COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EVALUATION of the impact of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States and Canada
Date: 2025-11-10
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: Canada, application of EU law, economic agreement, economic cooperation, trade agreement, trade agreement (EU), trade cooperation

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 10.11.2025  SWD(2025) 363 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of the impact of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and its Member States and Canada {SWD(2025) 364 final}  
 
 
CONTENTS 

3 

4 

Impact  30 

1 
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 5 
2  What was the expected outcome of the intervention? ........................................................ 8 
2.1  Description of the intervention and its objectives ..................................................... 8 
2.1.1  The negotiation, ratification and provisional application of the Agreement ....................... 8 
2.1.2  Objectives, structure and content of the Agreement ..................................................... 9 
2.1.3 
Institutional framework of the Agreement ................................................................. 10 
2.1.4  Economic, social and political context during Agreement negotiations ........................... 11 
2.1.5  Economic and political context since the Agreement’s provisional application ................. 11 
2.2 
Points of comparison .......................................................................................... 12 
How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? ............................................... 15 
Total bilateral trade............................................................................................ 15 
3.1 
Trade in goods .................................................................................................. 15 
3.2 
3.3 
Trade in services and investment ......................................................................... 16 
3.4  Digital trade ...................................................................................................... 16 
Evaluation findings (analytical part) .............................................................................. 18 
To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ....................................... 18 
4.1 
4.1.1  Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 18 
4.1.2 
4.1.3  Efficiency .............................................................................................................. 43 
4.1.4  Coherence ............................................................................................................. 45 
4.2  How did the EU’s intervention make a difference and to whom? ............................... 47 
Is the intervention still relevant? ......................................................................... 47 
4.3 
4.3.1  Relevance ............................................................................................................. 47 
5  What are the conclusions and lessons learned? ............................................................... 48 
Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 48 
5.1.1  Effectiveness ......................................................................................................... 48 
5.1.2 
5.1.3  Efficiency .............................................................................................................. 49 
5.1.4  Coherence ............................................................................................................. 50 
5.1.5  Relevance ............................................................................................................. 50 
Lessons learned ................................................................................................. 50 
ANNEX I PROCEDURAL INFORMATION .................................................................................. 52 
I.1 Lead Directorate-General, Decide project planning/CWP references .............................. 52 
I.2 Organisation and timing .......................................................................................... 52 
I.3 Evidence, sources, and quality ................................................................................. 52 
ANNEX II METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED..................................................... 53 
II.1 Evaluation criteria and intervention hypothesis ......................................................... 53 
II.2 Key methodological part – overall approach ............................................................. 55 
II.3 Analysis of economic, social, environmental, and human rights effects ........................ 55 
II.4 Case studies ......................................................................................................... 56 
II.5 Computable general equilibrium and gravity modelling approaches ............................. 57 
II.6 Evaluation limitations ............................................................................................ 61 

Impact  49 

5.1 

5.2 

ANNEX III EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) .................................................................... 62 
ANNEX IV STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................................ 68 
IV.1 Consultation strategy ........................................................................................... 68 
IV.2 Summary of consultation activities ......................................................................... 69 
IV.3 Summary of communication activities ..................................................................... 76 

i 

 
 
 
IV.4 Summary of key results of stakeholder consultations ................................................ 78 
ANNEX V REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 87 
ANNEX VI LEGISLATION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS .............................................................. 89 

ii 

 
 
 
 
OVERVIEW OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Negotiating the timeline of the Agreement ................................................................ 8 
Figure 2. Ratification timeline of the Agreement ...................................................................... 9 
Figure 3. The Agreement committee and dialogue structure ..................................................... 11 
Figure 4. Increase in total bilateral EU–Canada trade (2012–2023, billion EUR) .......................... 15 
Figure 5. EU tariffs on imports – Canada versus most-favoured nations (2016 and 2023, in 

percentage) ............................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 6. Canadian tariffs on imports – EU versus most-favoured nations (2016 and 2023, in 

percentage) ............................................................................................................... 22 

Figure 7. Changes in goods trade between the pre-Agreement and post-Agreement periods 

(2017=100) ............................................................................................................... 31 
Figure 8. Change in the number of products traded between the EU and Canada (2016, 2023) .... 32 
Figure 9. EU–Canada bilateral services trade (2012–2023, in million EUR) ................................. 33 
Figure 10. Sectoral distribution of EU–Canada commercial services trade (in percentage) ............ 34 
Figure 11. EU business economy by firm size in 2022 (in percentage of size class) ..................... 36 
Figure 12. Canadian business economy by firm size in 2022 (in percentage of size class) ............ 36 
Figure 13. Number of Canadian exporters to Member States (2012–2016 and 2017–2023) ......... 37 
Figure 14. Relative share of small and medium-sized enterprises and sector effects of the 

Agreement ................................................................................................................. 38 
Figure 15. Evolution of EU imports of cobalt (2015–2023) ....................................................... 39 
Figure 16. Herfindahl–Hirschman index for EU and Canada (total imports, 2012–2023) ............... 41 
Figure 17. Intervention hypothesis of the Agreement .............................................................. 54 
Figure 18. Polling responses for all online workshops combined ................................................ 78 
Figure 19. Polling responses for all online workshops separately ............................................... 80 
Figure 20. How have the effects of the Agreement worked out overall? ..................................... 82 
Figure 21. Views of small and medium-sized enterprises on the quality of information on the 

websites (in percentage) .............................................................................................. 85 

Figure 22. Views of small and medium-sized enterprises on the navigability of the site (in 

percentage) ............................................................................................................... 86 

OVERVIEW OF TABLES 

Table 1. Chapters of the Agreement and their content ............................................................ 10 
Table 2. Evaluation questions for the study ............................................................................ 18 
Table 3. Canadian inward foreign direct investment stocks in perspective (in billion EUR) ............ 35 
Table 4. Summary of the Agreement’s impact on supply chain diversification and resilience ........ 39 
Table 5: Economic sectors as defined in the model ................................................................. 57 
Table 6: Regions as defined in the model .............................................................................. 58 
Table 7: Analytical framework for the evaluation of the Agreement’s implementation .................. 63 
Table 8. Overview of the online seminars .............................................................................. 73 
Table 9. Participants in the online seminar split by Member State and Canada ........................... 73 

iii 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

CAB 
CETA 

CGE 
CO2 
CRM 
DAG 
DG 
EQ 
EU 
FDI 
FTA 
GDP 
GHG 
GI 
GMP 
HHI 
ILO 

IP 
LDC 
MFN 
MRA 
MRT 
NGO 
NTM 

conformity-assessment body 
Comprehensive Economic and 
Trade Agreement 
computable general equilibrium 
carbon dioxide 
critical raw materials 
domestic advisory group 
Directorate-General 
evaluation question 
European Union 
foreign direct investment 
free trade agreement 
gross domestic product 
greenhouse gas 
geographical indication 
good manufacturing practices 
Herfindahl-Hirschman index 
International Labour 
Organization 
intellectual property 
least-developed country 
most-favoured nation 
Mutual Recognition Agreement 
multilateral resistance term 
non-governmental organisation 
non-tariff measure 

OECD 

PUR 
SDG 
SIA 

SME 

SPS 
SSBC 
TBT 
TRQ 
TSD 

UK 
UN 
UNCTAD 

US 
WTO 

Organisation for Economic 
Cooperation and Development 

preference utilisation rate 
Sustainable Development Goal 
sustainability impact 
assessment 
small and medium-sized 
enterprise 
sanitary and phytosanitary 
small solid biomass combustors 
technical barriers to trade 
tariff rate quota 
trade and sustainable 
development 
United Kingdom 
United Nations 
United Nations Conference on 
Trade and Development 
United States 
World Trade Organization 

iv 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1  Introduction 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

This  ex-post  evaluation  analyses  the  economic,  social,  environmental  and  human  rights 
(including labour rights) (1) impact of the implementation of the Comprehensive Economic 
and  Trade  Agreement  between  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  and  Canada  (hereafter 
referred to as ‘CETA’ or ‘the Agreement’). It also seeks to determine whether there are any 
areas that could benefit from further implementation efforts to ensure that the Parties take 
full advantage of the opportunities offered by the Agreement. 

CETA is provisionally (and partially) applied since 21 September 2017. Ratification by EU 
Member States has been ongoing since then. CETA represents a new generation of Free 
Trade Agreements (FTAs), characterised by its comprehensive and ambitious nature. 

The  period  reviewed  by  this  evaluation  examines  the  implementation  period  of  the 
Agreement  since  its  beginning  in  2017  up  to  2023.  The  evaluation  also  includes  pre-
implementation  data  from  2012  to  2016  to  compare  the  situation  before  and  after  the 
entry  into  provisional  application  of  the  Agreement.  Geographically,  the  evaluation 
primarily  covers  the  Parties  to  the  Agreement,  the  EU,  its  Member  States  and  Canada, 
although some effects of CETA on selected third countries are also analysed (e.g. Türkiye 
and  least-developed  countries  (LDCs)).  Some  global  effects  (e.g.  climate  change)  are 
likewise considered. 

To  support  the  evaluation  of  the  Agreement,  the  Directorate-General  for  Trade  and 
Economic  Security  (DG  Trade  and  Economic  Security)  awarded  a  contract  in  2023  to 
conduct an independent study (hereinafter ‘the evaluation study’) to a consortium led by 
Trade  Impact  BV,  with  the  Institute  for  European  Environmental  Policy  and  Cambridge 
Econometrics as partners. The study was undertaken during the period of January 2024 to 
May 2025. 

The  ex-post  evaluation  is part of the EU’s policy to improve  future policy-making cycles 
according to the EU’s ‘better regulation’ policy. It is not linked to  a legal obligation or a 
future reopening of the Agreement. 

Scope of the evaluation 

The  evaluation  focuses  on  the  extent  to  which  the  objectives  of  the  Agreement  were 
achieved,  as  measured  against  the  five  criteria  listed  in  the  EU’s  ‘better  regulation’ 
guidelines and toolbox: effectiveness, impact, efficiency, coherence and relevance. 

The  independent  study  supporting  this  evaluation  examined  a  number  of  evaluation 
questions (EQs) related to these criteria: 

Effectiveness 

•  EQ1: To what extent have the objectives of CETA been achieved? 

•  EQ2: What are the factors influencing (either positively or negatively) the achievement 

of CETA’s objectives? 

•  EQ3:  Has  the  implementation  of  CETA  had  unintended  (positive  or  negative) 

consequences, and, if so, what are they? 

Impact 

•  EQ4: What has been the impact of CETA’s implementation? 

(1)  Whenever the staff working document refers to human rights, this includes labour rights. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Efficiency 

•  EQ5: To  what extent has the implementation  of CETA been efficient with respect to 

achieving its objectives? 

•  EQ6:  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  associated  with  the  implementation  of  CETA 
proportionate to the benefits it has generated? Is the distribution  of both costs and 
benefits proportionate among different stakeholder groups and interests? 

•  EQ7: Are there unnecessary regulatory costs (including administrative burden)? What 

is the potential for simplification? 

Coherence 

•  EQ8:  To  what  extent  has  the  implementation  of  CETA  been  coherent  with  the  EU’s 
trade policies, and in particular with the EU’s commitment to sustainable development 
in trade policies as a contribution towards attainment of the United Nations Sustainable 
Development Goals? 

Relevance 

•  EQ9:  To  what  extent  do  the  provisions  of  CETA  continue  to  be  relevant  in  order  to 

address the current trade needs of the EU and Canada? 

Methodological approach 

The methodological approach of the evaluation study was to determine the effects of 
the  Agreement  by  comparing  the  current  situation,  where  the  Agreement  between  the 
Parties has been in effect since 2017, with a hypothetical counterfactual scenario in which 
the Agreement is assumed not to exist. 

Economic  modelling  (through  a  computable  general  equilibrium  model (2))  and  gravity 
analyses)  has  been  a  key  source  of  evidence  for  assessing  the  quantitative  trade  and 
economic effects of the Agreement. 

These simulations were based on official trade and economic statistics used to develop the 
GTAP model (3). These statistics were complemented with economic and trade data from 
Eurostat and from Canada. The data also constituted the basis for the quantitative analysis 
of the Agreement’s social, environmental and human rights effects through causal chain 
analysis.  The  evidence  for  the  qualitative  analysis  came  from  existing  studies,  official 
documents, position papers from certified sources, interested parties and stakeholders. 

A further crucial source of information for the evaluation study were the consultations with 
stakeholders from both the EU and Canada. The consultations enabled the study team to 
receive  additional  information  and  data,  close  knowledge  gaps  and  further  understand 
CETA’s impact. The interviews, surveys and webinars also made it possible for the study 
team  to:  (i)  understand  how  the  institutions  set  up  under  CETA  worked  in  practice;  (ii) 
understand  the  situation  in  key  sectors  involved  in  trade  between  the  Parties  and  how 
CETA  has  impacted  them;  and  (iii)  collect  recommendations  on  how  to  improve  the 
implementation of the Agreement. 

In total, representatives of 154 EU and Canadian organisations and companies participated 
in interviews, 280 stakeholders participated in the online webinars across various Member 
States and 33 responses were received from the online surveys. The interviews were held 
individually, the majority of which took place online. 

The study team ensured a balanced representation of stakeholders – covering all parts of 
the  analysis –  across  governmental  and  non-governmental  actors,  sectors  and 
stakeholders  (e.g.  business  associations, 
trade  unions  and  non-governmental 
organisations (NGOs)). The stakeholder consultations provided valuable insights and were 
complemented by written comments and additional information shared by EU and Canadian 
stakeholders,  governments  and  civil  society  organisations  through  the  EU’s  public 

(2)  The economic model simulation was prepared by the European Commission services (Directorate-General 

for Trade and Economic Security). 
(3)   GTAP Models: Current GTAP Model 

6 

 
 
 
 
consultation website. The study team developed a project website, edited a newsletter and 
used social networks to reach out to all interested stakeholders (4). 

(4)  https://www.ceta-evaluation.eu/. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
2  What was the expected outcome of the intervention? 

2.1  Description of the intervention and its objectives 

The  seventh  anniversary  of  the  provisional  application  of  significant  parts  of  CETA  took 
place on 21 September 2024. CETA’s objectives are to open the markets between the EU 
and  Canada,  to  enhance  the  stability  and  predictability  of  the  trade  and  investment 
environment, to create benefits for consumers and to foster sustainable development. 

2.1.1  The negotiation, ratification and provisional application of the Agreement 

Negotiating the Agreement 

At  the  EU–Canada  Summit  in  Berlin  in  June  2007,  EU  and  Canadian  leaders  agreed  to 
conduct a joint study on the benefits of a closer economic partnership between the EU and 
Canada. Based on the joint study (5) issued in October 2008, the EU and Canada defined 
the scope of potential negotiations in March 2009. Subsequently, formal negotiations were 
launched at the EU–Canada Summit in Prague in May 2009. 

After nine negotiating rounds, the EU and Canada announced an agreement in principle in 
October  2013.  The  draft  agreement  was  made  public  in  September  2014  and  the  legal 
review was finalised in February 2016. 

Figure 1. Negotiating the timeline of the Agreement 

Source: Evaluation study based on Global Affairs Canada (accessed 2024). 

CETA  is  an  example  of  a  new-generation  trade  agreement  negotiated  by  the  EU.  Unlike 
traditional trade agreements, CETA goes beyond merely reducing tariffs. New generation 
trade  agreements  also  focus  on  a  broader  range  of  issues,  such  as  trade  in  services, 
intellectual  property  rights,  public  procurement,  regulatory  cooperation,  investment 
dispute resolution and sustainable development. The  trade and sustainable development 
(TSD)  chapters  in  new-generation  EU  trade  agreements  typically  focus  on  labour 
standards, labour rights, environmental standards and climate change goals. 

Ratification of the Agreement 

CETA was presented for signature and conclusion by the European Commission as a mixed 
agreement. Therefore, CETA requires ratification both at the EU level and by all individual 
Member States, including their national and, in some cases, regional parliaments in order 
to fully enter into force. 

CETA  was  signed  at  the  EU–Canada  Summit  in  October  2016.  In  February  2017,  the 
European  Parliament  approved  CETA  and,  in  May  2017,  the  Canadian  legislative  act  to 
implement  CETA  was  granted  royal  assent.  Since  21 September  2017,  parts  of  the 
Agreement are provisionally applied. 

(5)  Government  of  Canada,  ‘Assessing  the  costs  and  benefits  of  a  closer  EU-Canada  economic  partnership’, 
Global Affairs Canada website, 8 January 2013, https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-
commerciaux/agr-acc/eu-ue/study-etude.aspx?lang=eng. 

8 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For  the  Agreement  to  enter  into  force  and  be  fully  applied,  all  27  Member  States  must 
ratify  it  in  accordance  with  their  respective  national  procedures.  So  far,  17  of  the  27 
Member States have done so. 

Figure 2. Ratification timeline of the Agreement 

Source: Evaluation study adaptation from European Council (2024). 

Provisional application of the Agreement 

The  Agreement  is  currently  partially  and  provisionally  applied,  pending  full  ratification. 
Provisions  that  are  applied  include  market  access  for  goods,  trade  remedies,  technical 
barriers  to  trade,  sanitary  and  phytosanitary  (SPS)  measures,  customs  and  trade 
facilitations,  cross-border  trade  in  services,  government  procurement,  trade  and 
sustainable development, trade and labour, and trade and environment. CETA provisions 
that  are  not  provisionally  applied  include  specific  investment  and  financial  services 
provisions (6). 

2.1.2  Objectives, structure and content of the Agreement 

Objectives of the Agreement 

The objectives of CETA are to: 

• 

• 

further strengthen the close economic relationship between the Parties; 

create an expanded and secure market for goods and services through the reduction 
or elimination of barriers to trade and investment; 

•  establish  clear,  transparent,  predictable  and  mutually  advantageous  rules  to  govern 

trade and investment; 

•  preserve  the  right  of  the  Parties  to  regulate  within  their  territories  and  maintain 

flexibility to achieve legitimate policy objectives; 

•  promote  sustainable  development  and  the  development  of  international  trade  in  a 
manner  that  contributes  to  sustainable  development  in  its  economic,  social  and 
environmental dimensions; and 

• 

implement CETA in a manner consistent with the enforcement of their respective labour 
and  environmental  laws,  ensuring  that  CETA  enhances  labour  and  environmental 
protection, while building upon their international commitments in these areas. 

(6)  European Commission, ‘Notice concerning the provisional application of the Comprehensive Economic and 
Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada, of the one part, and the European Union and its Member States, 
of  the  other  part’,  Document 22017X0916(02),  16 September  2017,  https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX %3A22017X0916 %2802 %29. 

9 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Structure and content of the Agreement 

CETA  contains  30  chapters,  excluding  Annexes,  illustrating  that  the  Agreement  goes 
beyond merely reducing tariffs. 

Table 1. Chapters of the Agreement and their content 

Chapter 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 

Content 
General definitions and initial provisions  
National treatment and market access for goods 
Trade remedies 
Technical barriers to trade 
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
Customs and trade facilitation 
Subsidies 
Investment 
Cross-border trade in services 
Temporary entry and stay of natural persons for business purposes 
Mutual recognition of professional qualifications 
Domestic regulation 
Financial services 
International maritime transport services 
Telecommunications 
Electronic commerce 
Competition policy 
State enterprises, monopolies and enterprises granted special rights or privileges 
Government procurement 
Intellectual property 
Regulatory cooperation 
Trade and sustainable development 
Trade and labour 
Trade and environment 
Bilateral dialogues and cooperation 
Administrative and institutional provisions 
Transparency 
Exceptions 
Dispute settlement 
Final provisions 

Source: legal text of CETA (2017). 

