  an  overview  of  the 
number of interviews conducted in each country. 

Table 2 Overview of interviews in each country 

Country 
EU 
Colombia 
Ecuador 
Peru 

Number of organisations interviewed67 
2668 
40 
49 
36 

The interviews were spread over the following categories of organisations: public sector 
(29/19%),  business  associations 
trade  unions 
(44/29%),  businesses 
(7/5%)NGOs (30/20%), and researchers / academia (13/9%). 

(28/19%), 

66 Available from http://andean.fta-evaluation.eu/es/consultations-es/talleres. 
67 Often, several individuals from individual organisations participated in the interviews. 
68  Interviews  with  EU  interests  in  the  Partner  countries  (such  as  trade  counsellors  in  EU  Member  State 
embassies or bilateral chambers) are partly counted among the Partner countries. 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Several  challenges  were  experienced  when  organising  the  stakeholder  interviews.  In 
general, in all countries there was a lack of knowledge and awareness of the Agreement, 
including  among  EU  stakeholders.  This  made  the  targeted  stakeholders  hesitant  to 
participate.  While  actively  reaching  out  to  stakeholders  with  anticipated  knowledge  on 
social,  human  rights  and  environmental  impacts  of  the  trade  agreement,  the  awareness 
and interest of these stakeholders turned out to be particularly limited. Furthermore, the 
COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 did hamper a smooth interview process. 

Civil Society Dialogue 

The civil society dialogue meetings regularly held by DG TRADE provided an additional 
opportunity to receive further inputs from EU civil society on the preliminary findings. 
Three meetings were organised with the civil society dialogue, on 3 July 2020, 20 April 
2021  and  15 November  2021.  During  these  meetings,  the  representatives  of  the  civil 
society  monitored  the  progress  of  the  evaluation  and  provided  comments  to  ensure  the 
quality and objectivity of the reports. 

Unfortunately,  a  physical  meeting  in  Brussels  was  not  feasible  due  to  COVID-19 
restrictions, so it was organised virtually through Webex. 

Website, email and social media 

Different  consultation  tools  were  used  for  the  dissemination  of  information  and  for 
maximising  our  outreach.  These  include  an  email  account,  newsletters,  a  dedicated 
website as well as a Twitter account. Through these multiple channels, we reached out to 
the  more  than  1100  stakeholders  in  the  evaluation  team’s  database  (500  in  the  EU  and 
more than 200 in each of the three partner countries), kept them up to date and invited 
them to participate in the consultation activities. 

3. Summary of Stakeholder Contributions 

Across the various consultation channels and pillars, the contributions received from the 
different groups of stakeholders were fairly coherent. Overall, respondents in the Andean 
partner  countries  were  more  positive  about  the  effects  of  the  Agreement  than  EU 
respondents,  and  public  sector  and  business  representatives  were  more  positive  than 
NGOs and trade unions. Whereas the former tended to focus on the economic effects, as 
well  as  the  Agreement’s  role  (and  remaining  issues)  for  facilitating  trade,  the  latter 
focused  on  the  non-economic  aspects  related  to  the  Agreement  –  in  particular  issues 
covered  by  the  TSD  Title,  and  the  role  (and  associated  issues)  of  civil  society 
participation in the implementation and monitoring of the Agreement. 

3.1 Views on the Agreement’s effectiveness and efficiency 

Achievement of the Agreement’s operational objectives 

88 

 
 
 
In the OPC, stakeholders assessed the achievement of the Agreement’s operational trade 
objectives – liberalisation of tariffs, NTBs, trade in services, public procurement markets, 
investment barriers, and strengthening of IPR and GIs, and technical assistance – clearly 
positively. Dispute settlement under the Agreement was also viewed slightly positively, 
on  average.  There  is  little  difference  in  perceptions  between  EU  and  partner  country 
stakeholders  with  respect  to  the  trade  and  economic  objectives  (in  the  OPC,  EU 
respondents  were  slightly  more  positive  about  these,  on  average,  than  partner  country 
respondents),  with  one  exception:  EU  stakeholders  are  more  critical  than  their  peers  in 
the Andean countries regarding the protection of IPRs/GIs. EU business representatives 
also  mentioned  occasional  problems  in  relation  to  tax  treatment  in  the  Andean  partner 
countries,  registration  requirements  and  the  high  burden  of  administrative  paperwork, 
both  in  relation  to  trade  in  food  products,  and  public  procurement.  Andean  business 
stakeholders, in contrast, were mostly concerned about strict SPS requirements in the EU 
and about the threat that these will become even stricter in the future. 

However, the views expressed regarding the achievement of the Agreement’s objectives 
related  to  ensuring  inclusive  and  equitable  trade  between  the  Parties  (incl.  uptake  of 
CSR/RBC  and  promotion  of  fair  trade),  fostering  environmentally  sustainable  trade, 
promoting  labour  standards  and  decent  work,  avoidance  of  negative  impacts  on  the 
enjoyment  of  human  rights,  and  contributing  to  the  achievement  of  the  SDGs  were  on 
average  negative.  Views  on  these  topics  differ  substantially  across  stakeholder  groups, 
with  EU  stakeholders  markedly  more  critical  than  Andean  stakeholders.  Similarly, 
business  and  public  sector  respondents  see  a  neutral  or  a  modestly  positive  role  of  the 
Agreement with respect to the achievement of non-economic objectives – whereas civil 
society and individual respondents are clearly more dissatisfied with the Agreement. 

89 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  overall 
satisfaction  with 

level  of 
To  measure 
stakeholder 
the 
achievement  of  operational  objectives, 
in  the  OPC  an  index  was  constructed, 
(most 
from  +2 
ranging 
positive 
assessment) 
(most  negative 
-2 
to 
assessment)69.  This  indicates  that,  on 
average,  all  of  the  main  stakeholder 
groups  assess  the  Agreement  positively: 
index scores are all positive (zero would 
indicate a neutral view), with an average 
score  of  0.43  (Figure  3).  Business  and 
respondents  are  more 
public  sector 
positive  (0.55)  than  civil  society  and 
individuals (0.28), and respondents from 
Andean  countries  are  more  positive 
(0.56) than EU respondents (0.33). 

Figure  1:  Achievement  of  operational 
objectives as seen by stakeholders (overall 
score) 

0,60

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00

0,43

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r

l
l

A

0,55

0,56

0,33

0,28

s
s
e
n
i
s
u
b
&
r
o
t
c
e
s

c
i
l

b
u
P

s
t
s
e
r
e
t
n

i

&
s
l
a
u
d
v
d
n

i

i

i

,
y
t
e
i
c
o
s

l
i

i

v
C

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
r
U
E

r
e
h
t
o

m
o
r
f

s
t
n
e
d
n
o
p
s
e
R

s
e
i
r
t
n
u
o
c

r
e
n
t
r
a
p

n
a
e
d
n
A

Source:  Authors’  calculations  based  on 
responses to the OPC. 

Involvement on non-state actors in the implementation and monitoring of the Agreement 

On  average,  the  Agreement’s  role  in  establishing  a  framework  for  civil  society 
participation in implementation and monitoring is, on average, seen rather critically. At 
the  same  time,  the  differences  in  views  between  civil  society  and  trade  union 
representatives  on  the  one  hand,  and  public  sector  and  business  representatives  on  the 
other,  are  even  greater  than  the  differences  in  their  views  regarding  the  substantive 
performance of the Agreement. 

While  all  stakeholders  appreciate  the  existence  of  the  TSD  Title  and  the  institutions 
which it has established, and compare these favourably  with  other trade  agreements, in 
particular the civil society and trade union representatives consulted during the course of 
the  study  (including  those  represented  in  the  DAGs/domestic  consultative  bodies) 
consider that the extent to which views and contributions by non-state actors are taken up 
by the Parties is insufficient. 

69For 

details, 

see 

the 

summary 

report 

for 

the 

OPC, 

http://andean.fta-

evaluation.eu/images/reports/H_OPC_report.pdf. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
their  explanations,  most  stakeholders  mentioned  weaknesses 

the  current 
In 
composition of the DAGs as well as the reluctance of governments/the Parties to take on 
board or consider views of civil society actors. Most of the critical comments referred to 
the situation in the partner countries rather than the EU. 

in 

3.2 Views on the Agreement’s impact 

Economic impact 

Among  all  stakeholders  consulted,  a  clear  majority  considered  the  economic  impact  of 
the  Agreement  to  be  positive  for  all  four  Parties.  In  the  OPC,  the  overall  positive 
assessment  was  held  across  all  respondent  groups  (by  type  and  by  region),  but  views 
differed considerably across sub-groups of respondents. Thus, EU respondents tended to 
view  the  largest  economic  benefits  as  arising  in  the  Andean  partner  countries  and  vice 
versa. Business and public sector respondents saw the strongest positive impacts arising 
in  the  Andean  partner  countries,  but  took  the  view  that  there  are  also  considerable 
positive  effects  on  the  EU  economy.  On  the  other  hand,  civil  society,  trade  union  and 
individual  respondents  found  the  largest  benefits  arising  for  the  EU  economy  and  only 
smaller benefits for the Andean partner countries – but positive impacts nevertheless. 

Stakeholders generally considered the main positive impact to stem from increased trade 
between  the  Parties  as  the  basis  for  wider  economic  benefits.  However,  a  number  of 
stakeholders also noted that exports from the Andean countries have not  diversified (as 
much  as  expected),  that  certain  sectors  have  not  benefited,  and  that  benefits  have  not 
been distributed equitably. 

With respect to the economic effects of the Agreement in the EU, the overall view across 
stakeholders  is  positive.  Increased  exports  of  goods  to  the  Andean  partners  were 
mentioned as the most positive effect. Also, exports of new products, and exports by new 
exporters were mentioned as positive effects. In the OPC, EU services export increases 
were also mentioned as a benefit by many respondents, although this positive view was 
not  confirmed  in  the  interviews  held,  where  EU  business  stakeholders  unanimously 
stated that the Agreement had had no effect on services trade (nor on EU investment in 
the partner countries). In the OPC, the only negative effect noted by respondents overall 
was that SMEs have benefited less from the Agreement than larger firms; this perception 
was also present in the business survey. 

In the OPC, although broad agreement across different groups of respondents (by region 
and stakeholder type) was evident on most effects, regarding some effects views differed 
substantially. In particular: 

•  EU  respondents  were  sceptical  about  the  Agreement’s  effects  on  EU  firms’ 
production  costs  and  EU  public  revenues,  and  also  to  a  lesser  extent  about  the 

91 

 
 
 
Agreement’s  effect  on  enabling  access  to  new  technologies  and  the  facilitation  of 
bilateral value chains.  Andean respondents saw much more  positive effects in these 
areas. 

•  Business  and  public  sector  respondents  were  relatively  more  positive  than  other 
stakeholders about the access to technology which the Agreement has generated for 
EU  firms,  as  well  as  about  Andean  investment  in  the  EU  facilitated  by  the 
Agreement. Conversely, civil society and other respondents considered cheap access 
to  inputs  and  associated  reduction  in  production  costs  as  the  main  effect  of  the 
Agreement in the EU. 

Stakeholders  also  view  positively  the  Agreement’s  economic  effects  in  the  Andean 
partner countries, although slightly less so than effects in the EU. Among the strongest 
perceived positive effects are increases in Andean partner countries’ goods exports to the 
EU and a higher involvement of partner country firms in bilateral value chains. Increased 
EU  investment  in  the  partner  countries  was  also  noted  as  one  of  the  most  important 
benefits  in  the  OPC,  although,  as  mentioned  above,  in  interviews  EU  business 
representatives  denied  that  there  was  such  an  effect.  In  fact,  all  of  the  interviewed  EU 
investors  stated  that  the  Agreement  had  played  no  role  in  their  investment  decisions. 
Other, but slightly less important positive effects mentioned by stakeholders include an 
overall  strengthening  of  the  partner  country  economies,  increased  partner  country 
services exports to the EU, and a reduction in partner country firms’ production costs. 