2.1.3  Institutional framework of the Agreement 

CETA  has  a  governance  structure  consisting  of  19  dedicated  committees  and  dialogues, 
most meeting once a year, which report directly (or indirectly via other committees) to the 
Joint Committee, to oversee the implementation of the Agreement. 

The CETA Joint Committee is responsible for all questions concerning trade and investment 
between  the  Parties,  and  for  the  implementation  and  application  of  the  Agreement.  It 
meets on a regular basis and comprises the Minister for International Trade of Canada and 
the  European  Commissioner  for  Trade  and  Economic  Security.  The  Committee  on 
Agriculture,  the  Committee  on  Wines  and  Spirits  and  the  Joint  Sectoral  Group  on 
Pharmaceuticals  report  to  the  Committee  on  Trade  in  Goods.  The  Joint  Committee  on 
Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications reports to the Committee on Services and 
Investment. All other committees report to the CETA Joint Committee. 

In addition to the specialised committees, CETA establishes a series of bilateral dialogues 
to facilitate cooperation of issues of mutual interest. These CETA dialogues focus on biotech 
market access, forestry products, raw materials, motor vehicle regulations and electronic 
commerce (7). 

(7)  This list is non-exhaustive and limited to dialogues established under chapter 25 of the Agreement. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 3. The Agreement committee and dialogue structure 

Source: Evaluation study compilation based on the CETA legal text. 

2.1.4  Economic, social and political context during Agreement negotiations 

The CETA negotiations took place against the backdrop of complex economic, social and 
political  dynamics  both  within  the  European  Union  and  Canada.  The  negotiations  also 
occurred  against  the  background  of  broader  political  developments,  including  shifts  in 
global economic power and more pronounced challenges to multilateral trade negotiations 
under the World Trade Organization. 
Economically,  the  negotiations  occurred  at  a  time  when  both  the  EU  and  Canada  were 
seeking  to  bolster  their  economic  competitiveness  and  stimulate  growth,  looking  for 
reliable  trading  partners.  The  aftermath  of  the  global  financial  crisis  and  subsequent 
economic  challenges  prompted  policymakers  on  both  sides  to  explore  opportunities  for 
expanding  trade  and  investment.  Additionally,  there  was  a  growing  recognition  of  the 
importance of trade agreements in fostering economic integration and facilitating access 
to new markets for goods, services and investments. 

Socially,  CETA  negotiations  unfolded  amid  heightened  public  awareness  and  scrutiny 
regarding the potential impacts of trade agreements on various societal issues, including 
labour rights, environmental protection, consumer safety and public services. Civil society 
organisations,  labour  unions,  environmental  groups  and  other  stakeholders  actively 
engaged  in  the  negotiation  process,  advocating  for  greater  transparency,  accountability 
and social responsibility in the Agreement. 

2.1.5  Economic and political context since the Agreement’s provisional application 

Since  the  provisional  application  of  CETA  started  in  2017,  the  economic  and  political 
context has been characterised by a mix of opportunities and challenges. 

Economically,  the  world  economy  faced  uneven  growth,  as  some  states  continued  to 
experience robust economic expansion while others saw rising debt levels and economic 
disparities. Trade (tariff) tensions, geopolitical conflicts and the COVID-19 pandemic have 
introduced new risks and vulnerabilities into the global economy, which were reflected in 
increased  volatility  in  financial  markets.  Furthermore,  new  opportunities  related  to 

11 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
technology and challenges related to climate change and social issues have raised concerns 
about job displacement and data privacy. 

Politically,  the  period  since  2017  has  brought  shifts  in  international  politics.  Geopolitical 
tensions  have  escalated  in  Eastern  Europe  (Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine) 
and the Middle East (the conflict in Gaza), which contributed to instability and uncertainty 
in  global  affairs.  More  concretely  it  has  led  to  the  EU  and  others  imposing  sanctions  on 
Russia (and Belarus). 

The  ex-post  evaluation  of  CETA  is  mindful  of  this  broader  context.  For  example, 
stakeholders interviewed for the evaluation study note that CETA interacts with other EU 
policies  and  plays  an  important  role  in  addressing  broader  political,  environmental  and 
economic objectives. Both Parties regularly stress the link between CETA and high-level 
political dialogues held between the EU and Canada, along with environmental initiatives 
(e.g.  the  EU–Canada  Green  Alliance),  creating  synergies  that  aim  to  enhance  bilateral 
cooperation.  Progress  and  achievements  under  CETA  are  discussed  during  high-level 
political summits that reach beyond trade and investment issues (8). 

2.2  Points of comparison 

Trade sustainability impact assessment 

A trade sustainability impact assessment (SIA) was conducted in 2010/2011 accompanying 
the negotiations for the Agreement (9). The results were published in June 2011. The  ex 
ante quantitative analysis was based on a  computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, 
E3MG (10) model and gravity models, desk research and stakeholders’ consultations. The 
economic, social and environmental impacts of a potential trade agreement between the 
EU, its Member States and Canada were analysed. 

The  trade  SIA  examined  four  modelled  scenarios,  based  on  differing  assumptions  about 
the level of liberalisation that would be achieved, in order to investigate the likely expected 
impacts of a possible agreement. 

Scenario  A:  limited  liberalisation  of  agriculture  and  processed  agricultural  products 
resulting in an overall liberalisation of 95 % of trade in goods in terms of tariff lines and a 
less ambitious liberalisation of services. The reduction in tariffs is achieved using a sensitive 
list approach whereby there are no tariff cuts for meat products (including beef and pork) 
in the EU and no tariff cuts for dairy products and ‘other food products’ in Canada; all other 
agriculture and industrial products are fully liberalised. For services, liberalisation is based 
on the service trade cost cuts modelled in the 2008 Joint Study, multiplied by a factor of 
0.6. 

Scenario  B:  limited  liberalisation  of  agriculture  and  processed  agricultural  products 
resulting in an overall liberalisation of 95 % of trade in goods in terms of tariff lines and 
ambitious liberalisation of services. The reduction in tariffs is modelled in the same manner 
as in Scenario A, while liberalisation in the services is based on the service trade cost cuts 

(8)  European 

Commission, 

‘Canada-EU 

Summit – 

Joint 

Declaration’, 

17 July 

2019, 

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/40403/final-2019-joint-declaration-final.pdf. 
European Commission, ‘EU-Canada Summit – Joint Statement’, STATEMENT/23/6054, 24 November 2023, 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/statement_23_6054/STATEME
NT_23_6054_EN.pdf. 
Council of the European Union, ‘European Union-Canada Summit 2021 – Joint Statement’, 14 June 2021, 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/50757/20210614-joint-statement-final.pdf. 
Council  of  the  European  Union,  ‘European  Union-Canada  Summit  2025 –  Joint  Statement:  Enduring 
2025, 
Partnership, 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/u5fbfl5b/st10671en25-eu-canada-joint-summit-statement.pdf. 

10671/25, 

Ambitious 

Agenda’, 

23 June 

(9)  European  Commission,  ‘Sustainability  Impact  Assessments’,  Directorate-General  for  Trade  &  Economic 
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/analysis-and-assessment/sustainability-impact-

website, 

Security 
assessments_en. 

(10)  E3MG is a sectoral econometric model that has been developed with the intention of analysing long-term 
energy  and  environment  interactions  within  the  global  economy  and  assessing  the  short-term  and  long-
term impacts of climate change policy. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
modelled in the 2008 Joint Study. 

Scenario  C:  100 %  liberalisation  of  goods  and  less  ambitious  liberalisation  of  services, 
using the services trade cost cuts employed in the 2008 Joint Study multiplied by a factor 
of 0.6. 

Scenario  D: 100 % liberalisation  of goods and  ambitious liberalisation  of  services, using 
the services trade cost cuts employed in the 2008 Joint Study. 

The scenarios were analysed for their effects in the long-term. 

Before the Agreement, the EU and Canada traded on a most-favoured-nations (MFN) basis. 
The evaluation study reports that around 25 % of EU exports and 15 % of EU imports were 
traded  with  a  tariff  before  the  provisional  application  of  CETA.  For  certain  sectors, 
agreements existed such as the Veterinary Agreement, which was in place since 1998 for 
animal and animal product trade, the EU–Canada Agreement on Alcoholic Beverages since 
1989 and the EU–Canada Wines and Spirits Agreement since 2004. 

Comparing the 2011 trade SIA assessment with the outcomes of the evaluation study is 
not  always  possible  due  to  differences  in  methodologies (11)  and  the  level  of  knowledge 
about  the  negotiation  outcomes  at  the  time  of  the  trade  SIA.  In  addition,  the  analysis 
anticipated a different level of liberalisation than what was ultimately agreed upon. 

The  trade  SIA  predicted  several  quantitative  impacts.  EU  GDP  would  increase  in  the 
range of 0.02 % to 0.03 % and Canada’s GDP would increase in the range of 0.18 % to 
0.36 %. It also predicted significant increases in trade, along with reductions in poverty 
(increases  in  real  spending  power)  and  limited-but-positive  effects  on  employment.  A 
marginally negative effect on the environment (CO2 emissions) was also predicted. 

With  regard  to  qualitative  impacts,  the  trade  SIA  predicted  the  following  for  the 
economic, social and environmental impacts. 

Economic impact 

With regard to the economic impact, the trade SIA predicted that the agricultural sector 
and  the  textiles  industries  would  benefit  from  the  Agreement.  The  trade  SIA  attributed 
potential  positive  effects  to  addressing  various  non-tariff  measures.  In  addition,  it  was 
predicted  that  the  services  sector  would  have  the  potential  to  generate  the  largest 
economic gains for both Canada and the EU. Increased merchandise trade resulting from 
CETA could directly increase the demand for maritime transport services. 

Social impact 

With regard to the social impact, the trade SIA predicted an increase in employment for 
specific sectors: (i) textiles, leather  and clothing and (ii) dairy for the  EU, and (i) water 
transport services, (ii) transport equipment, (iii) textiles, leather and clothing and (iv) other 
food for Canada. The trade SIA also anticipated wage increases overall for both Parties; 
wages were expected to increase by between 0.03 % and 0.06 % for the EU and Canada. 
The trade SIA asserted that potential EU consumer demand for more sustainable products 
could have a positive impact on farming in Canada. 

Environmental impact 

With regard to the environmental impact, the trade SIA and some other studies flagged 
the  likely  harmful  repercussions  on  greenhouse  gas  (GHG)  emissions  stemming  from 
agriculture, fishing, trade and transport activities resulting from CETA’s application, having 
a limited impact on the EU share of CO2 emissions and a relatively more tangible effect for 
Canada. On the other hand, other parts of the assessment point to opportunities for CETA 

(11)  Some indicators in the models are not the same. The SIA analysed, for example, public safety, the quality 
of education and fish stocks; the evaluation study did not. The evaluation study did not use an E3MG model. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
to increase its trade in environmental goods, collaborate within and outside CETA in global 
forums to promote action against climate change and global warming. 

Study on the economic impact of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement 

In 2017 DG Trade and Economic Security published a study on the economic impact of the 
Comprehensive  Economic  and  Trade  Agreement (12),  which  highlights  the  economic 
relations  between  the  EU  and  Canada  before  the  Agreement  entered  into  force  and 
describes  the  major  outcomes  of  the  negotiations.  In  addition,  it  includes  an  economic 
assessment  of  CETA’s  provisions  and  a  quantitative  analysis  in  certain  cases,  where 
technically feasible. 

The study states that CETA contains a wide range of provisions that would have  a direct 
positive impact on the ability of EU and Canadian companies to engage in closer economic 
relations – notably, commitments on the liberalisation of tariffs, investment and services, 
increased access to each other’s public procurement markets and disciplines on intellectual 
property rights (such as copyright), geographical indications (GIs), conformity assessment 
and subsidies. 

The simulations were based on a CGE model and predicted important gains through tariff 
elimination,  FDI  liberalisation  for  goods  and  services  bindings  once  CETA  is  fully 
implemented.  This  would  lead  to  an  annual  increase  in  bilateral  exports  and  imports 
between  the  EU  and  Canada  of  at  least  8 %,  amounting  to  approximately  an  additional 
EUR 12 billion per year  in two-way trade by 2030, split roughly evenly between the two 
parties. Half of this increase would already materialise in the first year of implementation, 
in  particular  as  customs  duties  on  98 %  of  all  tariff  lines  will  be  eliminated  once  the 
Agreement  enters  into  force.  EU  exporters  of  dairy  (+ EUR 300  million),  automotive 
products (+ EUR 880 million), chemicals (+ EUR 451million), textiles, apparel and leather 
products (+ EUR 812 million and business services (+ EUR 644 million) would see the most 
considerable increases in their exports to Canada. CETA would also add between EUR 1.7 
billion and EUR 2.1 billion to the EU’s GDP on an annual basis. 

The  study  highlighted  that  the  CGE  models  essentially  present  a  snapshot  of  best 
estimations  in  these  areas  at  a  point  in  time.  Due  to  this,  these  models  tend  to 
underestimate the actual impact of trade liberalisation. For instance, they do not take into 
account the  synergies that are likely to be created in global supply chains by CETA and 
other existing and future trade and investment policy initiatives. 

The study also saw gains in the area of public procurement. CETA includes an ambitious 
procurement  chapter  that  would  open  new  business  opportunities  for  EU  companies 
interested in bidding for public contracts in Canada at all levels (including procurement at 
the provincial level). Based on the limited available data on public procurement in Canada, 
it was estimated that CETA offers new legal guarantees for open, non-discriminatory access 
to an additional EUR 32 billion per year of the Canadian public procurement market. It is 
also  estimated  that  EU  companies  could  gain  nearly  EUR 540  million  annually  in  new 
contracts. 

(12)  European Commission: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, The economic impact of the 
Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Publications Office of the European Union, 2017, 
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2781/236080. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3  How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period? 

3.1  Total bilateral trade 

Bilateral trade in goods and services between the EU and Canada increased from EUR 64 
billion  to  EUR 72  billion  in  the  pre-CETA  period  (2012–2016),  representing  a  12.5 % 
increase.  During  the  post-CETA  period  (2017–2023),  total  bilateral  trade  increased  by 
55.9 %, from EUR 79 billion in 2017 to EUR 123 billion in 2023, despite the negative impact 
of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. 

When considering the increase in bilateral trade from 2016 (the year before CETA came 
into  effect)  to  2023,  the  total  bilateral  trade  in  goods  increased  by  63 %,  while  total 
bilateral trade in services increased by 81 % in the same time period. 

Figure 4. Increase in total bilateral EU–Canada trade (2012–2023, billion EUR) 

Source: Eurostat (2024). 

3.2  Trade in goods 

The  evaluation  study  shows  that,  for  tariff  liberalisation  under  CETA,  the  larger  the 
preference margin the greater the relative increase in bilateral exports. When comparing 
2016 and 2023, the value of EU exports of products with Canadian tariff reductions of 0–
5 % increased by 24 %. EU exports  of products with Canadian tariff reductions  of more 
than 20 % rose by 108 %. Similarly, the value of Canadian exports of products with EU 
tariff reductions of 0–5 % increased by 80 %, while Canadian exports of products with EU 
tariff cuts of over 20 % rose by 397 % (for a small number of products). 

EU exports of meat and edible meat offal were EUR 122 million per year higher (+ 188 %) 
in  the  post-CETA  period  (2017–2023)  compared  to  the  pre-CETA  period  (2012–2016). 
Dairy exports from the EU to Canada rose by 62 %, while exports of fish and crustaceans 
(+201%), edible fruits and nuts (+56%), and oilseed (+97%) also increased significantly. 
On the Canadian side, exports to the EU increased especially for oilseeds (+ 44 %), cereals 
(+ 21 %) and fish and crustaceans (+ 65 %). 

CETA established a tariff rate quota (TRQ) for EU exports of ‘cheeses of all types’ of up to 
16 000 tonnes. This cheese quota has been effective, with fill rates of around 95 % (i.e. 
almost  fully  utilised).  As  a  result,  EU  cheese  exports  to  Canada  were  on  average  77 % 
higher in the post-CETA period than in the pre-CETA period. EU wine exports to Canada 

15 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
have also grown, driven by the removal of tariffs, the elimination of the ban on bulk spirit 
exports and the recognition of GIs. 

3.3  Trade in services and investment 

Trade in services has grown significantly, with EU services exports to Canada increasing 
by 53 % and imports increasing by 57 % comparing the post-CETA period (2017–2023) to 
the pre-CETA period (2012–2016). 

Trade in transport services has expanded and dredging services have increased. Trade in 
business services has grown significantly in both directions. Additionally, trade in telecom 
and computer services expanded more rapidly between 2017 and 2023 than in the pre-
CETA period. 

Comparing  pre-  and  post-CETA  periods,  EU  foreign  direct  investment  (FDI)  stocks  in 
Canada have increased by around EUR 40 billion (from an average of EUR 220 billion over 
the pre-CETA period to EUR 308 billion on average in the post-CETA period), making the 
EU  the  second-largest  foreign  investor  in  Canada  after  the  United  States.  The  service 
content of EU FDI into Canada is around 80 %. However, EU FDI stocks as a share of total 
investments in Canada declined compared to investments from the United Kingdom, the 
United  States,  China  and  other  main  FDI  partners,  peaking  at  1.7 %  in  2018  before 
decreasing to 1.1 % in 2022. 

3.4  Digital trade 

Digital trade (trade enabled by digital means) has increased in importance for both the EU 
and  Canada.  While  only  representing  a  subset  of  all  digital  trade,  estimates  based  on 
Eurostat data for 2023 show that digitally delivered services trade accounted for 53 % of 
extra-EU  services  exports  and  59 %  of  extra-EU  services  imports.  World  Trade 
Organization (WTO) estimates also show that the export and import of digitally delivered 
services accounted for a significant part of total Canada services exports and imports in 
2022 (49 % and 43 % respectively) (13). 

EU bilateral exports of digitally delivered services to Canada increased by 75.5 %, rising 
from an average of EUR 4.4 billion in the pre-CETA period (2012–2016) to an average of 
EUR 7.7  billion  in  the  post-CETA  period  (2017–2022).  EU  bilateral  imports  of  digitally 
delivered services from Canada increased by 77.2 %, from  an average of €3.4 billion in 
the pre-CETA period (2012–2016) to an average of EUR 6.0 billion in the post-CETA period 
(2017–2022).  In  2023,  EU  bilateral  exports  of  digitally  delivered  services  amounted  to 
EUR 9.9 billion (39 % of total EU services exports) and bilateral imports to EUR 8.4 billion 
(43 % of total services imports). 

Other aspects of digital trade, such as digitally ordered goods or cross-border data flows, 
while generally also increasing in relevance, are more difficult to measure (14). 

The available figures reflect the increasing importance of the digital economy for the EU 
and Canada. 

•  Since 2018, Canada’s information and communication technology sector has posted 
a  stronger  annual  growth  than  the  total  economy.  On  average,  the  compound 
annual growth rate in this sector has been 5.6 % over a five-year period, compared 
to 1.5 % for the  overall economy (15). In the 2024  World Digital Competitiveness 

(13)  World 

trade 
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/gstdh_digital_services_e.htm. 

Trade  Organization, 

delivered 

‘Digitally 

services 

dataset’, 

25 July 

2025, 

(14)  International Monetary Fund, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations and 
World  Trade  Organization,  Handbook  on  Measuring  Digital  Trade –  Second  Edition,  World  Trade 
Organization, 2023, https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/07/handbook-on-measuring-digital-trade-
second-edition_099afd2f.html. 

(15)  Innovation,  Science  and  Economic  Development  Canada:  Information  and  Communications  Technologies 

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ranking  by  the  International  Institute  for  Management  Development,  Canada 
ranked  13th,  demonstrating  a  high  capacity  to  adopt  and  explore  digital 
technologies  as  a  key  driver  for  economic  transformation  in  business,  the 
government and wider society. 

•  The  EU  has  outlined  an  ambitious  digital  transition  agenda  in  its  2021 
communication on a digital compass (16). To support this, the EU has adopted key 
legislation  governing  important  aspects  of  the  digital  economy  such  as  the  Data 
Governance Act (17), the Digital Services Act (18), the Digital Markets Act (19), the 
Data  Act (20),  the  Artificial  Intelligence  Act (21),  the  Artificial  Intelligence  Liability 
Directive (22) and a Cyber Resilience Act (23). These initiatives are backed by targets 
to implement the EU’s ambitions for its digital transformation, including universal 
gigabit  broadband  coverage  and  full  5G  deployment  in  populated  areas,  with  an 
estimated potential to unlock EUR 1.3 trillion in value by 2030 (24). 

While  the  bilateral  trends  in  digital  trade  suggest  a  strong  growth  trajectory,  a  more 
detailed analysis of CETA’s specific contribution is inconclusive. This may reflect  broader 
global dynamics, as WTO estimates show that worldwide exports and imports of digitally 
delivered  services  also  grew  significantly  between  2017  and  2022  (by  61 %  and  65 % 
respectively) (25).  As  the  evaluation  study  notes,  CETA’s  e-commerce  provisions  are 
relatively limited compared to more recent EU trade agreements, such as those with the 
United Kingdom, Japan and New Zealand. 

Branch,  Canadian  ICT  Sector  Profile,  2023  edition,  2024,  https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/digital-
technologies-ict/en. 

(16)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the Committee  of  the  Regions –  2030 Digital  Compass:  the  European  way  for  the 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
Digital  Decade, 
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52021DC0118. 

COM/2021/118 

9 March 

2021, 

final 

of 

(17)  Regulation (EU) 2022/868 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2022 on European 

data governance and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (Data Governance Act), OJ L 152, 3.6.2022, 
p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/868/oj. 

(18)  Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single 

Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act), OJ L 277, 
27.10.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj. 

(19)  Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on 
contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 
2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act), OJ L 265, 12.10.2022, p 1, 
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj. 

(20)  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonised rules on fair 

access to and use of data (Data Act), COM(2022) 68 final of 23 February 2022, https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0068. 

(21)  Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on 

artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts, 
COM/2021/206 final of 21 April 2021, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52021PC0206. 

(22)  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on adapting non-contractual civil 

liability rules to artificial intelligence (AI Liability Directive), COM(2022) 496 final of 28 September 2022, 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0496. 

(23)  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  horizontal  cybersecurity 
requirements for products with digital elements and amending Regulation (EU) 2019/1020, COM(2022) 454 
final of 15 September 2022, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0454. 
(24)  Public First, ‘Unlocking Europe’s Digital Potential: How cloud computing can support the EU’s Digital Decade’, 

2022, https://awsdigitaldecade.publicfirst.co.uk/. 

(25)  World 

trade 
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/gstdh_digital_services_e.htm. 

Trade  Organization, 

delivered 

‘Digitally 

services 

dataset’, 

25 July 

2025, 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4  Evaluation findings (analytical part) 

Building on the evaluation study, this staff working document covers the nine evaluation 
questions  (EQs)  related  to  the  evaluation  criteria  of  effectiveness,  impact,  efficiency, 
coherence and relevance. EQs 1–8 will be answered in section 4.1 and EQ9 in section 4.3. 

Table 2. Evaluation questions for the study 

Evaluation questions 
Effectiveness 
EQ1: To what extent have the objectives of CETA been achieved? 
EQ2: What are the factors influencing (either positively or negatively) the achievements of CETA’s 
objectives? 
EQ3: Has CETA’s implementation had unintended (positive or negative) consequences, and, if so, 
what are they? 
Impact 
EQ4: What has been the impact of CETA’s implementation? 
Efficiency 
EQ5: To what extent has the implementation of CETA been efficient with respect to achieving its 
objectives? 
EQ6: To what extent are the costs associated with implementation of CETA proportionate to the 
benefits  it  has  generated?  Is  the  distribution  of  both  costs  and  benefits  proportionate  among 
different stakeholder groups and interests? 
EQ7:  Are  there  unnecessary  regulatory  costs  (including  administrative  burden)?  What  is  the 
potential for simplification? 
Coherence 
EQ8: To what extent has the implementation of CETA been coherent with the EU’s trade policies, 
and  in  particular  with  the  EU’s  commitment  to  sustainable  development  in  trade  policies  as  a 
contribution towards attainment of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals? 
Relevance 
EQ9: To what extent do the provisions of CETA continue to be  relevant in order  to  address the 
current trade needs of the EU and Canada? 

4.1  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 

4.1.1  Effectiveness 

4.1.1.1  EQ1: To what extent have the objectives of CETA been achieved? 

The  evaluation  criterion  ‘effectiveness’  refers  to  the  extent  to  which  an  intervention  has 
reached its objectives. In the case of CETA it therefore concerns the extent to which the 
objectives as laid down in the Agreement have been achieved. The following  are the key 
objectives of CETA. 

1.  to further strengthen the close economic relationship between the EU and Canada; 

2.  to create an expanded and secure market for goods and services, through the reduction 
or elimination of barriers to trade and investment, based on Article XXIV of the General 
Agreement  on  Tariffs  and  Trade  and  Article  V  of  the  General  Agreement  on  Trade  in 
Services (1994); 

3.  to establish clear, transparent, predictable and mutually advantageous rules to govern 

bilateral trade and investment; 

4.  to further liberalise, on a mutual basis, the government procurement markets of the 

Parties; 

5.  to protect and enforce intellectual property rights; 

6.  to promote sustainable development and the development of international trade in such 
a  way  as  to  contribute  to  sustainable  development  in  the  economic,  social  and 
environmental dimensions; 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.  to  implement  CETA  in  a  manner  consistent  with  the  enforcement  of  the  Parties’ 
international 

laws,  building  upon  their 

labour  and  environmental 
respective 
commitments on labour and environmental matters. 

The  following  sub-sections  present  the  findings  of  the  evaluation  study  for  each  specific 
objective separately. 

1.  To  further  strengthen  the  close  economic  relationship  between  the  EU  and 
Canada 

Strengthening the economic relationship 

Even  though  the  EU  and  Canada  were  like-minded  partners  in  many  areas  even  before 
CETA, this evaluation concludes that CETA has fostered a closer economic relationship 
between the EU and Canada, although external factors (e.g. geopolitical developments 
like Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, geopolitical fragmentation and the COVID-
19 pandemic) have also played a role. The bilateral relationship has benefitted from 
the Agreement on three levels. 

Successful implementation of the Agreement provisions 

Many  CETA  commitments  have  been  successfully  implemented  and  yielded  concrete 
results. 

•  Duties have been removed on nearly 99 % of EU and Canadian tariff lines, resulting 

in increased bilateral trade in goods. 

•  Regulatory  cooperation  successes  under  CETA  have  included  joint  awareness 
campaigns and information sharing on safe online shopping, data  sharing for unsafe 
products,  the  expansion  of  the  Mutual  Recognition  Agreement  (MRA)  on  good 
manufacturing practice (GMP) of pharmaceutical products to inspections conducted in 
third countries, the MRA on professional qualifications for architects (once applied), and 
joint work on animal welfare during transport. These reductions in non-tariff measures 
(NTMs) have further facilitated trade and investment and created an agenda for further 
discussions going forward. 

•  Provisions  dedicated  to  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  (SMEs)  (e.g. 
providing one-stop-shop information tools for SMEs) have facilitated their engagement 
in CETA, resulting in significant increases in the number of SMEs exporting from the EU 
to Canada and vice versa. 

Strategic elements of the Agreement 

At  a  more  strategic  level,  CETA  has  also  contributed  to  a  closer  economic  relationship 
between the EU and Canada. In the current (increasingly challenging and volatile) global 
climate  for  EU  and  Canadian  companies  and  for  the  EU  and  Canadian  economies,  both 
Parties  aim  to  increase  economic  security  for  their  supply  chains  by  trading  more 
with reliable trading partners and by promoting sustainable development. Examples 
of how CETA has supported these policy objectives are as follows. 

•  CETA has enhanced EU and Canadian supply chain resilience and security by increasing 
the  number  of  products  traded  bilaterally,  reducing  supplier  and  product  import 
concentrations for both Parties, expanding their mutual importance in terms of trade in 
goods,  services  and  investments,  increasing  SME  engagement  in  bilateral  trade  and 
fostering regulatory cooperation. 

•  The Bilateral Dialogue on Raw  Materials  established under CETA has led to the 2021 
Strategic Partnership for Critical Raw Materials, which improved supply chain security 
for critical raw materials. 

•  Recognising  the  growing  importance  of  the  digital  dimension  for  bilateral  trade  and 
sustainable  development  and  the  increasing  strategic  importance  of  digital  and  tech 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cooperation  more  generally,  the  EU  and  Canada  launched  a  Digital  Partnership  to 
strengthen their cooperation on topics including artificial intelligence, quantum science, 
semiconductors, platform regulation, secure international connectivity, digital identity, 
data governance and cyber security. 

•  Under  the  trade  and  sustainable  development  chapter,  the  Parties  have  exchanged 
updates on legislative initiatives designed to eliminate child labour and forced labour 
from  their  respective  markets  and  supply  chains.  The  Parties  have  also  explored 
opportunities  for  cooperation  in  third  countries  where  both  the  EU  and  Canada  have 
trade agreements with labour provisions. 

•  As part of the Joint Recommendation on Trade and Gender, the Parties organised several 
events for women entrepreneurs and traders from the EU and Canada. These events 
provided a platform to discuss the challenges faced by women-led businesses and to 
showcase the opportunities created by CETA to support them and encourage greater 
participation in bilateral trade. 

•  The Parties have discussed cooperation on environmental and climate change matters 
in international forums, in particular on the circular economy plastics and sustainable 
products and decarbonisation under the Paris Agreement. 

•  The Parties have reinforced their dialogue with civil society organisations through the 

enhancement of the dialogue with their respective domestic advisory groups (DAGs). 

Institutional structure under the Agreement 

CETA has a well-developed institutional structure of committees and dialogues to 
address  issues  of  importance  for  bilateral  cooperation.  This  structure  covers  the  key 
aspects of the Agreement and fosters joint work agendas and dialogue on various topics. 
Insights  from  stakeholder  consultations  indicate  that  this  structure  has  significantly 
increased trust and the mutual understanding of each other’s rules and regulations, 
even when differences persist. The trust built among policymakers and regulators through 
CETA may also prove valuable in the face of future developments that require international 
coordination. 

Potential challenges to the economic relationship 

While  CETA  has  clearly  strengthened  the  economic  relationship  between  the  EU  and 
Canada,  deeper  engagement  has  also  revealed  areas,  primarily  at  the  more  detailed 
implementation level, where the EU and Canada differ in their views and approaches. 
For instance, differences persist regarding sanitary and phytosanitary regulations (e.g. the 
EU  hormone-treated  beef  ban  or  the  Canadian  SPS  rules  on  EU  tomato  and  poultry 
exports),  TRQ  management  and  regulatory  differences  (e.g.  differences  in  regulations 
regarding  small  solid  biomass  combustors).  These  differences  have,  however,  not 
negatively affected the broader political and economic relationship. 

2. To create an expanded market for goods and services through the reduction or 
elimination of barriers to trade and investment 

Tariffs and non-tariff measures (NTMs), such as regulatory divergences, constitute barriers 
to  trade  between  the  Parties,  reducing  CETA’s  trade  potential.  Through  effective  tariff 
liberalisation and reductions in non-tariff measures, CETA has contributed significantly to 
an increase in bilateral trade between the EU and Canada in goods and services. 

Tariffs have been effectively eliminated 

CETA has effectively eliminated duties for 98.6 % of all Canadian tariff lines and for 
98.7 % of EU tariff lines. Figure 5 presents the EU tariffs applied to countries with MFN 
status in 2016 (including Canada at the time) and to MFN countries and Canada in 2023 
(where  Canada  now  benefits  from  preferential  treatment  under  CETA).  According  to 
Eurostat (2024), the simple average EU MFN tariff was approximately 5.1 % in 2016, while 

20 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the  trade-weighted  average  was  2.6 %.  In  2023,  the  simple  average  EU  MFN  tariff  was 
5.0 %  and  the  trade-weighted  average  tariff  was  2.7 %.  Following  the  start  of  the 
provisional application of CETA, both the simple average and trade-weighted average tariffs 
imposed by the EU on Canadian imports were drastically reduced to nearly zero. 

Figure 5. EU tariffs on imports – Canada versus most-favoured nations (2016 
and 2023, in percentage) 

Source: Eurostat (2024), TARIC (2024). 

Figure 6  presents  the  same  data  for  Canada,  showing  Canadian  tariffs  applied  to  MFN 
countries in 2016 (which also applied to the EU at the time) and to MFN countries and the 
EU  in  2023  (where  the  EU  now  benefits  from  preferential  treatment  due  to  CETA). 
According  to  Statistics  Canada  (2024),  the  simple  average  Canadian  MFN  tariff  was 
approximately 4.2 % in 2016, while the trade-weighted average that year was 0.8 %. In 
2023, the simple average Canadian MFN tariff had decreased to 3.8 %, while the trade-
weighted  average  tariff  remained  at  0.8 %.  Following  the  start  of  the  provisional 
application of CETA, both the simple average and trade-weighted average tariffs imposed 
by Canada on imports from the EU were drastically reduced to nearly zero. 

21 

                                                                                                                                                                                     BeforeCETAAfterCETA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 6. Canadian tariffs on imports – EU versus most-favoured nations (2016 
and 2023, in percentage) 

Source: Eurostat (2024), TARIC (2024). 

Non-tariff measures have in part been tackled 

Through collaborative work in the various committees and dialogues under CETA, non-tariff 
measures (NTMs) have been reduced. 

•  The  MRA  on  GMP  has  been  expanded  to  include  inspections  conducted  in  third 
regulators  and 

countries.  This  expansion 
pharmaceutical companies by decreasing the number of required inspections. 

regulatory  burdens 

reduces 

for 

•  The MRA  on professional qualifications  for architects will  enable architects  from both 
Parties to practice in the other’s jurisdiction by streamlining the recognition process of 
their professional qualifications (once the legal process is completed). 

•  Canada’s acceptance of the EU as a single entity for the purpose of export certificates 
for poultry has simplified trade processes, reduced costs for exporters and increased 
market access for EU poultry exporters from Member States that are recognised via a 
health certificate issued by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. However, progress 
in  addressing  other  SPS  barriers,  notably  with  regards  to  the  recognition  of  the  EU 
single  entity  regarding  the  Member  States’  meat  inspection  systems,  the  EU 
harmonised certificate for the export of processed meat products, and fresh fruit and 
vegetables, has been limited. 

•  Canada has exempted certain cosmetic-like, low-risk products manufactured in the EU 
from  quarantine  and  confirmatory  re-testing  in  Canada  before  market  access.  The 
exemption  for  EU  sunscreen  entered  into  effect  in  2019  and,  following  engagement 
with EU exporters, resulted in an increased variety of sunscreen products available in 
Canada.  In  2020,  the  re-testing  requirement  for  certain  types  of  shampoo  was 
removed.  In  2022,  exemptions  followed  for  toothpaste,  antiperspirants,  medicated 
skincare products, mouthwashes and a few other similar categories. 

•  EU regulators have initiated information sharing with Canadian authorities to support 
Canada’s  development  of  policies  and  regulations  governing  access  to  paediatric 
medicines. 

However, regulatory cooperation has also faced challenges. 

22 

                                                                                                                                                                                          BeforeCETAAfterCETA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Providing timely input during the draft stage of new legislation or regulations has been 

challenging for both Parties. 

• 

In some areas of cooperation, sub-federal / Member State competences have added a 
layer  of  complexity,  slowing  down  regulatory  cooperation  (e.g.  small  solid  biomass 
combustors). 

•  Standardisation efforts and the CETA conformity-assessment protocol provisions have 
seen  limited  use.  To  date,  the  EU  has  accredited  seven  Canadian  conformity-
assessment bodies (CABs), while Canada has accredited more than 50 EU CABs. (26). 
These EU CABs are accredited in the electrical and electronic equipment, and radio and 
telecommunications terminal equipment sectors. In the remaining sectors covered by 
the CETA protocol, no EU CABs have been accredited. 

In some areas, no alignment is possible as the EU and Canada have diverging regulations 
and standards based on different societal norms. CETA accepts this and clearly leaves room 
for regulatory autonomy. 

3.  To  establish  clear  and  predictable  rules  to  govern  bilateral  trade  and 
investment 

CETA has established clear and predictable rules to govern bilateral trade and investment. 
The clarity of these provisions, confirmed through stakeholder consultations, is evident in 
the following areas. 

•  Tariff liberalisation (Annex 2 to CETA), which provides for immediate or gradual tariff 

liberalisation based on pre-agreed schedules. 

•  Customs and trade facilitation (Chapter 6), which establishes transparent, predictable 
rules for customs and trade facilitation by promoting simplified procedures, risk-based 
inspections,  advance  rulings  and  the  use  of  electronic  systems.  It  ensures  efficient 
goods clearance, facilitates cooperation between authorities and guarantees accessible 
review mechanisms for traders. 

•  Subsidy rules (Chapter 7), which require both Parties to ensure transparency and fair 
competition and prevent trade distortions. Both Parties commit to notifying subsidies, 
particularly those that significantly affect trade, and agree to consult if concerns arise. 

•  Domestic  regulation  (Chapter  12),  which  sets  rules  to  ensure  transparent,  impartial 
and  predictable  procedures  for  licensing  and  qualification  requirements.  It  requires 
timely  decisions,  clear  criteria  and  non-discriminatory  practices  for  businesses  and 
professionals. 

• 

International maritime transport services (Chapter 14), which ensures open and non-
discriminatory  access  to  international  maritime  transport  services.  It  guarantees  fair 
treatment for vessels from both Parties, including access to ports, infrastructure and 
related services to promote efficient maritime trade. 

•  Competition policy (Chapter 17), which commits both Parties to prohibit and sanction 
certain practices and transactions involving goods or services which distort competition 
and  trade.  The  provisions  reflect  the  main  principles  and  obligations  consistent  with 
both EU and Canadian competition law to ensure free and undistorted competition. 

(26)  European 

Single 

‘Bodies’, 

Commission, 

Space 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/single-market-compliance-space/notified-bodies/notified-body-
list?filter=countryId:124,notificationStatusId:1. 
Government  of  Canada,  ‘Certification  Bodies’,  Government  of  Canada  website,  28 July  2025,  URL: 
https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/mutual-recognition-agreements/en/conformity-assessment-
bodies/certification-bodies. 
Government  of  Canada,  ‘Wireless  Device  Testing  Laboratories’,  Government  of  Canada  website,  29 July 
https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/mutual-recognition-agreements/en/wireless-device-testing-
2025, 
laboratories. 