As in the case of the EU, respondents to the OPC (and the business survey) considered 
that  Andean  country  SMEs  had  benefited  less  from  the  Agreement  than  larger  firms. 
However,  in  interviews,  Andean  country  stakeholders,  including  MSMEs,  considered 
that the MSMEs had benefited much from the Agreement, primarily because of the tariff 
liberalisation  and  technical  assistance  made  available.  Other  negative  economic  effects 
mentioned  by  some  stakeholders  were  increased  import  competition  in  certain  sectors 
and for certain groups (the dairy sector and smallholder farmers were mentioned), slower 
export  growth  and  a  worsening  of  trade  balances  since  the  start  of  application  of  the 
Agreement, as well as a return to  increased exports of primary products by the Andean 
countries.  In  the  EU,  negative  impacts  on  the  sugar  and  banana  sectors  of  the  EU’s 
outermost  regions  were  mentioned,  resulting  from  increased  exports  from  the  Andean 
partner countries to the EU. 

Compared  with  the  views  on  effects  in  the  EU,  different  groups  of  stakeholders  hold 
more  diverse  views  on  the  Agreement’s  economic  and  business  effects  in  the  partner 
countries. In particular: 

•  EU  respondents  were  more  positive  than  partner  country  stakeholders  about  the 
Agreement’s  effects  on  partner  country  firms’  access  to  better  technology,  partner 
country  investments  in  the  EU,  and  the  effect  on  the  Andean  economies  overall. 

92 

 
 
 
Conversely,  Andean  respondents  were  more  positive  about  the  Agreement’s  impact 
on  production  costs  for  Andean  firms  and  on  a  stronger  involvement  of  partner 
country firms in bilateral value chains. 

•  As  already  mentioned  above,  business  and  public  sector  respondents  were  more 
positive than other stakeholders regarding most economic effects of the Agreement. 
The largest differences in views between these and other stakeholders (civil society, 
trade unions and individual respondents) were  observed with respect to  government 
revenues, partner country services exports, and the impact on the economy overall. 

In  terms  of  sectoral  effects,  the  sector  mentioned  most  often  by  stakeholders  is 
agriculture  and  agroindustry  in  the  Andean  countries.  A  large  majority  of  stakeholders 
finds  positive  economic  impacts  for  this  sector  (but  mixed  social  and  environmental 
impacts;  see  below),  driven  by  the  increase  in  exports.  In  turn,  a  majority  of  OPC 
respondents  that  listed  this  sector  as  being  affected  in  the  EU  noted  a  negative  effect, 
mostly  due  to  ‘unfair  competition  generated  by  imports  from  Andean  countries.’ 
Especially the effects for banana and sugar producers in the EU’s outermost regions were 
mentioned, and this was true also of the views expressed by stakeholders in interviews. 
Two agricultural sub-sectors, dairy and processed potatoes, were also seen as negatively 
affected in the Andean countries (but not mentioned for the EU). In both cases this was 
attributed to subsidies provided by the EU, creating unfair competition with small scale 
producers in the Andean partner countries. 

Other  sectors  mentioned  several  times  as  having  benefited  from  the  Agreement  for  the 
Andean  countries  are  fishery/shrimps  and  aquaculture,  tourism,  and  the  automotive 
sector. This latter sector is also the only one, where net positive effects were mentioned 
in the OPC both for the EU and the Andean partner countries. 

In terms of the relative magnitude of the impact across the Parties, stakeholders agreed 
that these were greater in the Andean partner countries than in the EU. For example, in 
the OPC, respondents mentioned 17 sectors as affected (positively or negatively) by the 
Agreement, but only five in the EU. 

Social impact 

In the OPC, a majority of respondents also considered that the Agreement had exerted a 
positive influence on social development in each of the Parties. However, the majority is 
less  clear  than  for  the  economic  impact,  with  a  relatively  high  share  of  respondents 
finding no effect, especially in the EU. 

As in the case of economic effects, EU and especially civil society respondents are more 
critical regarding the effects in the Andean partner countries, whereas public sector and 
business  respondents  consider  that  the  Agreement’s  influence  in  the  EU  is  small.  All 

93 

 
 
 
stakeholder groups consider that the influence on social development issues in Ecuador 
was most positive. In the OPC, few respondents – mostly civil society representatives – 
provided  responses  to  more  detailed  questions  on  social  development  effects  of  the 
Agreement, and most of those who did considered that the Agreement had had no impact 
on most of the social indicators. 

In  interviews,  business  representatives  provided  little  information  on  the  Agreement’s 
overall social impacts. However, frequent references were made to the support triggered 
by  the  Agreement  for  enhancing  and  expanding  CSR  practices  and  more  sustainable 
production. The main channels  mentioned through which the Agreement  contributed to 
these were: first, EU consumer expectations and the corresponding strict requirements for 
and monitoring of production conditions in the Andean countries (notably for the major 
exporting  agricultural  sectors  benefiting  from  the  Agreement);  second,  the  work 
undertaken under the Agreement’s TSD Title; and third, technical and financial support 
and  projects  funded  or  implemented  by  the  EU  and  EU  Member  States  in  relation  to 
working conditions and labour rights. 

Conversely, trade union representatives and civil society organisations were more critical 
in the interviews, highlighting continued precarious employment conditions, especially in 
agricultural sectors under special labour regimes, violations of labour rights, and negative 
effects  of  EU  import  competition  on  smallholder  farmers  and  small  businesses  in  the 
Andean partner countries. On the positive side, they acknowledged the good intentions of 
the  TSD  Title,  as  well  as  appreciating  the  opportunity  provided  for  public-private 
dialogue on matters related to the Agreement both domestically (as part of the domestic 
consultation  mechanisms)  and  at  the  level  of  the  Parties  (at  the  annual  meetings). 
However, most were also disappointed about what they perceived to have been a lack of 
follow-up to recommendations and complaints made by non-state actors. 