Compliant 

website, 

Market 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Sustainable development (chapter 22), which promotes high environmental and labour 
standards in trade by encouraging cooperation, transparency and public participation. 
The chapter ensures that neither side weakens protections to gain a trade advantage. 

•  Transparency  provisions  (chapter 27),  which  requires  the  EU  and  Canada  to  publish 
laws,  regulations  and  administrative  rulings  affecting  trade.  It  promotes  open 
communication, public consultations and timely responses to inquiries from businesses 
and stakeholders. 

These provisions have contributed to a predictable and more certain environment for both 
large and small businesses. 

4. To further liberalise the government procurement markets of the Parties 

Through Chapter 19 of CETA on government procurement, the EU and Canada have made 
ambitious commitments to open their public procurement markets to each other, not only 
at the federal level but also at the sub-federal level. 

As  a  result  of  CETA,  the  value  of  public  procurement  for  both  EU  firms  in  Canada  and 
Canadian firms in the EU has increased by at least 8.4 % annually between the Parties. 
The real impact is likely even higher, given that this estimate likely underrepresents CETA’s 
impact on procurement due to some limitations in the underlying data. 

Based on statistical, econometric and qualitative findings, it is reasonable to conclude that 
CETA has had a significant and positive effect on public procurement. 

5. To protect and enforce intellectual property rights 

The Agreement has contributed to the protection of intellectual property rights 

The EU did not modify its existing intellectual property (IP) legislation as a result of CETA 
negotiations. Canada implemented a few changes to its intellectual property (IP) regime. 
Notably,  Canada  aligned  its  trademark  regime  with  international  standards,  such  as  the 
Singapore Treaty and the Madrid Agreement. 

In addition, CETA prompted Canada to introduce a sui generis protection system, a patent 
restoration  term  (similar  to  the  EU’s  supplementary  protection  certificate),  for 
pharmaceutical  products.  Furthermore,  CETA  provided  innovator  companies  with 
‘equivalent  and  effective  rights  of  appeal’  under  the  Patented  Medicines  (Notice  of 
Compliance)  Regulations  (PM(NOC)  Regulations),  placing  them  on  equal  footing  with 
generic manufacturers. It also ended the dual litigation practice. 

Despite  initial  concerns  about  potential  drug  cost  increases  and  delays  in  generic 
availability, evidence to date shows no significant rise in costs  or adverse  effects on the 
generic  market  share  because  of  these  measures.  According  to  IQVIA  (2021)  these 
stronger  IP  protections  have  improved  access  to  innovative  medicines  for  Canadian 
patients and supported a 182 % increase in pharmaceutical investments in Canada (27). 

The  Agreement  has  expanded  geographical  indications  in  Canada,  but  issues 
remain 

CETA has expanded the protection of geographical indications in Canada in three ways. 

•  CETA  led  to  changes  in  Canada’s  Trademarks  Act,  expanding  the  definition  of  GIs  to 

cover not only wines and spirits but also food and agricultural products. 

(27)  The IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, ‘The impact of pharmaceutical IP provisions in EU free trade 
https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports-and-

agreements’, 
publications/reports/the-impact-of-pharmaceutical-ip-provisions-in-eu-free-trade-agreements. 

12 November 

2021, 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  Before CETA, the Canadian GI framework listed as available for protection 1 575 wines 
and 57 European spirit  names under the  EU–Canada 2003 Agreement on Wines  and 
Spirits. CETA expanded this scope to include 171 EU food and agricultural products. 

•  Following CETA, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), established a process 

to add new GIs to the protected list in Annex 20-C to CETA. 

•  CETA has also enabled addition of new wine and spirit GI names to the list under the 

2003 agreement. The first such amendment was concluded in 2024. 

This expansion has increased new market opportunities for EU exporters of GI-protected 
products in Canada. GIs provide marketing and branding advantages by linking products 
to  specific  geographical  origins,  allowing  producers  to  command  price  premiums  and 
enhance their brand value. 

However, challenges persist. Key ongoing issues include divergent views between the EU 
and  Canada  on  administrative  enforcement  and  the  EU’s  request  for  a  public  list  of 
grandfathered GI users. 

6. To promote sustainable development and foster international trade in such a 
way  as  to  contribute  to  sustainable  development  in  the  economic,  social  and 
environmental dimensions 

The implementation of CETA, with increased trade and investment flows in both directions, 
has created positive, albeit limited, effects on social development in the EU and Canada. 

•  CETA has contributed to employment increase in key exporting sectors: 

o  EU  sectors:  textiles,  clothing  and  leather  products  (0.28 %),  the  automotive 

industry (0.09 %), red meat (0.07 %) and dairy products (0.07 %); 

o  Canadian  sectors:  water  transport  (1.64 %),  other  transport  equipment 
(0.85 %), textiles, clothing and leather products (0.7 %), other food (0.51 %), 
chemicals (0.51 %), grains (0.42 %) and the automotive industry (0.28 %). 

•  CETA has contributed to a modest wage increase for both skilled and unskilled workers: 

o  0.02 % in the EU; 

o  0.10 % in Canada. 

•  CETA has supported a rise in the real spending power for consumers in both Parties, 
with the poorest 20 % of the population in most Member States benefitting the most 
on a relative basis. 

•  Through increased trade flows between the EU and Canada, consumers in both Parties 
have enjoyed greater availability of goods and services. This has been facilitated by the 
reduction in tariffs and NTMs and the work of the Regulatory Cooperation Forum. 

•  The EU and Canada have also collaborated through inspections, policy dialogue, market 
surveillance  mechanisms  and  awareness-raising  campaigns  to  ensure  that  increased 
trade does not compromise product safety. 

•  Available evidence indicates that the number of unsafe products imported from Canada 
to the EU, and vice versa, has remained low and has not increased since the start of 
CETA’s application, despite rising bilateral trade. 

•  Under the Joint Recommendation on Trade and Gender, the Parties have collaborated to 
for  women 

support  women’s  economic  empowerment  by  organising  events 
entrepreneurs and traders from the EU and Canada. 

•  The documented economic and social progress of CETA did not occur at the expense of 
the environment, as the impact on CO2 emissions in Canada and the EU appears to be 
largely insignificant. In Canada and the EU, household emissions did increase by 0.09 % 
and  0.001 %  respectively,  while  firm  emissions  rose  by  0.01 %  and  0.001 % 
respectively,  respectively  in  Canada  and  the  EU.  However,  the  total  increase  in  CO2 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
emissions in both Canada and the EU is estimated at 0.3 megatonnes, which is negligible 
compared to overall emissions levels in both economies. Furthermore, when considering 
population  growth,  CO2  emissions  have  actually  decreased  by  0.9 %  per  capita  in 
Canada and by 0.2 % per capita in the EU. 

•  CETA has had a marginally negative impact on land use, and thus on natural resources 
and biodiversity. The findings demonstrate that there has been an overall increase of 
land used for agriculture of a little over 1.5 million hectares due to CETA in both Parties 
combined.  This  change  represents  0.7 %  of  the  land  used  for  agriculture  in  both 
partners. 

•  CETA has contributed to growth of trade in environmental goods and services, including 

the sharing of environmentally sustainable technologies. 

While CETA has supported sustainable development, some challenges persist. 

•  Even though the Parties have not identified any shortcomings in the implementation of 
or compliance with the CETA TSD provisions, the absence of an enforcement mechanism 
has  triggered  concerns  from  civil  society  organisations.  The  lack  of  detailed  gender-
disaggregated  data  regarding  sectors  of  operation  of  women-owned  businesses  and 
women’s  trading  activity  hinders  the  evaluation  of  CETA’s  effects  on  female 
entrepreneurs and traders, above all in Canada. 

7. To implement the Agreement in a manner consistent with the enforcement of 
the  Parties’  respective  labour  and  environmental  laws,  building  upon  their 
international commitments on labour and environmental matters. 

The  Parties  have  implemented  CETA  in  a  manner  consistent  with  their  international 
obligations  regarding  labour  standards  and  environmental  commitments.  Evidence 
collected during this evaluation suggests that both the EU and Canada have continued to 
pursue  their  own  labour  and  environmental  policy  agendas  and  have  exchanged 
information  about  related  actions.  However,  these  activities  have  largely  occurred 
independently from the Agreement. 

•  CETA has had a limited but positive impact on working conditions and labour standards 

in both the EU and Canada, particularly in sectors engaged in bilateral trade. 

•  Domestic factors have exercised more influence in these areas. These factors include 
the domestic labour law with high levels of worker protection, a trade union presence 
and collective bargaining, adopted business models, technological changes, competition 
and other global developments. 

•  Since  the  start  of  the  provisional  application  of  CETA,  the  Parties  have  adopted  new 
legislation  in  areas  related  to  working  conditions  and  labour  standards,  such  as  the 
elimination  of  child  labour  and  forced  labour  from  their  markets  and  supply  chains. 
These developments were discussed during TSD Committee meetings. 

•  Contrary  to  concerns  raised  by  several  stakeholders,  the  EU  and  Canada  have  not 
engaged in a regulatory dialogue on labour-related matters and have preserved their 
right to regulate independently. 

•  The Member States and Canada have ratified further International Labour Organization 
fundamentals  and  other  up-to-date  conventions.  However,  these  ratifications  were 
primarily driven by domestic policy priorities and shared values, rather than CETA. 

•  Both Parties discussed environmental matters in the cooperation bodies set up by the 
agreement.  This  had  a  limited  impact  on  domestic  policy  developments,  but  has 
arguably  further  cemented  both  Parties’  understanding  of  their  respective  legal 
frameworks.  They  also  indicated  interest  in  further  fostering  their  cooperation  to 
increase trade in environmental goods and services with environmental benefits. 

•  The Parties have held regular TSD Committee meetings and engaged in dialogue with 
civil  society  organisations,  including  through  DAGs.  These  exchanges  have  fostered 
mutual learning and better understanding. 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
Despite  these  overall  positive  developments,  the  evaluation  study  finds  that  the  Parties 
have not fully utilised CETA’s potential in the area of labour or environmental (including 
climate) cooperation. Future efforts could focus on: 

•  The Parties’ enhanced cooperation in third countries aiming to improve these countries’ 

labour-related performance; 

•  The Parties’ cooperation on environmental (including climate) matters, which could be 
level  concerning  the 

further  enlarged  and  streamlined  at  the 
implementation of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs). 

international 

4.1.1.2  EQ2: What are the factors influencing (either positively or negatively) the 

achievement of CETA’s objectives? 

Factors positively contributing to achieving the Agreement’s objectives 

Several factors have contributed to achieving CETA’s objectives over the past seven years: 
CETA-specific elements, external factors and shared core policy values. 

CETA-specific aspects 

•  CETA’s  strong  institutional  structure  with  19  committees  and  dialogues  strongly 
supports and facilitates joint work and dialogue. Discussions put the Parties’ regulatory 
systems and differences into perspective. 

•  The  multiple  forums  for  collaboration  on  different  aspects  like  trade  in  goods  and 
services,  FDI,  SPS  and  technical  barriers  to  trade  (TBT)  measures,  procurement, 
investment,  SMEs,  conformity  assessment,  critical  raw  materials,  customs  and  trade 
facilitation,  geographical  indications  and  trade  and  sustainable  development,  require 
the  involvement  of  many  policymakers,  regulators,  companies  and  civil  society 
organisations  from  both  Parties.  The  success  of  joint  work  programmes  involving 
regulators has been a key driver of CETA’s positive outcomes. 

•  Trade  complementarities  between  the  Parties  have  created  numerous  win-win 
situations as tariffs are liberalised. While some overlaps exist,  such as in agricultural 
production  and  financial  and  insurance  services,  clear  patterns  have  emerged  where 
the EU has increased its exports (e.g. cheese, wines  and spirits,  rubber  and plastics 
and  transport  services)  and  where  Canada  has  done  the  same  for  other  products  or 
services (e.g. oil seeds, cereals, other business services and financial services). 

External factors 

Geopolitical and economic developments have brought the EU and Canada closer together, 
highlighting the importance of CETA as a strategic trade agreement. 

•  Regarding  Russia’s  war  of  aggression  against  Ukraine,  the  EU  and  Canada  have 
imposed sanctions on Russia and Belarus while providing strong support for Ukraine. 

•  Regarding  the  increased  degree  of  economic  protectionism  and  the  crisis  of  the 
multilateral  trading  system,  both  Parties  have  worked  together  to  defend  the  rules-
based international trade system and its benefits. 

•  Regarding  the  view  of  China  as  a  competitor  and  strategic  rival,  both  Parties  are 
pursuing strategies to reduce dependency on Chinese imports and aim to strengthen 
supply chain resilience in the years ahead. 

Shared core policy values between the EU and Canada 

•  The EU and Canada, as like-minded partners with relatively open economies, share key 
policy values. Both Parties are strong supporters of the WTO and its principles. They 
have  expressed  continuous  support  for  the  WTO  reform  through  initiatives  like  the 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ottawa  Group.  In  addition,  the  EU  and  Canada  participate  in  the  Multi-Party  Interim 
Appeal Arbitration Arrangement. 

•  The  Parties  focus  on  trade  diversification  as  a  core  policy  objective  as  part  of  their 
broader  economic  security  and  supply  chain  resilience  strategies.  CETA  provides  a 
mutually  beneficial  platform  for  trade  diversification.  The  EU  pursues  these  goals 
through  its  policy  of  open  strategic  autonomy,  including  strategic  partnerships  for 
critical raw materials and minerals. The evaluation study finds that Canada follows a 
trade  diversification  strategy  and  leverages  its  participation  in  multiple  trade 
agreements, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific 
Partnership, to achieve similar objectives. 

•  The Parties are strong supporters of multilateral efforts to tackle global environmental 
degradation and are collaborating closely to defend and advance a multilateral approach 
to environmental protection. The EU and Canada have aligned their trade policies with 
their  climate  and  sustainability  goals,  as  reflected  in  their  joint  support  for  the  Paris 
Climate  Agreement  and  ambitious  environmental  policies.  The  EU  is  promoting  and 
implementing  key  policies  put  in  place  under  the  European  Green  Deal,  addressing 
issues such as fighting biodiversity loss and the transition to a circular economy. Canada 
has introduced its 2020 ‘A healthy environment and a healthy economy’ plan (28), which 
includes  measures  to  reduce  GHG  emissions,  promote  clean  fuel  regulations  and 
improve energy efficiency. 

Factors negatively contributing to achieving the Agreement’s objectives 

Several factors have negatively affected the achievement of the CETA  objectives: CETA-
specific  challenges,  external  factors  and  differences  in  legislative  and  regulatory 
approaches. 

CETA-specific aspects 

•  Regarding companies making use of CETA, stakeholder feedback highlighted that the 
increase in the use of freight forwarders hinders the full use of CETA preferences (i.e. 
CETAs  preference  utilisation  rates).  This  is  because  freight  forwarders  do  not  claim 
CETA  preferences  unless  explicitly  requested  by  clients,  as  this  is  seen  as  a 
cumbersome and costly task. As a result, goods are often traded at MFN tariffs rather 
than CETA preferential tariffs, reducing the effectiveness of CETA. 

•  Regarding public procurement, the sub-federal level of fragmentation in Canada, both 
in  terms  of  differences  in  procurement  rules  and  the  availability  of  tenders  and 
procurement  statistics,  may  negatively  impact  the  objective  of  increasing  EU  public 
procurement  participation  in  Canada.  However,  the  introduction  of  CanadaBuys –  a 
centralised single point of access to all procurement notices falling within the scope of 
international agreements such as the Government Procurement Agreement and CETA – 
has achieved a major increase in transparency and can be considered a very important 
positive outcome of CETA. 

•  An issue raised  repeatedly by SMEs, including during the SME online seminar, is the 
misconception among some EU SMEs that CETA applies to them only if their respective 
Member State has ratified the Agreement. 

External factors 

•  With  the  United  Kingdom  leaving  the  EU,  one  of  Canada’s  most  important  trading 
partners is no longer part of the bloc, causing the trade size of CETA to diminish. 

•  The  COVID-19  pandemic  and  related  lockdown  measures  significantly  disrupted 
bilateral trade between the EU and Canada in 2020 and in 2021. However, by late 2021 
and  throughout  2022,  the  EU’s  increased  exports  of  COVID-19  vaccines  to  Canada 

(28)  Government of Canada, ‘A Healthy Environment and a Healthy Economy’, 8 April 2021, 

https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/climate-plan-
overview/healthy-environment-healthy-economy.html. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
provided  a  significant  boost  of  bilateral  trade,  helping  it  recover  more  quickly  than 
initially  expected.  While  COVID-19  initially  hindered  CETA’s  objectives,  its  negative 
impact  was  short-lived,  with  bilateral  trade  growth  resuming  in  2022  and  continuing 
into 2023 and beyond. 

Differences in legislative and regulatory approaches between the EU and Canada 

The  differences  in  how  the  EU  and  Canada  regulate  their  markets  have  also  posed 
challenges. 

•  Approach to standards and regulation: 

o 

o 

In the EU, standards are voluntary and typically linked to legislation. Legislation 
sets  out  essential  requirements,  while  standards  offer  practical  guidance  for 
compliance.  Standards  are  developed  by  three  standard  setting  bodies:  the 
European  Committee  for  Standardization,  the  European  Committee  for 
Electrotechnical  Standardization,  or 
the  European  Telecommunications 
Standards  Institute,  under  mandate  from  the  Commission.  Companies  that 
follow  these  standards  are  presumed  compliant  with  the  law,  although 
alternative standards may also be accepted. 

In Canada, standards are less likely to be linked to regulation. Instead, private 
standard-setting bodies create standards that businesses may adopt voluntarily. 
The  primary  incentive  for  compliance  comes  from  the  risk  of  litigation  rather 
than regulatory mandates. 

•  Regulatory approach: 

o  The  EU  often  employs  the  precautionary  principle,  enacting  comprehensive 
regulations to pre-emptively address potential risks. This approach is evident, for 
example, in some SPS measures. 

o  Canada  applies  a  more  flexible,  risk-based  regulatory  approach,  focusing  on 
balancing  innovation  with  regulation.  For  example,  Canada’s  Directive  on 
automated decision-making provides guidelines for federal institutions to ensure 
responsible artificial intelligence use. Canada typically advocates for a risk-based, 
science-based approach under CETA on issues like SPS, while the EU often relies 
on scientific evidence supplemented by the precautionary principle. 

•  Data protection standards: 

o  The EU General Data Protection Regulation enforces strict data protection rules, 
granting  individuals  extensive  rights  over  their  personal  data  and  putting 
obligations on organisations handling private data. 

o  The  Personal  Information  Protection  and  Electronic  Documents  Act  in  Canada 
offers robust yet less stringent data protection than the General Data Protection 
Regulation’s  standards,  creating compliance challenges for businesses  operating 
across both jurisdictions. 

4.1.1.3  EQ3: Has the implementation of CETA had unintended consequences? 

This  evaluation  has  identified  one  unintended  positive  side  effect  and  one  unintended 
negative side effect as a result of CETA. 

Positive unintended effect 

A limited but notable reduction in GHG emissions constituted an unintended (positive) side 
effect. The modelling shows that CO2 emissions increased marginally (due to a combination 
of a marginal increase  of  bilateral transport combined with a small decrease because of 
production  shifts)  overall.  However,  CO2  decreased  per  capita  (because  the  population 
growth  over  the  compared  period  was  higher  than  the  increase  in  CO2  emissions  from 
CETA). In addition, emissions of non-CO2 GHG declined, and as a result the overall GHG-
related  environmental  impact  of  the  Agreement  can  be  considered  marginally  positive. 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
While  this  effect  was  not  strictly  speaking  unintended,  it  was  an  unexpected  positive 
environmental outcome. 
Negative unintended effect 

While  the  EU  and  Canada  have  set  clear  objectives  on  sustainability  to  advance  the 
greening  of  their  economies  and  reduce  emissions –  through  domestic  legislation  and 
regulations  and  flanked  by  CETA’s  TSD  chapters –  an  unintended  negative  consequence 
has  emerged.  The  combination  of  CETA’s  automotive  rules  of  origin  and  the  Canadian 
luxury  car  tax  has  penalised  trade  in  electric  vehicles  compared  to  trade  with  internal 
combustion  engine  vehicles,  as  the  latter  more  easily  meet  CETA’s  rules  of  origin 
requirements than electric vehicles and are also less likely to be subject to the luxury tax 
due  to  their  lower  cost  of  production.  This  unintended  side  effect  could  undermine  the 
shared goal of reducing GHG emissions through sustainable trade practices. 

4.1.2  Impact 

4.1.2.1  EQ4: What has been the impact of CETA’s implementation? 

Total  trade  has  increased  faster  in  the  post-Agreement  period  than  in  the  pre-
Agreement period 

Bilateral  trade  in  goods  and  services  between  the  EU  and  Canada  has  increased  from 
EUR 64  billion  to  EUR 72  billion  in  the  pre-CETA  period  (2012–2016),  representing  a 
12.5 %  increase.  During  the  post-CETA  period  (2017–2023),  total  bilateral  trade 
increased by 55.9 %, from EUR 79 billion in 2017 to EUR 123 billion in 2023 (by 
71.0 % from 2016 to 2023), despite the negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in 
2020. 

Overall, trade in goods increased faster in the post-Agreement period than in the 
pre-Agreement period 

To  assess  the  relative  impact  of  CETA,  Figure 7  compares  the  growth  of  bilateral  EU–
Canada trade with the growth of total extra-EU trade, covering both exports and imports. 
It  shows  that  EU  exports  to  Canada  have  grown  at  a  significantly  faster  rate  than  total 
extra-EU exports, with 2017 set as the base year. 

Between 2017 and 2023, EU goods exports to Canada increased by 51.2 % compared to a 
28.2 % increase in EU exports to third countries. EU imports from Canada rose by 49.4 % 
during the same period, growing at a slightly faster pace than overall extra-EU imports, 
which increased by 42.3 %. 

30 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 7. Changes in goods trade between the pre-Agreement and post-
Agreement periods (2017=100) 

Source: Eurostat (2024)(29). 

Sectoral trade in goods: CETA has had a significant and positive effect on sectoral 
goods trade between the EU and Canada, both in agricultural and manufacturing. 

•  Between  2016  and  2023,  EU  goods  exports  to  Canada  increased  by  64 %.  The 
largest export increases occurred in nuclear reactors, boilers and machinery (EUR 3.3 
billion or 63.7 %), chemicals (EUR 3.0 billion or 250.2 %), pharmaceuticals (EUR 2.0 
billion  or  58.4 %),  motor  vehicles  (EUR 1.4  billion  or  33.4 %),  agricultural  products 
(EUR 1.3 billion or 80.0 %) and mineral fuels and oils (EUR 1.0 billion or 62.2 %). 

•  Between 2016 and 2023, EU imports from Canada increased by 61 %. The largest 
import  increases  in  the  post-CETA  period  occurred  in  the  following  sectors:  mineral 
fuels  and  oils  (EUR 3.3  billion  or  321.5 %),  ores,  slag  and  ash  (EUR 1.9  billion  or 
109.5 %),  agricultural  products  (EUR 830  million  or  38.3 %),  chemicals  (EUR 788 
million or 119.9 %) and pearls, gems and jewellery (EUR 718  million  or 68.2 %). In 
relative  (percentage)  terms,  notable  increases  were  also  observed  in  several  other 
sectors,  including  a  523.6 %  increase  in  fertiliser  imports,  a  177.6 %  increase  in 
aluminium  imports,  a  114.5 %  increase  in  nickel  imports  and  a  254.2 %  increase  in 
beverage imports from Canada. 

On agriculture: 

•  CETA has had a significant positive effect on bilateral  agri-food sector trade between 
the EU and Canada. EU exports of meat and edible meat offal were EUR 122 million 
per year higher (188 %) in the post-CETA period compared to pre-CETA levels. Dairy 
exports rose by 62 %, while exports of fish and crustaceans, edible fruits and nuts, 
and oilseed also increased by large amounts. On the Canadian side, exports to the EU 
increased, especially for oilseed (44 %), cereals (21 %) and fish and crustaceans 
(65 %). 

•  The  main  EU  exporters  are  Denmark,  Germany,  Spain  and  Italy  for  all  products 
combined;  Ireland  (meat)  and  Spain  and  Lithuania  (fish  and  crustaceans);  and 
Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France and Italy (milk and dairy 
products like cheese). The main EU importers are Belgium, France and Italy (oilseed) 
and Ireland, Spain and Portugal (cereals). 

(29) Eurostat Dataset DS-045409 

31 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     
 
 
 
 
 
 
o  The difference in average EU agricultural exports to Canada between the pre-
CETA and post-CETA periods amounts to EUR 1.4 billion per year. This increase 
is  primarily  driven  by  higher  exports  of  wine  of  fresh  grapes  (10.8 %), 
followed by extra virgin olive oil (8.6 %), sparkling wine of fresh grapes 
(4.4 %), feta cheese (4.3 %) and pork (3.3 %). 

o  The difference in average EU agricultural imports from Canada between the two 
periods  is  EUR 767  million  per  year.  Oilseed  accounts  for  37.5 %  of  this 
increase,  followed  by  cereals  (maize)  (18.4 %),  crustaceans  (fresh) 
(12.2 %) and dog or cat food (5.2 %). 

On manufacturing: 

Several manufacturing sectors experienced substantial export growth, including  textiles 
and  clothing  (71 %),  rubber  and  plastics  (75 %)  and  machinery  and  mechanical 
appliances (39 %). 

The number of products traded 

In  terms  of  the  number  of  products  traded,  as  shown  in  Figure 8,  both  the  number  of 
exported and imported products increased when comparing 2016 to 2023. The number of 
products the EU exported to Canada rose by 5.0 %, from 3 200 in 2016 to 3 360 products 
in  2023.  Similarly,  the  number  of  products  the  EU  imported  from  Canada  increased  by 
11.4 %, from 2 828 in 2016 to 3 150 in 2023. These increases point to gains in product 
availability in the EU and Canada. 

Figure 8. Change in the number of products traded between the EU and Canada 
(2016, 2023) 

Source: Support study, based on Eurostat (2024). 

Trade in services has increased faster in the post-Agreement period than in the 
pre-Agreement period 

EU exports of commercial services to Canada increased from an average of EUR 10.7 billon 
pre-CETA to an average of EUR 15.3 billion post-CETA, registering a 46.5 % increase. EU 
imports of commercial services from Canada also grew from an average of EUR 7.6 billon 
pre-CETA to an average of EUR 11.2 billion post-CETA, translating into a 43.0 % increase. 
Despite  the  sharp  decline  in  2020  due  to  the  COVID-19  pandemic,  the  post-pandemic 

32 

                                                                                                                                                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
recovery has been strong, with EU services exports to Canada reaching  EUR 19.2 billion 
and  imports  from  Canada  EUR 14.5  billion  in  2023,  resulting  in  an  EU  trade  surplus  of 
EUR 4.7 billon. 

Figure 9. EU–Canada bilateral services trade (2012–2023, in million EUR) 

Source: Evaluation study, based on the UNCTADstat data centre. 

At the sector level, EU bilateral commercial services exports are dominated by transport, 
travel,  other  business  and  IP-related  services.  The  share  of  other  business  services 
increased  on  average  after  CETA.  The  share  of  services  traded  digitally  (insurance  and 
pension  services,  financial  services,  charges  for  the  use  of  IP,  telecommunications, 
computer  and  information  services,  other  business  services  and  personal,  cultural,  and 
recreational services) has also increased in each partner’s bilateral services exports in the 
post-CETA period. 

33 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 10. Sectoral distribution of EU–Canada commercial services trade (in 
percentage) 

Source: Evaluation study, based on the UNCTADstat data centre. 

Germany,  Ireland,  France,  and  the  Netherlands  dominate  the  EU’s  services  export  and 
import  distributions.  While  these  Member  States  have  consistently  ranked  as  the  top 
trading partners, their relative shares have shifted over time. 

Trade in transport services has increased between the pre-CETA and post-CETA periods. 
Before CETA, the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam were the main trading hubs. These were 
joined by Le Havre from the moment CETA was provisionally applied.  Dredging services 
have  increased  and  Dutch  dredging  firms  in  particular  have  benefitted  from  the  CETA 
provisions on dredging, along with the Canadian public procurement market opening up. 
Trade in business services has significantly increased on both sides (66.9 % in terms of EU 
exports  to  Canada,  and  76.3 %  in  terms  of  Canadian  exports  to  the  EU).  Telecom  and 
computer services trade also grew rapidly between 2017 and 2023, more rapidly than in 
the pre-CETA period. 

The main drivers for this increase were, among others, the digital transformation, growth 
of remote work after the COVID-19 pandemic, new innovations like 5G and the internet of 
things, aligned views on sustainability and climate change, geopolitical tensions bringing 
the EU and Canada closer, and the critical importance of cybersecurity. 

Despite the strong overall increase of trade in digitally delivered services, a more detailed 
analysis  on  whether  CETA  has  had  a  meaningful  impact  on  these  developments  is 
inconclusive. Indeed, WTO estimates show that global digitally delivered services export 
and  import  also  grew  significantly  between  2017  and  2022  (61 %  and  65 % 
respectively) (30). As suggested by the evaluation study, this may be because CETA’s e-
commerce  provisions  are  relatively  modest  compared  to  more  modern  EU  trade 
agreements, such as those with Japan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Stakeholders 
have highlighted this as a critical area requiring improvement. Regarding the temporary 
entry  and  stay  of  natural  persons,  the  evaluation  study  has  found  evidence  that  the 

(30)  World 

trade 
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/gstdh_digital_services_e.htm. 

Trade  Organization, 

delivered 

‘Digitally 

services 

dataset’, 

25 July 

2025, 

34 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Manufacturing servicesMaintenance   repairTransportTravelConstructionInsurance   pensionsFinancialCharges for IP useTelecom, computer   ITOther businessPersonal, cultural   recreational 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
business  community  is  appreciative  of  this  provision.  However,  it  remains  relatively 
unknown and its uptake has been limited to date. 

The  Agreement’s  impact  on  gross  domestic  product  and  trade  in  the  EU  and 
Canada was positive 

As demonstrated by the evaluation study, CETA has contributed to GDP increases in both 
the EU and Canada. EU GDP has become EUR 3.2 billion higher each year due to CETA, 
while Canadian GDP is EUR 1.3 billion higher each year. 

No impact by the Agreement on Türkiye and least-developed countries 

Based  on  the  economic  analysis  of  the  evaluation  study,  effects  for  Türkiye  have  been 
negligible. Moreover, LDCs have not been impacted by CETA. 

The Agreement’s impact on foreign direct investments was marginal 

Comparing  pre-CETA  and  post-CETA  periods,  the  average  levels  of  EU  foreign  direct 
investment  (FDI)  into  Canada  grew  by  EUR 40  billion  (from  an  average  FDI  stock  of 
EUR 220 billion pre-CETA to EUR 308 billion post-CETA), making the EU the second-largest 
foreign investor in Canada after the United States. However, Canadian inward FDI stocks 
have risen much faster for the United States and China (see ) than for the EU, which implies 
that the EU’s share in Canadian inward FDI has decreased over time. Investor uncertainty 
resulting from the ongoing Member State ratification process, along with the rapid growth 
of both inward and outward FDI for China, may explain why these investment results are 
modest. 

Table 3. Canadian inward foreign direct investment stocks in perspective (in 
billion EUR) 

Year 

2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2017–2023 

US FDI 
inward 
stock 
(billion 
EUR)  

 Annual 
rate of 
growth 
(%) 

EU FDI 
inward 
stock 
(billion 
EUR) 

Annual 
rate of 
growth 
(%)  

China FDI 
inward 
stock 
(billion 
EUR) 

 Annual 
rate of 
growth 
(%) 

269.4 
311.2 
312.5 
310.4 
364.7 
390.4 
414.2 

15.5 
0.4 
– 0.7 
17.5 
7.0 
6.1 
44.9 

273 
366 
322 
270 
303 
315 
NA 
NA 

34.1 
– 12.0 
– 16.1 
12.2 
4.0 

15.4 

10.6 
14.4 
17 
13.9 
17.2 
17.1 
16.6 
16.6 

35.8 
18.1 
– 18.2 
23.7 
-0.6 
– 2.9 
61.3 

Source: Canada Statistics (2024). 

Small and medium-sized enterprises benefit from the Agreement 

SMEs  are  the  backbone  of  the  EU  and  Canadian  economies.  Figure 11  illustrates  the 
importance of SMEs for the EU economy in terms of employment and turnover. A similar 
trend is observed in the Canadian economy, as shown in Figure 12. 

35 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Figure 11. EU business economy by firm size in 2022 (in percentage of size 
class) 

Source: Eurostat (2022). 

Figure 12. Canadian business economy by firm size in 2022 (in percentage of 
size class) 

Source: Statistics Canada (key small business statistics 2023). 

SMEs can benefit from FTAs such as CETA  either directly or indirectly. The direct impact 
arises from increased opportunities, as lower tariffs and reductions in NTMs enable more 
SMEs to start to export to or import from the other Party. The indirect impact results from 
domestic economic effects, where SMEs benefit as part of a sector or value chain positively 
affected by CETA (31). 

Direct  effect:  number  of  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  exporting  and 
importing 

Analyses of CETA’s impact on the number of trading firms distinguished by effects by sector 
(industry  versus  services)  and  firm  size  (SMEs  versus  large  firms)  show  the  following 
conclusions (32). 

(31)  Koo, H. K., ‘The effects of free trade agreements on SMEs’ direct and indirect exports’, World Economy Brief, 
Policy, 

International 

Economic 

Institute 

Korea 

For 

Vol. 21, 
8 March 
https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/kiepwe/2021_008.html. 

Issue 8, 

2021, 

(32)  Cernat,  L.,  Díaz-Mora,  C.,  Esteve,  S.  and  Gil-Pareja,  S.,  ‘Countries  don’t  trade,  firms  do:  A  firm-level 
assessment  of  CETA’,  Pre-print  Series  in  Industrial  Strategy  and  International  Trade,  01/2024,  2024, 
Universidad  de  Castilla-La  Mancha,  https://www.uclm.es/-/media/Files/C01-Centros/CEE/centro-de-
excelencia-jean-monnet/working-papers/Series-Industrial-Strategy/Pre-Print--Industrial-Strategy-and-
International-Trade-01-2024-Impact-of-CETA.ashx. 

36 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  CETA has had a positive effect on the number of exporting firms. The Agreement has 
led to an 11.2 % increase in the number  of  exporting  firms; however, no  significant 
impact was found on the number of importing firms. 

•  For manufacturing companies, CETA has increased both the number of exporting firms 
(by 15.3 %) and the number of importing  firms (by 4.2 %). For services companies, 
CETA has had a positive effect on the number of exporting firms (by 4.7 %), but no 
measurable impact on the number of importing firms. 

•  CETA  has  led  to  an  8.5 %  increase  in  the  number  of  exporting  SMEs  and  a  7.0 % 
increase in the number of exporting large firms. No significant effect was found on the 
number of importing SMEs or large firms. 

The  majority  of  exporting  firms  in  Member  States  are  SMEs.  The  share  of  SMEs  varies 
across Member States, ranging from 79 % of Romanian exporters to Canada to 95 % of 
Italian  exporters  in  2022.  For  all  Member  States,  except  for  Czechia,  Denmark  and 
Hungary, the number of SMEs exporting grows faster than the number of large companies 
exporting  to  Canada.  Overall  growth  in  the  number  of  EU  SMEs  exporting  to  Canada 
(20.3 %)  has  been  higher  than  growth  in  the  number  of  large  companies  exporting  to 
Canada  (13.8 %).  The  number  of  Canadian  SMEs  exporting  to  the  EU  (6.4 %)  has  also 
increased faster than the number of Canadian large firms exporting to the EU (3.3 %). 

When comparing the 2012–2016 pre-CETA period with the 2017–2023 post-CETA period, 
Figure 13 demonstrates that a greater number of Canadian firms (primarily SMEs) have 
engaged in exports to the EU following CETA’s provisional application. This suggests that 
CETA has had a direct positive effect on the number of Canadian companies participating 
in bilateral trade with the EU. The growth rate of exporting Canadian SMEs has been higher 
than the growth rate of large firms to most Member States. 

Figure 13. Number of Canadian exporters to Member States (2012–2016 and 
2017–2023) 

Source: Evaluation study, based on Statistics Canada (2024). 

Indirect  effect:  sectoral  economic  effects  where  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises are active 

Two aspects influence the magnitude of CETA’s indirect effect on SMEs: whether a sector 
has experienced production growth due to CETA, and the share of SMEs in the production 
structure of that sector. 

37 

                                                                                                                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 14 (left panel) indicates that EU SMEs in textiles, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, 
wearing  and  apparel,  rubber  and  plastics  and  beverages  have  benefitted  the  most  from 
CETA. Conversely, SMEs in sectors such as mining, pharmaceuticals and other transport 
equipment may have been negatively affected by sectoral declines. Figure 14 (right panel) 
demonstrates that Canadian SMEs in textiles, agriculture, forestry & fisheries, wearing & 
apparel, and transport services have benefitted from CETA. Conversely, SMEs in sectors 
such  as  dairy, 
technology,  beverages,  and 
pharmaceuticals may have faced challenges due to sectoral declines. 

information  and  communications 

Figure 14. Relative share of small and medium-sized enterprises and sector 
effects of the Agreement 

Relative  share  of  SMEs  in  EU  sectors  and 
EU-sector effects of CETA 

Relative share of SMEs in Canadian sectors 
and Canadian-sector effects of CETA 

Source: Evaluation study, based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 
(OECD) trade by enterprise characteristics database, in cooperation with Eurostat (2024), Statistics 
Canada (2024) and simulations conducted by DG Trade and Economic Security. 

The Agreement has supported collaboration on critical raw materials 

CETA has facilitated cooperation between the EU and Canada in the area of critical raw 
materials (CRM) by facilitating the Strategic Partnership on Critical Raw Materials. The 
evolution  of  bilateral  trade  in  CRM,  driven  by  geopolitical  events  and  the  focus  on  the 
transition to a net-zero economy, supports the conclusion that the Raw Materials Dialogue 
under  CETA  and  the  EU–Canada  Strategic  Partnership  on  Critical  Raw  Materials,  have 
helped enhance the security of supply for the EU and Canada. 