Environmental impact 

A  majority  of  respondents  to  the  OPC  considered  that  the  Agreement  has  exerted  a 
positive  influence  on  environmental  issues  in  each  of  the  Parties.  However,  for  the 
Andean countries the majority was small, and respondents were clearly divided in their 
assessment, with relatively large numbers of responses finding either ‘strong’ positive or 
‘strong’ negative effects. For the EU, many stakeholders found no environmental impact. 

As  for  the  other  impact  areas,  EU  and  civil  society  respondents  were  more  critical 
regarding the Agreement’s environmental effects, especially those arising in the Andean 
partner  countries,  where  on  average  they  find  that  the  Agreement  has  had  negative 
environmental  effects.  Conversely,  Andean  respondents  were  clearly  positive  about  the 
effects in the Andean countries. 

94 

 
 
 
Some  stakeholders  were  concerned  about  the  negative  environmental  implications  of 
increases  in  output  (especially  in  agriculture  and  mining)70  and  transport  caused  by  the 
Agreement.  Specific  concerns  were  raised  regarding  the  impact  of  increased  shrimp 
production on mangroves, as well as the impact of increased agricultural production on 
deforestation. Attempts by the Andean governments to lower environmental standards in 
order to expand production and exports were also mentioned. 

On  the  positive  side,  the  effects  of  the  Agreement’s  TSD  Title  on  strengthening 
environmental  norms  and  commitments  were  pointed  out  by  a  number  of  stakeholders. 
Possibilities  for  the  Andean  partner  countries  to  benefit  from  EU  know-how  in  green 
technologies  and  renewable  energy,  and  the  facilitation  of  imports  of  environmental 
goods from the EU were also mentioned as environmental benefits of the Agreement. 

Human rights impact 

In the OPC, as  in  the case of environmental effects,  respondents  were divided over the 
influence  which  the  Agreement  has  had  on  human  rights,  especially  in  Colombia  and 
Peru,  where  almost  the  same  number  of  respondents  find  a  negative  influence  as  those 
who find a positive influence; for Ecuador and the EU, majorities saw positive effects. In 
interviews, stakeholders for the most part considered that the human rights impacts in the 
EU were negligible. 

Labour-related  rights  were  seen  as  being  the  rights  most  impacted  by  the  Agreement. 
Broader social rights, such as the right to an adequate standard of living and the rights of 
indigenous peoples and rural communities were also mentioned by some stakeholders, as 
were the limited powers which the Agreement provides to address human rights matters 
under the TSD Title. 

3.3 Views on the Agreement’s coherence with other EU policies 

OPC respondents’ views on the Agreement’s coherence with wider EU policy objectives 
were divided. A large majority considers that the Agreement is fully or at least somewhat 
aligned with the EU’s trade policy, but simple majorities of respondents considered that 
it is ‘not at all aligned’ with the EU’s commitment to attainment of the SDGs and to the 
promotion of decent work, nor with EU environmental policy objectives (Figure 2). EU 
respondents as well as civil society/trade unions/individuals were particularly critical of 
the Agreement’s alignment with wider EU policy objectives (Figure 3).  

70 It should be noted that the Agreement provides no tariff or other preferences for mining exports from 

the Andean partner countries. 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
Figure  2:  Distribution  of  views  on  the  Agreement’s  alignment  with  EU  policy 
objectives (nr and % of responses) 

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

i) Current EU trade policy

36

ii) EU’s commitment to SDGs

iii) EU's commitment to promote decent work

iv) EU environmental policies

20

21

22

11

7

9

16

26

28

27

7

7

8

10

9

Fully aligned

Somewhat aligned

Not at all aligned

I don’t know/ no opinion

Source: Authors’ calculations based on responses to the OPC. 

Figure 3: Views on Agreement’s alignment with EU policy objectives, by respondent 
type and region (index scores) 

0,67

1,00

0,50

0,00

-0,50

-1,00

-0,13

-0,14

-0,10

i) Current EU trade
policy

ii) EU’s commitment to 
SDGs

All

Business/public

iii) EU's commitment to
promote decent work
EU

Andean

CS/others

iv) EU environmental
policies

NB:  Index  values  range  from  -1  (all  respondents  noting  no  alignment  at  all)  to  +1  (all 
respondents  noting  full  alignment).  56  to  59  respondents  expressed  their  views  on  the 
different policy areas. 

Source: Authors’ calculations based on responses to the OPC. 

Stakeholders  (especially  NGOs)  noted,  both  in  the  OPC  and  in  interviews,  the  divide 
between the intentions in the Agreement to contribute to sustainable development and the 
implementation  practice  of  the  Agreement.  Many  called  for  a  strengthening  of  the 
institutions and procedures established under the TSD Title and/or the setting of clearer 
sustainable development targets in the context of the Agreement. 