Both  Parties  have  clear  frameworks  in  place  to  work  towards  increasing  the  security  of 
supply for their energy transitions. Canada has been a strong and reliable supplier of cobalt 
and  nickel  for  the  EU  (see  Figure 15),  while  the  EU  has  exported  unrefined  copper  for 
anodes,  cathodes  and  electrolytes.  While  mining  has  not  increased  as  a  result  of  CETA, 
trade in CRMs has increased. 

Companies in the EU and Canada have invested in battery value chains in their respective 
regions.  Canada  is  working  to  increase  extraction  capacities  for  CRMs,  while  the  EU  is 
signing  strategic  partnerships  with  key  global  CRM  partners  to  increase  its  security  of 
supply. 

The key competitiveness challenge for the EU and Canada in the battery value chain lies 
in its midstream part (smelting and refinement), which is dominated by China. Canada is 
relatively more focused on this stage of this supply chain, since it is a CRM producer and 
can more easily link up CRM extraction to smelting and refinement. For the EU this provides 

38 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
investment opportunities and a possibility to integrate into these value chains. Since 2017, 
especially  in  the  downstream  stage  of  battery  production,  there  have  been  ample 
investments from EU companies in Canada, and collaborations continue to develop. 

An  element  that  could  enforce  even  closer  collaboration  in  the  area  of  CRM  is  the  full 
ratification of CETA, as the lack of legally binding investor protection provisions may have 
a  chilling  effect  on  EU  investments  in  the  battery  value  chain,  especially  upstream  in 
extraction, where projects are capital intensive and long term. 

Figure 15. Evolution of EU imports of cobalt (2015–2023) 

Source: Evaluation study, based on Eurostat (2024)(33). 

The Agreement increased supply chain diversification and resilience 

The evaluation concludes that CETA has significantly contributed to the diversification and 
resilience of EU and Canadian supply chains, as summarised in Table 4. 

Table 4. Summary of the Agreement’s impact on supply chain diversification and 
resilience 

No.  Metric 

1 

2 

Changes  in  the 
number 
of 
products 
traded 
between  the  EU 
and Canada 
Degree 
of 
concentration  of 
EU–Canada 
exports 
imports 

and 

Conclusion on effects of CETA for supply chain 
diversification and resilience 
More products are exported to and imported from Canada, 
showing  trade  diversification  in  EU–Canada  trade  post-
CETA (see EQ1). 

At  the  detailed  product  level,  the  concentration  of  EU 
exports to Canada was reduced since CETA and so was the 
concentration of EU imports from Canada. At the aggregate 
level,  the  concentration  of  EU  imports from  Canada went 
up  because  of  geopolitical  events:  a  large  increase  in 
imports of raw materials post February 2022, facilitated by 
CETA  and  Strategic  Partnership  on  Critical  Raw  Materials 

(33) Eurostat DS-045409 

39 

Summary effect 

Support 
chain diversification 

for 

supply 

for 

Support 
chain 
and resilience. 

supply 
diversification 

Additionally:  Canada’s 
importance as a reliable 
provider  of  EU  energy 
and raw materials  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 

4 

5 

6 

No.  Metric 

Evolution 
of 
share  of  Canada 
imports, 
in  EU 
and vice versa 
Source 
country 
diversification  for 
EU  and  Canadian 
imports 

Conclusion on effects of CETA for supply chain 
diversification and resilience 
and due to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine and 
related sanctions on Russia.  
The  share  of  EU  goods  in  Canadian  imports  went  up  by 
14 %  (from  8.3 %  pre-CETA  to  9.5 %  post-CETA).  The 
share of Canadian goods in EU imports went up by ca 8 % 
(from 1.1 % pre-CETA to 1.2 % post-CETA).  
For  Canada,  dependence  on  the  United  States  has 
decreased  thanks  to  CETA  (observed  country  supplier 
concentration  dropped), 
increasing  source  country 
diversification  and resilience. For  the  EU, CETA  increased 
the share of Canadian imports in total EU imports. Despite 
CETA,  the  concentration  of  EU  suppliers 
increased 
marginally  in  the  post-CETA  period,  due  to  geopolitical 
shocks. However, CETA helped to dampen this increase in 
supplier  concentration.  The  concentration  of  EU  suppliers 
would have increased more without CETA. 

Summary effect 

for 

for 

the 

supply 
diversification 
CETA 

Support 
chain 
towards 
Parties 
supply 
Support 
diversification 
chain 
and 
for 
resilience 
Canada, and, to a lesser 
the  EU 
extent, 
for 
(outweighed 
by 
geopolitical shocks) 

Role  of  SMEs  in 
supporting 
supply 
resilience 

chain 

Regulatory 
cooperation  and 
and 
trade 
customs 
facilitation 

CETA has had a positive effect on the number of EU SMEs 
exporting to Canada, and vice versa (see EQ4). Many SMEs 
form a more resilient network with many nodes (where one 
SME can more easily be replaced), which is stronger than 
a network of a few big nodes (more quickly impacted if one 
of the nodes falters). 
The  long-term  processes  of  regulatory  cooperation  and 
continued  trade  facilitation  through  streamlined  customs 
procedures  reduce  the  export  costs  for  companies  and 
diversify  supply  chains  (even  if  in  a  more  regulated 
environment).  CETA  has  made  some  progress  in  this 
regard. 

for 

supply 
Support 
chain 
diversification 
and  resilience  through 
positive effects on SMEs 

Some progress towards 
supporting supply chain 
and 
diversification 
resilience 

The  main  metric  for  assessing  the  economic  security  of  supply  is  the  degree  to  which 
importer concentration decreases over time for the EU and Canada. In  Figure 16, the 
Herfindahl-Hirschman  index  (HHI)  of  supplier  concentration  is  presented  for  total  EU 
imports and total Canadian imports from 2012 to 2023. Several observations stand out. 

•  The EU’s HHI is substantially lower than that of Canada, indicating that the EU’s trade 
diversification  is  significantly  higher  than  that  of  Canada.  This  is  because  Canada 
heavily relies on the United States as a dominant trading partner, driving the market 
concentration of supply for Canada. For the EU, the relative weightings of its trading 
partners are much more balanced, leading to a much lower HHI value over time. 

•  For  Canada,  the  HHI  declined  slightly  post-CETA,  indicating  a  marginal  increase  in 
import  diversification.  The  EU–Canada  trade  share  has  increased  thanks  to  CETA, 
leading  to  a  decline  in  the  US  share  in  Canadian  imports.  When  the  United States–
Canada  trade  share  declines  marginally,  this  lowers  the  Canadian  HHI  as  Canada’s 
dependence  on  the  United  States  decreases.  Based  on  this  empirical  finding,  this 
evaluation  concludes  that  Canadian  import  suppliers  have  become  more  diversified 
because of CETA. 

•  For  the  EU,  the  HHI  marginally  increased  post-CETA,  reflecting  changes  in  trade 
patterns. While CETA has boosted the  Canada’s share in EU trade by 7.7 %, Canada 
still constituted only approximately 1.2 % of total EU trade, meaning this change was 
too small to significantly affect the EU’s HHI. The observed increase in the HHI for EU 
imports  was  primarily  driven  by  geopolitical  factors,  notably  the  increased  share  of 
trade with the United States – which was already a significant trading partner – due to 
higher  imports  of  fossil  fuels  following  the  sanctions  imposed  on  Russia  (a  smaller 
trading partner). 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 16. Herfindahl–Hirschman index for EU and Canada (total imports, 2012–
2023) 

Source: Evaluation study, based on UN Comtrade data (2024). 

The Agreement has positively affected public procurement 

As outlined in EQ1, CETA contains ambitious provisions that open up Canadian federal and 
sub-federal  procurement  markets  to  EU  companies,  while  also  granting  Canadian 
companies reciprocal access to procurement markets at both the EU level and the Member 
State level. As a result, the value of public procurement, for both EU firms in Canada and 
Canadian firms in the EU, has increased by at least 8.4 % annually between the Parties. 

The institutional structure of the Agreement has had a positive impact 

The evaluation study finds that the institutional structure established under CETA has 
performed well and made a significant impact. Most CETA committees and dialogues have 
made  progress  in  implementing  the  Agreement,  reducing  regulatory  divergences  and 
achieving concrete results. Some of the CETA institutions have evolved from pre-existing 
agreements,  such  as  the  Joint  Customs  Cooperation  Committee.  Useful  information 
exchanges have taken place, along with discussions at the technical level, which have led 
to concrete progress in several areas (see next bullet under regulatory cooperation) while 
also  strengthening  bilateral  trust  and  fostering  a  forward-looking  agenda.  However,  the 
agreement on enhanced cooperation on science, technology, research, and innovation and 
the dialogue on e-commerce have remained inactive under CETA, as alternative fora exist 
(34)(35).  
All CETA committees and dialogues have maintained transparency, with meeting reports, 
draft decisions and agendas made publicly accessible. 

(34)  Canada became associated to Pillar II of Horizon Europe in July 2024 (the closest form 
of  cooperation)  and  a  Joint  Association  Committee  was  established  to  oversee  the 
implementation of the Association Agreement. The EU-Canada Science and Technology 
Cooperation  Agreement  (1996)  continues  to  promote  other  aspects  of  EU-Canada 
cooperation in research and innovation, including researcher mobility.  

(35)  In  November  2023  the  EU–Canada  Digital  Partnership  was  established  as  the  main 
vehicle for increasingly important cooperation on digital and tech matters. Covering a 
wide array of topics, it also has provided a framework for regulatory cooperation with 
regard to certain aspects of e-commerce. 

41 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regulatory cooperation has achieved concrete outcomes 

Regulatory  cooperation  has  achieved  several  concrete  outcomes  thanks  to  the  well-
structured  institutional  framework  and  significant  efforts  from  both  the  EU  and  Canada, 
with  strong  involvement  from  regulators.  Key  achievements  included  joint  awareness 
campaigns and coordinated information sharing on safe online shopping, data sharing on 
unsafe products, the expansion of the MRA on GMP inspections in pharmaceuticals to third 
countries,  the  MRA  on  professional  qualifications  for  architects  and  a  joint  project  to 
eliminate quarantine and confirmatory re-testing of cosmetic-like low-risk products.  

The Mutual Recognition of the Authorised Economic Operator Programmes adopted by the 
CETA Joint Customs Cooperation Committee entered into force on 1 August 2025. The MRA 
marks  an  important  milestone  in  the  implementation  of  the  Agreement  between  the  EU 
and  Canada  on  customs  cooperation.  It  improves  effective  customs  control  and  supply 
chain security while further facilitating legitimate bilateral trade between Canada and the 
EU for authorised economic operators.  

However, regulatory cooperation has also faced important challenges. First, some topics 
selected for collaboration proved difficult to address, resulting in little progress. Second, 
providing  the  other  Party  with  timely  input  at  the  draft  stage  of  new  legislation  or 
regulations  has  been  challenging.  Third,  for  some  areas  of  cooperation,  sub-federal / 
Member State competences added a layer of complexity, slowing regulatory cooperation. 
Finally,  in  many  areas,  both  Parties  have  chosen  to  adhere  to  their  own  standards  or 
regulations without room for compromise (e.g. on SPS measures). 

The social impact of the Agreement was limited but positive 

The  social  impacts  of  CETA,  driven  by  its  economic  effects,  have  been  limited  but 
positive.  Employment  effects  at  the  sector  level  follow  the  economic  impacts  outlined 
above, with real wages increasing by 0.02 % in the EU and 0.1 % in Canada. CETA has 
contributed to an increase in real spending power for families by raising real wages and 
lowering  prices  (with  the  greatest  gains  occurring  in  the  poorer  strata  of  the  household 
population, in relative terms), while consumers have benefitted from greater availability 
and  affordability  of  goods  and  services,  along  with  high  levels  of  consumer  protection. 
CETA’s effects on working conditions have been minimal in most sectors, with domestic 
factors (e.g. legal protection and enforcement and trade union presence) playing a much 
larger  role.  Likewise,  CETA’s  effects  on  labour  standards  have  been  marginal.  Most 
labour-related actions taken by the Parties (e.g. new legislation addressing forced and child 
labour in supply chains) stem from their respective domestic policy agendas rather than 
from CETA itself. 

The  Agreement  has  had  a  positive  impact  on  women  in  the  EU  as  workers,  generating 
employment  opportunities  in  exporting  sectors  while  potentially  slowing  employment 
growth  in  import-competing  sectors.  Female  entrepreneurs  and  traders  in  the  EU  have 
benefitted in the economic sectors where CETA has had a positive impact. 

Insignificant negative environmental impact of the Agreement  

CETA’s impact on CO2 emissions has been insignificant in both the EU and Canada. 
Quantitative analysis indicates no effect on energy demand in either Party, with the overall 
energy  demand  remaining  unchanged.  Since  2017,  CO2  emissions  have  decreased  by 
0.9 % per capita in Canada and by 0.2 % per capita in the EU due to CETA. The freight-
related effects of CETA have led to only a marginal increase in emissions for both partners. 
The  quantitative  results  on  natural  resources  and  biodiversity  suggest  a  very  small 
negative impact  of  CETA on land use. Agricultural land use has increased by 1.5 million 
hectares across both Parties, mainly due to a slight  increase in the EU production of red 
meat. This represents 0.7 % of the total agricultural land in both regions. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Impact of the Agreement on trade in environmental goods and services 

CETA  has  contributed  to  the  growth  of  trade  in  environmental  goods  and  services 
between  the  EU  and  Canada.  Since  2017,  trade  growth  has  accelerated,  particularly  in 
sectors such as energy efficiency, renewable energy technologies and sustainable building 
equipment, reflecting strong demand for environmental technologies. In addition, trade in 
environmental services has expanded, driven by increased investment in renewable energy 
infrastructure  and  the  demand  for  expertise  in  environmental  sustainability.  Enhanced 
access to public procurement markets in both Canada and the EU has further supported 
the expansion of trade in environmental services. 

The human rights impact of the Agreement was limited 

Despite mixed effects on employment across sectors, the overall effect of the Agreement 
on the right to an adequate standard of living has been limited but positive for both 
Parties.  Concerns  about  intellectual  property  provisions  under  CETA  affecting  access to 
affordable  medicines  have  not  been  substantiated  by  evidence  of  price  increases  or 
restricted/delayed  access  to  innovative  medicines.  CETA  includes  specific  provisions  to 
ensure  that  trade  does  not  compromise  environmental  protection.  The  environmental 
analysis  suggests  no  significant  adverse  effects  to  date  on  the  right  to  a  clean  and 
healthy environment. Pollution levels and other environmental indicators point to only 
minor  impacts  from  trade  under  CETA  for  both  Parties.  Moreover,  CETA’s  promotion  of 
environmentally  friendly  goods  and  technologies  presents  opportunities  to  support 
sustainable development and mitigate environmental risks. 

The rights of Indigenous people are indirectly protected through carve-outs in Canadian 
legislation and institutional frameworks. Canada’s policy environment promotes Indigenous 
engagement in international trade. However, the participation of the Sámi in international 
trade  requires  additional  efforts  from  the  EU  to  ensure  their  inclusion  and  economic 
empowerment within the framework of CETA. 

4.1.3  Efficiency 

4.1.3.1  EQ5: To what extent has CETA’s implementation been efficient? 

While  CETA  has  been  implemented  efficiently  on  the  whole,  and  its  regulatory  and 
compliance  costs  are  in  line  with  other  trade  agreements,  there  is  still  room  to  further 
reduce costs. CETA has reduced trade costs for companies and opened up market access 
opportunities for both EU and Canadian firms, but its implementation has incurred some 
costs and unresolved inefficiencies. 

The Agreement has resulted in some cost increases such as the following. 

•  Compliance with the non-alteration rule (the non-alteration clause permits the use of 
hubs  for  the  maintenance  of  consignments  and  allows  for  their  splitting)  leads  to 
additional administrative burdens, as proving compliance with the direct transport rule 
requires companies to maintain detailed documentation for each shipment segment. 

• 

In some cases, the necessary formalities to qualify for preferential treatment under the 
Agreement (such as establishing origin) entail costs for traders. However, such costs 
are ultimately outweighed by the tariff savings that result from receiving preferential 
tariff treatment.  

•  Financing  the  institutional  structure  of  CETA,  including  human  resources,  travel 
expenses, and event costs, has been highlighted as a concern by certain policymakers 
from both parties during consultations. 

Some  Agreement’s  provisions  have  improved  market  access  or  advanced  other  the 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Agreement’s objectives, but not to the fullest extent possible due to various reasons. 

•  Additional  costs  result  from  the  way  in  which  the  Parties  have  chosen  to  implement 
certain CETA provisions. For example, Canada’s management of the two cheese TRQs 
leads  to  additional  costs  and  uncertainties  for  EU  cheese  exporters.  This  TRQ 
management could be made more efficient and cost effective. 

•  The  fundamentally  different  ways  in  which  the  EU  and  Canada  are  organised  create 
additional  costs –  for  example  for  the  export  of  wines  and  spirits  to  Canada  due  to 
limited regulatory harmonisation among provinces and territories in Canada as well as 
certain discriminatory practices. It should be noted, however, that the Canadian federal 
government has presented several initiatives aiming at increasing the harmonisation of 
the Canadian internal market. 

•  While having very advanced procurement provisions,  the liberalisation of sub-federal 
procurement  markets  in  Canada  and  the  consolidation  of  data  on  sub-federal  public 
procurement  volumes  and  outcomes  remain  incomplete  or  unavailable.  This  creates 
inefficiencies and a lack of transparency for businesses. It also makes it difficult to fully 
evaluate the benefits resulting from CETA in this area. 

•  Feedback  from  SMEs  and  brokers  indicates  that  some  SMEs  still  face  difficulties  in 
correctly filling out the proof of origin, which discourages some exporters, in particular 
occasional exporters, from engaging in EU–Canada trade. This results in the suboptimal 
utilisation  of  CETA’s  trade  preferences.  Enhancing  SME  support  mechanisms  in  this 
specific regard could help address this inefficiency. 

•  While  the  committee  and  dialogue  structure  under  CETA  has  generally  functioned 
efficiently,  some  dialogues  have  remained  inactive  as  EU–Canada  discussions  have 
occurred through other forums. The efficiency of some of the committees and dialogues 
could therefore be improved. 

4.1.3.2  EQ6: To what extent are the costs associated with the implementation of 

CETA proportionate to the benefits it has generated? 

The EU and Canada experienced notable gains in terms of GDP (EUR 3.2 billion a year for 
the EU and EUR 1.3 billion a year for Canada) and also benefitted strategically from CETA. 
Total bilateral trade in goods and services between the EU and Canada increased by 71 % 
to EUR 123.3 billion in 2023 compared to EUR 72.2billion in 2016. 

In comparison, the costs associated with CETA, as per EQ5, are a fraction of these gains 
that  have  already  materialised.  Moreover,  while  some  of  the  costs  or  inefficiencies 
mentioned are inherently difficult to reduce (e.g. SPS measures), others could be tackled 
(e.g.  TRQ  management,  lack  of  SMEs’  awareness  about  the  possibility  to  use  CETA 
preferences even if their Member State has not yet ratified the Agreement, improving sub-
federal  procurement  information  and  statistics  and  updating  outdated  digital  trade 
standards). 

This  evaluation  finds  that,  overall,  the  distribution  of  both  costs  and  benefits  is  evenly 
distributed among different stakeholder groups and interests. 

For some goods, businesses might decide to not declare the origin of the product when the 
tariff gain is minimal and the administrative steps are seen as too costly compared to the 
gains. When exporters are faced with significant SPS or TBT measures, they make a rational 
decision on whether it is economically advantageous to incur the  costs of  compliance to 
meet  the  other  Party’s  SPS  or  TBT  requirements  and  then  benefit  from  exports 
opportunities, or to forego the opportunity altogether. 

Finally, the positive, albeit small, social, environmental and human rights impacts  mean 
that a large number of EU and Canadian citizens also benefit from the Agreement. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.1.3.3  EQ7: Are there unnecessary regulatory costs under CETA and can they 

be simplified? 

Some trade issues that lead to regulatory costs have a valid objective; for example, the 
protection  of  human,  plant  and  animal  health  or  consumer  safety.  These  are  not 
unnecessary costs and fall outside the scope of this EQ. 

The conformity-assessment protocol under CETA is a MRA. It enables products to be 
tested and certified in either the EU or Canada so that these products are accepted in both 
markets without requiring additional testing in certain sectors. This MRA is a tool that can 
help  reduce  or  eliminate  otherwise  existing  inefficiencies  in  having  to  conduct  multiple 
conformity assessments. Unnecessary costs can arise where the cost-saving potential of 
this MRA is not fully exploited. 

The  EU  and  Canada  recognise  each  other’s  accreditation  bodies  (the  European  Co-
operation for Accreditation and the Standards Council of Canada in Canada). Additionally, 
accreditation of conformity-assessment bodies (CAB) is included in the CETA provisions. 
To date, the EU has accredited seven Canadian CABs, while Canada has accredited more 
than 50 EU CABs (36) (37) (38). These EU CABs are accredited in the electrical and electronic 
equipment sector and the radio and telecommunications terminal equipment sector. No EU 
CABs are accredited in the remaining sectors covered by the CETA protocol, which causes 
unnecessary regulatory costs. 

4.1.4  Coherence 

4.1.4.1  EQ8: To what extent has the implementation of CETA been coherent 

with the EU’s trade policies? 

CETA  is  coherent  with  the  EU’s  strategic  and  trade  priorities,  and  policies  aimed  at 
achieving sustainable development, contributing towards the UN sustainable development 
goals (SDGs). 

CETA is generally coherent with EU trade policy, although the Agreement predates the 
2021 ‘An open, assertive and sustainable EU trade’ strategy and certain commitments in 
that  strategy  go  beyond  the  provisions  of  CETA,  such  as  enhanced  enforcement 
mechanisms  (i.e.  the  chief  trade  enforcement  officer),  greater  integration  of  SDGs  into 
trade policy, increased focus on digital trade and services and the concept of open strategic 
autonomy. 

Following the 2024 Draghi report, one of the key priorities of the European Commission is 
to enhance the competitiveness of companies in the EU economy. CETA supports this 
objective by: 

• 

increasing market access for EU businesses through tariff liberalisation and reductions 
in NTMs and by creating a level playing field (see responses to EQ1 and EQ4); 

• 

strengthening IP rights (see response to EQ1); and 

(36)  European 

Single 

‘Bodies’, 

Commission, 

Space 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/single-market-compliance-space/notified-bodies/notified-body-
list?filter=countryId:124,notificationStatusId:1. 
Government  of  Canada,  ‘Certification  Bodies’,  Government  of  Canada  website,  28 July  2025,  URL: 
https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/mutual-recognition-agreements/en/conformity-assessment-
bodies/certification-bodies. 
Government  of  Canada,  ‘Wireless  Device  Testing  Laboratories’,  Government  of  Canada  website,  29 July 
2025, 
https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/mutual-recognition-agreements/en/wireless-device-testing-
laboratories. 

Compliant 

website, 

Market 

(37)  Canadian 

https://ised-
isde.canada.ca/site/mutual-recognition-agreements/en/conformity-assessment-bodies/certification-bodies 

Telecommunications 

Broadcasting 

regulation 

(2025a), 

URL: 

& 

(38)  Canadian 

Telecommunications 
isde.canada.ca/site/mutual-recognition-agreements/en/wireless-device-testing-laboratories 

Broadcasting 

regulation 

(2025a), 

URL: 

& 

https://ised-

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  providing legal certainty that facilitates long-term investment in the EU economy and 

opportunities. 

CETA also aligns with the  economic security policies of both the EU and Canada. For 
both  Parties,  diversifying  sources  of  supply –  particularly  in  the  area  of  critical  raw 
materials – is crucial. The Strategic Partnership on Critical Raw Materials between the EU 
and Canada serves as a key initiative to enhance economic security and mitigate supply 
chain risks. Additionally, this evaluation has found that CETA strengthens supply chain 
resilience  for  both  the  EU  and  Canada  by  increasing  the  number  of  products  traded, 
raising each other’s shares in bilateral trade, reducing dependencies on third countries and 
promoting supplier diversification. Supply chain resilience remains a top policy priority for 
both Parties (see also the responses to EQ4). 

CETA has been, and continues to be, positive for EU and Canadian SMEs, which benefit 
from  increased  market  access  through  lower  tariffs,  increased  access  to  important  and 
relevant  information  on  how  to  export  (through  the  Access2Markets  portal  and  the 
dedicated SME page of DG Trade and Economic Security (39)) and the Global Affairs Canada 
website dedicated to help SMEs export to the EU (40). This makes CETA a key agreement 
to  support,  and  be  coherent  with,  the  EU’s  trade  policy  strategy  on  SMEs  (‘An  open, 
assertive and sustainable EU trade strategy’) – specifically, to make trade work for SMEs 
(see also the response to EQ4). 

In the competition chapter of CETA, the Parties agreed to prohibit and sanction certain 
practices and transactions involving goods or services  that distort competition and trade 
between each other. The Agreement includes provisions laying down the main principles 
and  obligations  undertaken  by  the  Parties  to  ensure  free  and  undistorted  competition, 
which are coherent with EU and Canadian competition law. 

The trade and sustainable development chapter and the trade and labour chapter 
under  CETA  have  generally  aligned  with  broader  EU  and  Canadian  domestic  policy 
frameworks and initiatives. However, the 2022 review of the EU’s approach to the trade 
and  sustainable  development  chapter  has  introduced  new  elements  that  are  not  yet 
reflected in CETA, like the enforcement of labour and environmental provisions through a 
sanctions-based mechanism. Moreover, in the recent FTAs, the EU has proposed to other 
partner countries an extension of the civil society domestic advisory groups’ mandate on 
the whole agreement. Additionally, the ILO’s 2022 decision on including occupational safety 
and health in the list of the core labour standards with the two related conventions (No 155 
and No 187) becoming fundamental conventions means that CETA’s commitments related 
to the  ratification and  effective implementation of the ILO  conventions is not fully up to 
date. Otherwise, the new policies and measures of the Parties fall within the framework of 
CETA provisions. For example, the EU has pursued ambitious sustainability goals through 
initiatives  such  as  the  European  Green  Deal,  the  Forced  Labour  Regulation  and  the 
Corporate  Sustainability  Due  Diligence  Directive,  which  overlap  with  CETA’s  TSD 
commitments,  but  often  go  beyond  them  in  their  enforceability.  Similarly,  Canada’s 
domestic policies and measures, such as its commitment to the elimination of child labour 
and  forced  labour  from  the  supply  chains,  carbon  pricing  and  environmental  protection 
through measures like the Impact Assessment Act, reflect CETA’s sustainability principles 
but operate independently. 

However, as mentioned under EQ3, the combination of rules of origin under CETA and the 
Canadian luxury car tax puts electrical vehicles at a disadvantage compared to internal 
combustion  engine  vehicles.  This  disadvantage  is  incoherent  with  the  environmental 

(39)  European Commission, ‘Export info for Canadian businesses’, Directorate-General for Trade and Economic 
Security  website,  https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-
and-regions/canada/eu-canada-agreement/export-info-businesses_en. 

(40)  Government  of  Canada,  ‘Canada-European  Union  trade  agreement  benefits  for  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises’,  Government  of  Canada  website,  16  June  2025,  https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-
commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/ceta-aecg/benefits-enterprises-
avantages.aspx?lang=eng&_ga=2.227025757.1924910850.1582553754-393611746.1582553754. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
objectives of the EU and Canada to increase electrification and reduce GHG emissions. 

As  part  of  the  evaluation  study,  stakeholders  have  also  raised  concerns  that  CETA’s  e-
commerce Chapter, negotiated over a decade ago, has not kept pace with developments 
in digital trade policy. CETA’s e-commerce provisions fail to meet the standards set by 
more recent EU trade agreements (EU–United Kingdom, EU–Japan and EU–New Zealand) 
or digital trade agreements (with the EU–Singapore Digital Trade Agreement signed in May 
2025, and the negotiations for the EU–South Korea Digital Trade Agreement concluded in 
March 2025), which provide for a more comprehensive coverage of the evolving domestic 
policy  frameworks  on  online  consumer  protection,  digital  trade  facilitation,  cross-border 
data flows, data protection and privacy. Stakeholders have identified this as a critical area 
requiring  immediate  improvement  to  enhance  consumer  protection.  Additionally,  the 
plurilateral WTO Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce, concluded in July 2024 
and co-signed by both the EU and Canada, further underscores the gap between CETA’s e-
commerce provisions and emerging global standards on digital trade. 

4.2  How did the EU’s intervention make a difference and to 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  the  national  level  by  Member  States.  It  is  intended  to  provide  verification  of 
compliance with the subsidiarity principle. 

In the evaluation study, EU added value has not been specifically addressed, as trade policy 
falls under the exclusive competence of the European Union as defined by Article 3 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (41). In this case, the question of EU added 
value  is  answered  by  the  effectiveness  and  efficiency  analysis  (see  sections  4.1.1,  and 
4.1.3 of this report). 

4.3  Is the intervention still relevant? 

EQ9 assesses  whether  the Agreement remains relevant  for the Parties’ trade needs and 
objectives after eight years of provisional application and within a global trade context that 
has changed considerably (42). 

4.3.1  Relevance 

4.3.1.1  EQ9: To what extent do CETA provisions continue to be relevant? 

CETA’s objectives remain just as important today as they did when CETA was negotiated 
and entered into provisional application. The challenges faced by both the EU and Canada 
in an ever-changing global trade landscape underline the importance of the stable trading 
relationship built on trust that CETA creates and continues to promote. 

At  the  EU–Canada  summit  of  23 June  2025,  the  leaders  reiterated  their  shared 
investment 
commitment  to  further  enhance  the  EU–Canada  trade  and 
relationship and underscored that CETA is at the core of this relationship. 

CETA has provided the framework for the Bilateral Dialogue on Raw Materials, which 
led to the establishment of the Strategic Partnership on Critical Raw Materials. This 

(41)  Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 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)  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  ‘Evaluation  criteria  and  questions’).  Like  the 
evaluation of coherence, the relevance of the Agreement can be assessed both statically, determining the 
degree to which the Agreement addressed the trade needs and problems at the time of its entry into force, 
and dynamically, 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. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
partnership is expected to deepen into more strategic partnerships, particularly critical for 
the economic security strategies of both the EU and Canada. The development of a more 
resilient supply chain framework under CETA will be increasingly crucial in navigating the 
complexities of global supply security. This makes CETA increasingly relevant in a world 
where ensuring supply security from reliable partners is becoming ever more challenging 
(see also the responses to EQ4). 

The evolving focus on TSD suggests further opportunities for the EU and Canada. Building 
on  their  commitment  in  line  with  the  UN  SDGs  and  the  Paris  Climate  Agreement,  both 
partners  are  anticipated  to  explore  more  robust  collaborations.  This  could  include 
coordinated efforts towards third countries, enhancing their adherence to ILO core labour 
standards for a fairer global trade environment. 

There  are,  however,  also  some  challenges  to  the  continued  relevance  of  some  CETA 
provisions. 

•  CETA’s e-commerce chapter is outdated and fails to meet the standards set by more 
recent EU trade agreements. At the EU–Canada Summit of 23 June 2025, recognising 
the need for modernisation of these provisions, the leaders agreed to modernise the 
approach  to  trade  by  launching  work  towards  a  digital  trade  agreement  that  would 
complement CETA. This move is expected to address the technological advancements 
and market needs of the digital economy. 

•  Stakeholder inputs during research on preference utilisation rates, have indicated that 
the  increase  in  delivery  services  has  a  negative  impact  on  the  preference 
utilisation  rates  of  trade  agreements,  including  CETA.  Freight  forwarders  do  not 
automatically claim CETA preferences, as the process is perceived as cumbersome and 
resource intensive. Consequently, goods are frequently traded under MFN tariffs rather 
than  at  the  predominantly  free  CETA  preferential  tariffs,  which  undermines  the 
effectiveness of CETA’s tariff liberalisation. 

5  What are the conclusions and lessons learned? 

5.1  Conclusions 

CETA works very well for the EU and Canada. It is ambitious, well balanced and has led to 
substantial  gains  in  terms  of  market  access  and  trade  for  both  Parties  including  for  all 
Member States and notably SMEs on both sides. The EU and Canada have jointly monitored 
the trade and sustainable development chapter, along with the trade and labour and trade 
and environment chapters, and have not identified any shortcomings in its implementation 
and compliance. Overall, in the words of the joint statement of the EU–Canada Summit of 
25 June 2025, CETA has ‘allowed us to boost our cooperation over the past eight years’. 

5.1.1  Effectiveness 

CETA is overall effective. Tariff liberalisation has successfully been implemented and the 
Agreement gives stability to businesses thanks to a clear framework, leading to increased 
trade in goods and services. The EU has seen a substantial boost in agricultural exports of 
products such as meat, dairy and wine, while Canadian exports to the EU have similarly 
expanded  for  agricultural  commodities  like  oilseed,  cereals,  fish  and  crustaceans. 
Moreover,  operational  aspects  related  to  customs  and  trade  facilitation  have  raised  no 
major  concerns.  In  addition,  collaboration  through  inspections,  policy  dialogue,  market 
surveillance mechanisms and awareness-raising campaigns to ensure that trade does not 
compromise product safety have worked well under CETA. 

The  implementation  of  the  trade  and  sustainable  development  chapter,  the  trade  and 
labour chapter and the trade and environment chapter has progressed through sustained 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
dialogue,  cooperation  and  favourable  domestic  policy  developments  in  both  the  EU  and 
Canada. 

CETA  has  broadened  the  definition  of  geographical  indications  in  Canada,  extending  its 
scope  to  include  agricultural  products  and  food  alongside  wines  and  spirits.  It  has  also 
streamlined the process for applicants to register and enforce new geographical indications. 

In  addition,  the  EU  and  Canada  adopted  an  MRA  on  the  professional  qualifications  of 
architects. This was the first bilateral MRA for professional qualifications to be concluded 
by the EU. 

At the same time, the Commission services have identified certain areas that would benefit 
from  further  improvement,  include  the  administration  and  use  of  the  cheese  TRQs, 
discriminatory provincial liquor board policies affecting the trade of wines and spirits and 
SPS issues. The effectiveness of the GI chapter has been hindered by ongoing challenges, 
particularly  regarding  administrative  enforcement  and  uncertainty  for  producers  of 
grandfathered products, as there is no list of registered  prior Canadian users. Moreover, 
while cooperation in environmental and labour domains has progressed, stakeholders have 
voiced concerns about the need for stronger enforcement mechanisms. Finally, it is clear 
that SMEs still face challenges with the proof of origin, which affects the optimal utilisation 
of  trade  preferences,  suggesting  the  need  for  enhanced  information  and  support 
mechanisms. 

5.1.2  Impact 

The impact of CETA is positive. 

A  small  but  positive  impact  on  GDP  is  observed  thanks  to  the  Agreement.  Various 
sectors, particularly those in which the EU and Canada have comparative advantages, have 
benefited  from  increased  exports,  underscoring  the  role  of  tariff  reductions  and  trade 
facilitation measures. CETA has also bolstered cooperation in critical raw materials – 
where  Canada  is  a  strong  and  a  sustainable  supplier  of  cobalt  and  nickel –  and  has 
improved the resilience of supply chains. It has positively impacted SMEs by increasing 
their  participation  in  bilateral  trade  and  established  a  strong  institutional  framework  for 
dialogue.  The  social,  environmental  and  human  rights  impacts  have  been  small  but 
generally positive. Regulatory cooperation has achieved several concrete outcomes thanks 
to the well-structured institutional framework and significant efforts from both the EU and 
Canadian sides, with strong involvement from regulators. 

Nevertheless, several challenges remain. The analysis of the Agreement has not yet shown 
an effect on foreign direct investment; a potential reason for this could be that CETA is not 
yet ratified by all Member State and therefore some investment protection provisions that 
could boost FDI are not yet in force. Under the conformity-assessment protocol, EU CABs 
are only accredited in two sectors in the electrical and electronic equipment sector and the 
radio  and  telecommunications  terminal  equipment  sector.  Moreover,  some  CETA 
committees and dialogues remain less active as alternative forums exist. The quantitative 
results  on  natural  resources  and  biodiversity  suggest  that  CETA  has  had  a  very  small 
negative impact on land use, as agricultural land use has increased by 1.5 million hectares 
across both Parties. 

5.1.3  Efficiency 

The implementation of CETA has been  efficient overall. The costs associated with CETA 
are massively outweighed by the economic benefits the agreement has engendered. The 
distribution  of  both  costs  and  benefits  is  furthermore  proportionate  among  different 
stakeholder groups and interests. 

Despite these successes, some challenges remain. The allocation practices of the Canadian 
cheese TRQs could be improved to enhance efficiency and cost effectiveness. As regards 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
procurement, consolidated data on Canadian sub-federal public procurement, volumes and 
outcomes is still incomplete or unavailable. 

5.1.4  Coherence 

CETA has been coherent with the strategic priorities of both the EU and Canada, promoting 
sustainable  development  and  economic  diversification. 
the 
competitiveness of EU companies by enhancing market access, strengthening intellectual 
property rights, and providing legal certainty. This reflects the EU’s economic goals outlined 
in the Draghi report on EU competitiveness (43). The agreement’s focus on increasing the 
variety of products traded, boosting bilateral trade shares, reducing dependencies on third 
countries  and  promoting  supplier  diversification  demonstrates  CETA’s  contribution  to 
supply  chain  resilience –  a  shared  priority  for  both  the  EU  and  Canada.  The  Strategic 
Partnership on Critical Raw Materials between the EU and Canada serves as a key initiative 
to enhance economic security and mitigate supply chain risks. 

It  has  bolstered 

The EU has pursued ambitious sustainability goals through initiatives such as the European 
Green Deal and its proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which 
overlap with CETA’s TSD commitments. Similarly, Canada’s domestic policies, such as its 
commitment  to  carbon  pricing  and  environmental  protection  through  measures  like  the 
Impact Assessment Act, reflect CETA’s sustainability principles. 

The EU and Canada have jointly monitored CETA’s implementation and enforcement and 
neither  the  EU  nor  Canada  nor  the  CETA  DAGs  have  identified  any  shortcomings  in  the 
implementation or in the compliance with the CETA TSD provisions. However, labour and 
environmental protections in CETA lack strong enforcement mechanisms, contrasting with 
more committal provisions in more recent EU FTAs. The rules of origin provisions, combined 
with the Canadian luxury tax, create an unintended disadvantage for electric vehicles in 
favour  of  internal  combustion  engine  vehicles,  which  is  incoherent  with  sustainability 
objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote electrification and recycling. 