3.4 Overall views on the Agreement and its need for improvement 

The  more  critical  comments  made  by  EU  stakeholders  are  reflected  in  their  overall 
findings of relatively fewer positive aspects of the Agreement. The liberalisation of trade 
and deepened commercial relations, enhanced transparency of the business environment, 

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
as  well  as  the  TSD  Title  are  mentioned  as  positive  aspects  of  the  Agreement.  Andean 
respondents  are  overall  more  positive  about  the  Agreement,  mentioning  in  particular 
increased export opportunities to the EU. 

the  Agreement 

identified  by  stakeholders, 

The  weaknesses  of 
including  OPC 
respondents,  refer  to  a  range  of  issues.  A  number  refer  to  a  deepening  of  inequalities 
caused by the Agreement between the EU and the Andean countries and between (large) 
companies  and  smallholder  farmers/workers,  as  well  as  a  lack  of  diversification  and 
sustainable  development  effects  in  the  Andean  partner  countries.  The  lack  of  effective 
implementation  of  the  TSD  Title  and  a  general  negligence  of  socially  inclusive  and 
environmentally  sustainable development  issues  are also  mentioned. Some stakeholders 
also mentioned the trade barriers that remain between the Parties, and negative effects in 
certain sectors (bananas), as negative aspects of the Agreement. 

that  parts  of 

Of 
that 
the  64  OPC  participants 
responded  to  a  question  on  the  need  for 
improvement  of  the  Agreement,  almost 
half  considered 
the 
revised,  and 
Agreement  should  be 
the 
another 
implementation  would  need  to  improve 
(Figure  6).  Only  5%  saw  no  need  for 
changes  in  either  the  implementation  or 
the text of the Agreement. 

stated 

third 

that 

Andean-based  respondents  as  well  as 
civil  society  respondents  in  particular 
saw  the  need  for  a  revision  of  the 
Agreement. In each case, more than half 
of these respondents called for a revision 
of  the  Agreement,  but  even  among  EU-
based 
sector 
respondents  about  a  third  considered 
such a revision to be needed. 

business/public 

and 

Figure  4:  Perceived  need  for  changes  in 
implementation and text of the Agreement 
(%; n=64) 

I don’t 
know; 8; 
12%

No; 3; 
5%

Implementation of 
the Agreement 
needs to improve; 
23; 36%

Parts of the 
Agreement should 
be revised; 30; 
47%

Source:  Authors’  calculations  based  on 
responses to the OPC. 

With respect to the type of changes suggested for an improved Agreement or improved 
implementation, most EU stakeholders referred to a strengthening of TSD issues. Others 
called for further efforts to  remove remaining  (esp. technical) barriers to trade between 
the  Parties  (mostly  business  representatives),  and  a  strengthening  of  institutional 
provisions including the involvement of civil society. These issues were also mentioned 
by  Andean  stakeholders,  but  a  higher  share  of  them  referred  to  improvements  in  the 

97 

 
 
 
 
economic  and  operational  aspects  for  traders,  such  as  removal  of  TBTs,  efforts  to 
enhance SME participation in trade, or investment. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI. TRADE IN GOODS 

Figure 1 shows the development of bilateral merchandise trade between the EU and the 
three partner countries over the evaluation period (2007 to 2019). For the interpretation 
of the trade data, it is important to keep in mind that the Andean partners were EU GSP+ 
beneficiaries  prior  to  the  Agreement’s  application,  and  that,  therefore,  a  considerable 
share of their exports already benefited from duty-free access to the EU market. 

Figure 1: EU28 bilateral trade with partner countries, 2007-2019 (€ million) 

a) Total bilateral trade 

b) Bilateral non-mineral fuels, non-ore trade (total less HS27 and HS26) 

Source: Calculations based on COMEXT database. 

c) EU28 bilateral services trade with partner countries, 2007-2019 (USD million) 

99 

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,00010,0002007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019Export to COLExport to ECUExport to PERImport from COLImport from ECUImport from PER01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0002007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019Export to COLExport to ECUExport to PERImport from COLImport from ECUImport from PER 
 
 
 
 
 
100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VII. EFFECTS ANTICIPATED IN THE SIA V EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EX POST 
EVALUATION 

2009 SIA findings 

Ex post evaluation findings 

Evaluation findings 
compared to SIA findings 

Impacts in the EU 

Overall: no significant impacts 

Overall: no significant impacts  Same finding 

‘No change in EU GDP and the 
impact on EU trade flows is 
negligible’ 

In relative terms, marginal 
(positive) changes in EU GDP 
and EU trade flows 

Same finding 

EU investment in partner countries: 
‘European firms may also benefit from 
improved opportunities in some parts 
of the services sector but these positive 
impacts are not expected to be 
significant’ 

Negligible impact on EU 
investment in partner countries, 
including in services sector 

No impact found compared to 
(marginal) positive impact in 
SIA 

Economic impacts in the Andean partner countries 

Agriculture and agricultural processed 
goods sector: only horticulture 
(edible fruits, nuts and vegetables) is 
expected to increase production across 
all Andean countries 

Increase in output in all 3 partner 
countries for horticulture 
(vegetables, fruits, nuts) and other 
food products (incl. processed 
food) 

More positive impact found: 
benefits for Andean countries 
in more agricultural sub-
sectors. 

Forestry and fisheries: mixed results 
with both increases and decreases in 
output according to individual 
countries 

Forestry: marginal impacts in all 
3 partner countries; fishery: 
(small) positive impacts in 
Ecuador and Peru, no impact in 
Colombia 

More positive impact found: 
no decrease in forestry and 
fishery production in any 
partner country 

Primary mining is estimated to 
increase production 

Marginal changes in mining 
activity – positive and negative 

Output of light industrial goods 
(textiles, clothing, and leather goods) 
will generally increase 

Mixed effects across sub-sectors 
and countries: mostly small gains 
in Colombia; decreases in 
Ecuador; mixed effects in Peru 

No impact on mining found - 
no preferences under 
Agreement 

More nuanced impacts, 
ranging from decreases in 
output for certain sub-sectors 
and countries to increases in 
other sectors and countries 

Output of heavy-industrial goods will 
increase on average 

Mostly small decreases 

Less positive impact than 
expected in SIA 

101 

 
 
 
 
2009 SIA findings 

Ex post evaluation findings 

Decreases in the output of the 
financial, insurance, business and 
recreation services 

Small but mixed effects 

Output in the utilities, construction, 
distribution and communication 
sub-sectors are predicted to increase 

Small but mixed effects 

Investment agreement is expected to 
have a positive impact on inbound 
capital flow and employment 

Investment provisions in the 
Agreement have not impacted 
investment levels 

Evaluation findings 
compared to SIA findings 

More nuanced impacts, 
ranging from decreases in 
output for certain sub-sectors 
and countries to increases in 
other sectors and countries 

More nuanced impacts, 
ranging from decreases in 
output for certain sub-sectors 
and countries to increases in 
other sectors and countries 

No notable positive impact 
found 

Potential benefits of government 
procurement are positive 

Hardly and changes in 
government procurement 

No notable positive impact 
found 

Social and environmental impacts in the Andean partner countries 

Overall: significant environmental 
and social challenges 

Overall very limited impact, 
with some positive and some 
negative effects 

Rather than significant 
negative impact, small and 
mixed impacts are found 

SIA expectation confirmed, 
but different explanation. 

Potential for positive impacts of 
banana sector expansion (Colombia, 
Ecuador) and other agricultural 
commodities in Peru and Bolivia on 
household incomes and poverty 
reduction depends on local re-
investment of large foreign companies 

Increased employment in the 
banana and other agricultural sub-
sectors has not always gone hand-
in hand with improved working 
conditions. The Agreement’s 
influence on working conditions 
and incomes of workers and small 
producers (through the TSD Title) 
is likely to have been rather 
limited. Re-investments do not 
seem to have been relevant. 

No impact, because the 
Agreement has not impacted 
output of mining 

Absence of the expected 
significant negative social and 
environmental impact. 

In the large-scale formal mining 
sector, the restrictions on workers’ 
rights will restrain any significant 
increase in real wages or improvement 
in working conditions. Additional 
negative social impacts of further 
expansion of mining and hydrocarbons 
in rural territories of the four Andean 
countries might arise from the local 
and national conflicts that have 
emerged in the last five years. The 

102 

 
 
 
2009 SIA findings 

Ex post evaluation findings 

Evaluation findings 
compared to SIA findings 

mining sector is a key source of water 
pollution (acid water with high metal 
content) which gives rise to health 
problems for local communities. 

Key sources of pollution are 
discharges from mining activities, 
industrial and agricultural processing 
and agricultural runoffs. 

Increased market access for processed 
timber products can be expected to add 
to existing deforestation trends. 
Illegal logging is a significant 
contributor to this problem. 

Expansion of production and trade in 
agricultural and agricultural processed 
products that results will have 
potentially adverse biodiversity 
impacts. In particular, any additional 
pressure on the rate of deforestation 
represents an immediate threat to 
biodiversity. Similarly, the conversion 
of pristine habitats and natural 
resources to agricultural production 
and mining would also have 
significant negative implications for 
biodiversity 

Loss of biodiversity and environmental 
deterioration will potentially cause 
adverse impacts for vulnerable 
groups whose livelihoods and food 
security depend on traditional 
agricultural production, especially 
indigenous people 

Changes within the industrial sector, 
with some industries expected to 
increase production and others to 
experience a decline, will give rise to 
short to medium term adjustment 
costs, including unemployment and 

Lower negative impacts than 
anticipated. 

Overall small effects. Small 
negative impact in Colombia on 
water and air quality; marginal 
effects in Ecuador and Peru. 
Localised/regional negative 
effects e.g. from avocado output 
increase. 

No impact, because the 
Agreement has not impacted 
output of forestry sector. 

Absence of the expected 
significant negative 
environmental impact. 

Lower negative impacts than 
anticipated 

Small impact on permanent 
deforestation in Colombia 
resulting from the expansion of 
commercial agriculture. It is 
unlikely that this deforestation 
occurred in the most (biodiverse) 
intact areas in Colombia. For 
Ecuador and Peru, there is no 
evidence that deforestation driven 
by agriculture is linked to the 
Agreement. 

Problems are mostly related to 
mining; no impact of the 
Agreement found 

Lower negative impacts than 
anticipated 

Sectoral employment shifts in 
Colombia and Peru are limited; 
employment contraction in 
Ecuador up to 4.3% in the 
automotive sector, with gains of 

More limited trade adjustment 
effects than anticipated in 
Colombia and Peru; effect as 
expected in Ecuador 

103 

 
 
 
2009 SIA findings 

Ex post evaluation findings 

Evaluation findings 
compared to SIA findings 

decline in household incomes. 

up to 3.9% in food processing. 

Improvements in pollution control 
due to improved access to 
environmental goods and services 

No impact from liberalisation 
found; limited positive impact 
from TSD Title implementation. 

Lower positive impact than 
anticipated 

Decline in indirect tax revenues and an 
overall fall in total government 
revenue. This could lead to a fall in 
social expenditure, for example on 
education and health, with negative 
consequences for vulnerable 
households and poverty groups 

No impact in Ecuador and Peru, 
and decrease in government 
revenue in Colombia of about 
1.2%. This may have limited the 
availability of funds for social 
expenditure, depending on the 
prioritisation made by the 
government 

No negative impact as 
anticipated in Ecuador and 
Peru. Impact in Colombia 
largely as anticipated. 

Liberalisation of infrastructural 
services is expected to improve the 
quality of services supplied, but 
improvements in access and 
affordability of basic services for the 
poor will depend on effective 
regulation. 

No impact as no liberalisation of 
infrastructural services has taken 
place. 

No actual impact compared to 
the anticipated mixed impact. 

Source: Development Solutions, CEPR, and University of Manchester (2009); consultant 
team reports. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VIII. UTILISATION TRQS 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IX. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

Table  1:  Estimated  changes  in  GHG  emissions  caused  by  tariff  cuts  under  the 
Agreement, 2020 (in Mtonne CO2-eq.) 

Country/region  Gross GHG emissions  Agricultural LULUCF emissions  Other LULUCF emissions 

Colombia 

0.03 

Ecuador 

-0.00 

Peru 

EU28 

RoW 

World 

0.05 

0.35 

-1.17 

-0.74 

0.41 

-0.04 

-0.05 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Unknown 

Source: Trinomics, based on EDGAR, GTAP, PRIMAP and IVM 

These findings can be explained are as follows. 

•  First, the Agreement’s tariff reduction-induced output changes are estimated to have 
resulted  in  higher  gross  GHG  emissions  in  Colombia  (+0.03  Mtonne  CO2-eq.  in  2020) 
and Peru (+0.05) as well as in the EU (+0.35), but in lower gross GHG emissions in the 
rest  of the world  (-1.17), with  a net  result of an  estimated overall marginal  decrease in 
gross GHG emissions globally (-0.74). The increase in the Andean countries and in the 
EU  is  predominately  driven  by  the  impact  of  tariff  reduction  on  production  in  the 
petroleum and chemical, utilities, and transport sectors. The decrease in the Rest of the 
World (RoW) is driven by decreases in output in the petroleum and chemical and utilities 
sectors. The increase in GHG emissions in the Parties to the agreement is lower than the 
reduction  in  GHG  emissions  in  the  RoW  because  of  differences  in  emission  intensities 
(GHG  emissions  per  unit  of  product)  in  the  EU  and  the  RoW.  For  example,  an  item 
produced in the EU may be produced with lower GHG emissions than the same item in a 
different  country.  If production shifts to  the EU from  that country, net  GHG emissions 
reduce. 

•  Roughly a third of GHG emissions in the Andean countries are LULUCF emissions, 
which  are  excluded  from  statistics  on  gross  GHG  emissions.  With  respect  to  LULUCF 
emissions,  it  is  estimated  that  the  changes  in  agricultural  sector  outputs  caused  by  the 
Agreement’s tariff reductions increased LULUCF emissions in Colombia (+0.41 Mtonne 
CO2-eq. in 2020), and reduced LULUCF emissions in Ecuador (-0.04) and Peru (-0.05). 
The impact of the Agreement’s tariff reductions in other countries and the impact of tariff 

107 

 
 
 
reductions  on  LULUCF  emissions  in  other  sectors  have  not  been  evaluated;  the  CGE 
modelling results suggest, however, that these impacts are marginal. 

•  With respect to governance and standards related to climate change, all Parties made 
significant  progress  since  the  start  of  application  of  the  Agreement  by  signing  and 
ratifying the Paris Agreement. National policies have also been designed to transpose the 
Paris Agreement commitments into concrete policies. It is not yet clear whether the EU-
Andean  trade  agreement  influenced  these  developments  (although  the  TSD  Title  did 
create  a  platform  through  which  the  importance  of  ratification  was  voiced  by 
stakeholders). 

108 

 
 
 
ANNEX  X.  CHANGES  IN  GDP  (AT  INITIAL  MARKET  PRICES)  IN  EU  AND  PARTNER 
COUNTRIES CAUSED BY THE AGREEMENT (YEAR 2020) 

The global economic effect of the Agreement is positive, estimated at USD 728 million 
(comparing world GDP in 2020 with the Agreement with world GDP in 2020 without the 
Agreement). 

All  of  the  four  parties  to  the  agreement  benefit  from  an  increase  in  their  GDP  (Figure 
below).  In  absolute  terms,  EU  GDP  (measured  at  initial  market  prices)  is  higher  by 
USD 1.3 billion than it would have been without the Agreement. Gains for Colombia and 
Peru are USD 42 million and USD 49 million respectively; and Ecuador’s GDP is higher 
by USD 128 million. In percentage terms, the impact is strongest for Ecuador, with GDP 
being 0.16% in 2020 as a result of the Agreement, whereas Colombia, Peru and the EU 
register marginal GDP gains (at 0.01% and 0.03%). 

109 

 
 
 
ANNEX XI. COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS OF THE EX ANTE MODELLING 
(2009) AND THOSE OF THE EX POST EVALUATION (202X) 

The  economic  modelling  for  the  SIA  was  built  on  two  different  scenarios.  The  first 
scenario  involved  ‘modest’  liberalisation71,  and  the  second  scenario  was  labelled 
‘ambitious’72.  The  baseline  scenario  for  each  of  these  modelled  liberalisation  scenarios 
assumed both: a successful outcome of the Doha Round (i.e. multilateral negotiations at 
the  WTO);  and  continued  enjoyment  by  the  Andean  countries  of  the  benefits  they 
derived from the EU’s General System of Preferences (in particular, the special incentive 
arrangement for sustainable development and good governance, known as GSP+) in the 
case that no free trade agreement with the EU could be concluded. 

A)  Economic impact 

In the SIA, the overall impact on GDP of an EU-Andean trade agreement was estimated 
to be positive. 

Trade flows were expected to expand, the effect would be marginal in the EU but more 
significant for the Andean countries73. It was also thought that some small trade diversion 
effects might be felt vis-à-vis the US and Mercosur. 

A  sector  specific  analysis  also  showed  that  the  impact  in  terms  of  output  for  the 
agricultural  sector  would  be  minimal  in  the  EU,  potentially  limited  in  Ecuador,  and 
generally positive in Colombia, and Peru. The biggest impacts for Andean sectoral output 
would  be  felt  in  the  fruits  sector,  with  banana  production  being  the  most  important 
element explaining the expected increase in output. 

In industrial sectors, the effects for the EU were not expected to be significant. In Andean 
countries,  the  industrial  sectors  most  likely  to  benefit  from  a  trade  agreement  included 
mining,  textile,  wearing  apparels,  leather  products,  wood  products,  machinery  and 
equipment  and  metal  production.  Output  of  both  heavy  and  light  industrial  goods  was 
expected to increase in all Andean countries as a result of liberalisation. 

In the services sector, although modelling techniques faced considerable challenges, the 
SIA concluded that European firms should benefit from improved opportunities in some 
parts of the services sector. On the other hand, further liberalisation via an EU-Andean 
trade  agreement  was  expected  to  bring  economic  benefits  in  all  Andean  countries  for 
many services sectors, especially to utilities, distribution, communication, public services 
and construction; while sectors which might face a decrease in output included insurance, 
financial services, and business and recreational services. 

71 The ‘modest’ liberalisation modelling scenario assumed a 90% reduction of tariffs, 50% reduction in the 
estimated  cost  of  barriers  to  trade  in  services,  and  cost  reductions  equal  to  1% of  the  value  of  trade 
achieved via trade facilitation measure. 

72 The ‘ambitious’ liberalisation modelling scenario assumed a 97% reduction of tariffs, 75% reduction in 
the  estimated  cost  of  barriers  to  trade  in  services,  and  cost  reductions  of  3%  of  the  value  of  trade 
arising from trade facilitation measures. 

73 By 9.9% (Colombia), 7.9% (Ecuador) and 7.2% (Peru). 

110 

 
 
 
In  addition,  over  the  long  term,  services  liberalisation  was  also  expected  to  deliver 
significant efficiency and welfare gains by reducing costs of key services (e.g. financial, 
energy,  telecommunications)  for  local  businesses,  increasing  their  availability,  and 
generating  sustainable  development  and  poverty  reduction  effects  given  the  overall 
impact of cost reductions for consumers. 

B)  Social impact 

The SIA concluded that effects on average national wages were expected to be minor. In 
the  EU,  the  effect  on  average  wages  of  an  EU-Andean  trade  agreement  would  be 
negligible. 

The effect of a trade agreement on the level of employment was expected to be positive 
in  all  scenarios  but  in  the  case  of  the  EU,  the  impact  on  the  level  of  employment  was 
expected to be negligible. 

The SIA also mentioned the possibility that, in the large-scale mining sector, restrictions 
on  workers’  rights  could  limit  increases  in  real  wages  and  hamper  substantial 
improvements  in  working  conditions.  The  SIA  report  also  mentioned  that  trade 
liberalisation  is  often  associated  with  a  decline  in  government  revenues  derived  from 
import duties, and that an overall fall in government revenues in Andean countries might 
occur in the short run if additional revenues were not obtained from other sources. This 
could translate into a fall in social expenditure. 

C)  Impact on the environment 

The SIA report reached four main conclusions with respect to the possible environmental 
impacts of an EU-Andean trade agreement: 

First as regard climate change, any increase in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from 
the trade agreement was not expected to be significant against the background of global 
emissions. Secondly, at a sectoral level, the SIA pointed out that the predicted growth in 
the agriculture sector in Andean countries could add pressure on both land and water 
resources. A third point mentioned by the study was the risk of increased environmental 
pollution  as  a  consequence  of  an  increase  of  mining  activities,  large-scale  agricultural 
production, or unregulated expansion of some sectors such as textiles, chemicals, rubber 
and plastics. Finally, the study suggested that the trade agreement might have impacts in 
terms of deforestation and reduced biodiversity, as a result of the predicted expansion 
of agriculture and timber industries. 

D)  Implementation and monitoring 

Finally the SIA mentioned the institutional framework created by the agreement in order 
to monitor the effective implementation of the commitments made by the Parties, and to 
provide for regular consultation with civil society. The study held that monitoring should 
rely  on  the  ground  work  of  the  EU  Delegations  in  the  region,  on  the  basis  of  their 
contacts  with  business,  social  and  environmental  stakeholders.  Regular  meetings  of  the 
institutions created by the agreement should include opportunities for direct engagement 
with civil society organisations. 

111 

 
 
To assess the effects and impacts of the agreement, three comparators have been used in 
the evaluation. First, a time series analysis compares the situation in the years before 
the agreement started to be applied (2008-2013 for Colombia and Peru, and 2012-
2016  for  Ecuador)  with  the  period  in  which  the  Agreement  has  been  applied 
provisionally  (2014  onwards  for  Colombia  and  Peru,  and  2017  onwards  for  Ecuador). 
This  trend  analysis  might  not  fully  capture  the  Agreement’s  effects,  for  at  least  two 
reasons: 

• 

• 

It  might  not  fully  capture  developments  (other  than  the  agreement)  which  have 
impacted  on  the  trade  and  development  of  the  Parties,  such  as  other  trade 
agreements that entered into force, or the Peace Agreement in Colombia. 
It  has  not  estimated  the  fact  that  the  situation  before  the  agreement  (when 
Colombia,  Peru  and  Ecuador  exported  to  the  EU  under  GSP+)  would  not  have 
continued. Colombia, Peru and Ecuador would have become ineligible for GSP+ 
due to reaching upper middle-income status. They would therefore have lost their 
preferential access to the EU market, and accordingly the pattern of their bilateral 
trade with the EU would have also changed substantially in the absence of a trade 
agreement. 

Because  of  these  shortcomings,  the  before-after  comparison  is  used  only  as  a  contextual 
analysis. 

Second, the main point of comparison for the evaluation is the situation that would prevail 
(in  and  up  to  2019)  in  the  absence  of  the  Agreement,  i.e.  where  bilateral  trade  in  both 
directions would take place under MFN. The evaluation  also  compares the performance of 
the institutional mechanism of the Agreement with a situation where the Agreement would 
not be in place and 

Third, the evaluation compares the findings of the analysis through this comparison with the 
effects  of  the  Agreement  that  had  been  anticipated  in  an  ex ante  sustainability  impact 
assessment (SIA) undertaken in  2009, i.e. at  an early stage of the negotiations74.  This  third 
point  of  comparison  also  has  some  limitations  as  the  basis  for  the  SIA  was  an  Agreement 
between the EU with all Members of the Andean Community and was therefore mostly used 
to identify any unintended or unforeseen effects of the Agreement. 

74 Development Solutions, CEPR, and University of Manchester. 2009. ‘EU-Andean Trade Sustainability 
Impact  Assessment.  Final  Report’,  https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/april/tradoc_146014.pdf; 
and 
2010, 
paper 
https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/november/tradoc_146987.pdf. 

Commission’s 

corresponding 

November 

position 

the 

of 

112