5.1.5  Relevance 

CETA  has  been  and  continues  to  be  relevant  in  providing  a  foundation  for  fostering 
bilateral trade, achieving strategic policy objectives and promoting trade and sustainable 
development.  The  agreement’s  impact  on  supply  chain  resilience  even  makes  CETA 
increasingly relevant in a world where  ensuring supply security  from  reliable partners is 
very  important.  More  generally,  the  stability  and  clear  rules  provided  by  CETA  are  of 
increasing relevance in an ever-more volatile geoeconomic climate. 

5.2  Lessons learned 

Some lessons learned to further improve the effectiveness of the Agreement are as follows. 

•  CETA  is  a  mixed  Agreement  currently  in  provisional  application,  and  it  will  be  fully 
applied  only  when  all  Member  States  have  ratified  the  Agreement (44).  Some 
businesses,  especially  SMEs,  in  Member  States  that  have  not  yet  ratified  CETA 
misunderstood this situation to mean that CETA was not applicable to them. Further 
awareness raising and communication could help to correct his misconception. 

•  Stakeholders have noted that the increased reliance on service providers and freight 
forwarders  has  negatively  impacted  the  PURs  of  trade  agreements,  including  CETA. 
Awareness raising among these service providers and freight forwarders as well as with 
SMEs regarding the scope of forgone duties in certain sectors is important. 

•  Feedback  from  SMEs  and  brokers  indicates  that  some  SMEs  still  face  difficulties  in 
correctly filling out the proof of origin, which discourages some, particularly occasional 

(43)  European  Commission,  ‘The  Draghi  report  on  EU  competitiveness’,  European  Commission  website, 

https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi-report_en#paragraph_47059. 

(44)  17 out of 27 Member States have ratified CETA as at 1 July 2025. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
exporters, from engaging in EU–Canada trade. Enhancing SME support mechanisms in 
this specific regard could be explored to address this. 

•  Certain  provisions  of  CETA  remain  relatively  unknown  and  are,  as  a  consequence, 
underutilised.  A  good  example  are  certain  provisions  concerning  intra-corporate 
transferees,  which  despite  its  potential  has  seen  limited  uptake  so  far.  Broader 
awareness-raising on the lesser-known benefits of CETA could be beneficial. 

•  The practical way in which the agreed rules are implemented can make a big difference. 
For example, Canada’s management of the cheese TRQs has been repeatedly raised as 
an area where costs could be reduced and certainty for traders improved. Paying close 
attention to the practical implementation of CETA thus remains central. 

•  Despite significant cost-saving potential, the conformity assessment protocol has seen 
only limited use. Further promotion of the full uptake of this protocol seems warranted. 

•  The division of competence between the Canadian federal and sub-federal level on the 
one  hand,  and  between  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  on  the  other  hand,  adds 
complexity  to  implementation  and  regulatory  cooperation  efforts.  This  dimension 
deserves continuous attention in efforts to further deepen the relationship. 

•  Both Parties could benefit from engaging each other in a more timely manner during 
the  draft  stages  of  new  legislation  or  regulations.  This  could  help  prevent  the 
emergence of new NTMs in the future. 

•  Statistical data gathering could be improved in various ways to support policymaking 
aimed at enhancing the long-term impact of CETA: a breakdown of trade in services by 
both country and sector, trade activities of SMEs, public procurement data at the sub-
federal  level  in  Canada,  employment  statistics  on  women  and  vulnerable  groups  of 
workers,  statistics  on  Indigenous-owned  businesses  and  Indigenous-women-owned 
businesses, gender-split statistics, and products separated by environmental footprint. 

•  Regarding the TSD chapters, even though shortcomings have not been identified in the 
implementation of or in the compliance with the CETA TSD provisions, the absence of 
enforcement mechanism has triggered concerns from civil society organisations. This 
should be taken into account in a possible future review of those chapters. 

•  Digital trade is becoming increasingly important and is not adequately addressed in the 
Agreement. CETA’s e-commerce chapter, negotiated over a decade ago, has not kept 
pace  with  the  development  of  the  digital  economy  and  related  digital  trade  policy. 
During  the  EU–Canada  Summit  of  23 June  2025,  it  was  agreed  to  modernise  the 
approach  to  trade  by  launching  work  towards  a  digital  trade  agreement  that  would 
complement CETA. 

51 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX I PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

I.1 Lead Directorate-General, Decide project planning/CWP references 

Lead directorate-general: European Commission Directorate-General for Trade and 
Economic Security 

Decide project reference number: PLAN/2023/1053 – TRADE – Evaluation of the EU–
Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) 

I.2 Organisation and timing 

An inter-service steering group was established via an ARES note on 31 May 2023 (45) for 
the following purposes: 

1. 

to review the draft tender specifications; 

2. 

to support the evaluation work and the evaluation project manager in steering the 
evaluation by monitoring the progress of the planned external study, by providing 
comments and by assuring the quality and objectivity of the reports; 

3. 

to contribute to the staff working document. 

The inter-service  steering group  included all  other  relevant services of the Commission: 
the  Secretary-General;  the  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development; 
the  Directorate-General  for  Communications  Networks,  Content  and  Technology;  the 
Directorate-General  for  Climate  Action;  the  Directorate-General  for  Competition;  the 
Directorate-General  for  Defence  Industry  and  Space;  the  Directorate-General  for 
Education, Youth, Sport and Culture; the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial 
Affairs;  the  Directorate-General  for  European  Civil  Protection  and  Humanitarian  Aid 
Operations;  the  Directorate-General  for  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Inclusion;  the 
Directorate-General  for  Energy;  the  Directorate-General  for  Enlargement  and  Eastern 
Neighbourhood;  the  Directorate-General  for  Environment;  the  Directorate-General  
Eurostat;  the  Directorate-General  for  Financial  Stability,  Financial  Services  and  Capital 
Markets  Union;  the  Directorate-General  for  Foreign  Policy  Instruments;  the  Directorate-
General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs; the Directorate-General 
for Migration and Home Affairs; the Directorate-General for International Cooperation and 
Development;  the  Joint  Research  Centre;  the  Directorate-General  for  Justice  and 
Consumers;  the  Directorate-General  for  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries;  the  Directorate-
General  for  Mobility  and  Transport;  the  European  Anti-Fraud  Office;  the  Directorate-
General  for  Regional  and  Urban  Policy;  the  Directorate-General  for  Research  and 
Innovation; the Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety; the Directorate-General 
for  Justice;  the  Directorate-General  for  Taxation  and  Customs  Union  and  the  European 
External Action Service. 

The  inter-service  steering  group  met  four  times:  11 January  2024  [kick-off  meeting], 
25 March  2024  [inception],  17 October  2024  [advanced  chapters]  and  21 January  2025 
[final draft]. 

I.3 Evidence, sources, and quality 

The evidence for this ex-post evaluation was gathered through various activities and from 
various sources: 

•  a quantitative econometric modelling simulation (Annex II); 

• 

• 

input by stakeholders to the public consultation (Annex IV); 

June 2025 – external consultant’s final report. 

(45)  ARES(2023)3756662 – 31/05/2023. 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX II METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

II.1 Evaluation criteria and intervention hypothesis 

The evaluation followed the methodology as briefly laid out in the 2024 call for evidence (46) 
and  was  further  guided  by  the  ‘better  regulation’  toolbox.  The  evaluation  assesses  the 
impact, effectiveness, efficiency, relevance and coherence of the Agreement. 

•  Regarding  effectiveness/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. The evaluation assesses the effectiveness of the Agreement in reducing tariffs 
and facilitating and promoting trade and investment through the various 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  evaluates  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. 

•  Finally, it assesses the Agreement’s relevance with respect to the trade and economic 
needs and challenges facing the EU and Canada, both at the time of the Agreement’s 
signing by the Parties and today. 

The evaluation is based on a diverse set of sources and inputs and uses various methods 
and analytical tools in a multi-pronged approach. The evaluation builds on four main types 
of inputs and sources. 

•  Desk research of previous studies of the Agreement such as the 2011 trade SIA, 
the  Commission’s  2008  economic  assessment  of  a  potential  agreement  and  the 
Commission’s  annual  reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  Agreement  (annual  FTA 
implementation  reports).  Relevant  research  published  by  non-EU  parties  was  also 
studied. These sources both constituted important sources of factual information and 
data and acted as points of reference to compare the evaluation findings against. 

•  An evaluation study was commissioned to a contractor, which played an important 
role  in  the  evaluation.  This  evaluation  study  employed  a  mix  of  quantitative  and 
qualitative methods, including case studies and extensive consultations. The external 
contractor also used the results of the Commission’s economic modelling as a source 
for its own analysis. The evaluation study’s findings, conclusions and recommendations 
were  discussed  both  with  the  Commission  services  externally  and  within  the 
Commission services internally. 

•  Statistical data from EU sources (e.g. Eurostat) such as data on bilateral trade and 
economic and social aspects in the EU; from  other official sources, such as statistics 
published and provided by the partner countries, UN Comtrade data for global trade, 
United Nations Trade and Development Data Hub data on services; and complementary 
data published by academic sources, business and civil society organisations was used 
for quantitative analysis. 

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

data and views from a wide range of stakeholders. 

In terms of the methodology used, the Agreement’s intervention logic was first clarified 
and made explicit (see Figure 17) in a conceptual stage, and on this basis the evaluation 
framework and matrix was designed (see Annex III for more detail). 

(46)  European Commission, ‘EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) – evaluation’, 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-

European 
say/initiatives/13821-EU-Canada-Comprehensive-Economic-and-Trade-Agreement-CETA-evaluation_en. 

Commission 

website, 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 17. Intervention hypothesis of the Agreement 

Source: Evaluation study, based on the ‘better regulation’ toolbox.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
 
 
 
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 is not 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 other 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, with consultations of stakeholders being very 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  cannot  be  proven  in  many  instances  (except  for  the  economic 
modelling, which itself has other limitations); although the methods used and the quality 
assurance applied ensure the robustness  of the analysis and conclusions. Regarding the 
causal  chains  related  to  the  Agreement’s  non-economic  impact,  two  main  ones  were 
considered. 

•  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  a  non-economic  impact  (such  as  changes  in 
employment and wages, working conditions and environmental effects). 

•  Direct  effects.  Provisions  in  the  Agreement,  notably  in  the  TSD  title,  have  a  direct 
effect  on  social,  labour  and  environmental  issues  by  creating  obligations  on,  or 
encouraging  certain  behaviour  from,  the  Parties  and  by  providing  a  framework  for 
mutual consultations and monitoring. 

II.2 Key methodological part – overall approach 

The  overall  methodological  approach  for  the  independent  evaluation  study  can  be 
summarised as follows. 

•  A comprehensive analysis of the economic, social, environmental and human rights 
effects examines the effects resulting from tariff reductions and the elimination of NTMs, 
along with other provisions implemented under the Agreement. It is based on the results 
provided by a range of econometric tools and methodologies. Statistical data (primarily 
from  Eurostat)  and  information  sources  are  used.  This  analysis  evaluates  the  overall 
impact of CETA and identifies key sustainability effects. These findings aim to enhance 
CETA’s effectiveness moving forward. In the final phase, the study team has formulated 
recommendations  and  proposals  for  flanking  measures  to  further  strengthen  positive 
effects and mitigate any negative effects of the Agreement. 

•  A broad consultation / stakeholder engagement programme designed to gather 
inputs from key stakeholders regarding the sustainability effects of the Agreement. 

The evaluation study also examines how the Agreement has contributed to the EU strategic 
objectives (e.g. supply chain resilience and economic security). 

II.3 Analysis of economic, social, environmental, and human rights effects 

The  methodological  approach  for  each  of  the  various  evaluation  dimensions  can  be 
summarised as follows. 

The  economic  analysis  begins  with  a  description  of  trade  and  investment  relations 
between the EU and Canada since 2012. This includes the evolution of EU–Canada trade 
in goods and services, comparing the pre-CETA period (2012–2026) with the post-CETA 
period (2017–2023), along with an analysis of current tariffs and NTMs between the EU 
and Canada. The evaluation also examines the participation of SMEs in trade between the 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Parties, conditions for bilateral investment, the involvement of  economic operators  from 
the  EU  and  Canada  in  each  other’s  public  procurement  procedures,  and  customs 
operations.  Compared  to  the  pre-CETA  baseline,  the  evaluation  study  assesses  the 
economic  effects  of  tariff  and  NTM  reductions  between  the  EU  and  Canada  on  trade  in 
goods, services and investments. This assessment includes effects on trade creation and 
diversion, value chain diversification and broader costs and benefits, including on GDP and 
overall welfare. The analysis also estimates effects at the level of selected Member States 
and  of  selected  third  countries  (e.g.  Türkiye).  It  concludes  with  recommendations  to 
improve the operation of CETA going forward. 

Throughout the study, various quantitative methodological tools are used, including a CGE 
model (47), a gravity analysis and a difference-in-difference methodology (48). In addition, 
empirical data is used to support this ex-post analysis. Official European statistics produced 
by Eurostat are the main empirical data source; however, in cases when official European 
statistics produced by Eurostat are not available, when Canadian import data are required 
or when an analysis based on globally comparable data is needed, other sources are used. 

The social analysis responds to the question of how CETA provisions agreed upon by the 
Parties have affected a range of social aspects in the EU and Canada. It also determines 
the potential direct and indirect social effects of other provisions of the Agreement (e.g. 
on  trade  and  sustainable  development  and  on  labour).  Areas  covered  by  the  analysis 
include employment, gender equality, working conditions, labour standards, public policies 
and services and welfare effects (e.g. wages, poverty and inequality). For each of these 
social areas, the analysis starts with a consideration of the current situation in the EU and 
Canada,  observed  trends  and  influencing  factors.  The  study  then  continues  with  a 
comprehensive  evaluation  of  observed  effects.  The  analysis  finishes  with  the  overall 
findings  of  the  evaluation  and  recommendations  on  how  CETA’s  implementation  can  be 
further  improved.  Throughout  the  evaluation,  desk  research  is  complemented  by 
stakeholder engagement to test research findings and receive additional evidence. 

The  environmental  analysis  examines  the  effects  of  CETA  on  various  environmental 
aspects both through the reduction of tariffs and NTMs and through other provisions (e.g. 
the trade and sustainable development chapter and the trade and environment chapter). 
First, the analysis describes the situation in the EU and Canada since 2012 and observes 
trends and influencing factors in five impact areas (climate change, air quality, land use, 
ecosystems  and  biodiversity,  and  waste  management  and  water  quality).  This  baseline 
analysis is then followed by the analysis of observed effects in two thematic priority areas 
(identified in the preceding step). A case study on CETA’s impact on environmental goods 
and services is also carried out. 

The  human  rights  analysis  looks  at  how  CETA  has  affected  the  enjoyment  of  human 
rights  and  state  responsibilities  in  this  area.  First,  the  international  human  rights 
obligations of the Parties are identified based on the ratification status of core international 
human  rights  conventions.  Then,  a  concise  description  of  the  situation  in  the  EU  and 
Canada is presented on respect for human rights in the reference period, identifying trends 
and pre-existing vulnerabilities. This step is followed by a screening and scoping exercise 
that examines the effects of the Agreement on specific human rights and elaborates on the 
scope and degree of the identified effects. The evidence underpinning the analysis includes 
relevant human rights indicators, outcomes of the economic modelling, legal texts tabled 
in the negotiations and stakeholder views. 

II.4 Case studies 

Five case studies are part of this evaluation: 

• 

trade in key agricultural goods, including SPS and IP (GI) protection aspects; 

(47)  Computable general equilibrium (CGE) model (for the ease of understanding, it is referred to as the economic 

model). The European Commission has provided the results of the CGE modelling exercise. 

(48)  See  section  II.5  for  a  short  description  of  the  CGE,  gravity  and  difference-in-difference  modelling 

approaches. 

56 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
• 

• 

technical barriers to trade, conformity assessment and regulatory cooperation; 

critical raw materials, with a focus on critical minerals; 

•  environmental goods and services; and 

•  public procurement. 

While each case study is tailored to the specified topic, they all follow a similar structure. 
They start with a definition of the subject matter and the scope of the analysis and follow 
with a description of the background, i.e. the situation in the EU and Canada regarding the 
subject matter, the latest developments and influencing factors. Each case study provides 
a  qualitative  (and  sometimes  quantitative)  analysis  of  the  effects  of  CETA  and  main 
conclusions. 

II.5 Computable general equilibrium and gravity modelling approaches 

Computable general equilibrium modelling approach 

For the computable general equilibrium (CGE) model simulations, DG Trade and Economic 
Security has used the  global trade analysis project (GTAP) model and  version 11  of the 
GTAP  database  using  2017  as  the  base  year,  brought  forward  to  2022.  GTAP  is  a  CGE 
model of the world economy extending the comparative static framework of the standard 
GTAP  model  developed  by  Hertel  (1997)  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 ‘Armington assumption’). The model 
has  a  neoclassical  closure  (employment  is  taken  as  a  given,  but  wages  show  the 
macroeconomic  effect  on  supply  and  demand  of  labour,  while  sectoral  employment 
variations  indicate  which  sectors  gain  or  lose).  The  model  simulations  compare  the 
developments with and without the Agreement. 

Sectors 

Version 11 of the GTAP database distinguishes 65 sectors. For the modelling, these were 
aggregated to 20  sectors. This allows an analysis  of the Agreement’s  effects  on  specific 
sectors  where  the  largest  trade  impact  is  taking  place.  Table 5  provides  details  on  the 
sectors as defined in the model. 

Table 5: Economic sectors as defined in the model 
EU–Canada sector 
specification 

Sector no. 

Sector no. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

Grains 

Other agriculture 

Red meat 

Other meat 

Dairy 

Primary 

Other food 

Beverages and tobacco 

Textiles, clothing and leather 
products 
Other manufacturing 

Chemicals 

Pharmaceuticals 

Rubber and plastics 

Metals 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

57 

EU–Canda sector specification 

Computer,  electronic  and  optical 
products 
Electrical equipment 

Machinery and equipment 

Automotives 

Other transport equipment 

Utilities 

Other services 

Trade services 

Other transport 

Water transport 

Communications 

Financial services 

Business services 

Public services 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Regions 

The  model  aggregates  the  141  GTAP  regions  into  23  regions,  as  shown  in  Table 6.  The 
level  of  aggregation  is  higher  than  that  for  sectors,  but  this  is  inevitable  given  the  low 
sector aggregation in order to keep the model manageable. The EU, its Member States, 
Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Korea, the United Kingdom, the United States 
and other high-income countries are split out. Türkiye is modelled separately to examine 
the effect of CETA on the EU–Türkiye Customs Union, and LDCs are split out to assess the 
effect on the poorest countries in the world. 

Table 6: Regions as defined in the model 

Region 
no. 
1 
2-28 

29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Region name 

Region no. 

Region name 

EU27 
All 27 Member States 
(separately) 
Canada 
United Kingdom 
Türkiye 
United States 
Mexico 
China 

35 
36 

37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Japan 
South Korea 

India 
Russia and Belarus 
Other high-income countries 
Low-income countries 
Rest of the world 
World total 

Source: Prepared by the authors based on information provided by the European Commission. 

Baseline 

Unlike in ex ante simulations, the model baseline is constituted by the actual situation, i.e. 
the  Agreement  being  in  place.  Although  the  baseline,  in  principle,  represents  the 
observable economic developments, a number of assumptions are still required. 

• 

It is assumed that the Agreement entered into force on 21 September 2017 because 
of CETA’s provisional application on that date. 

•  The baseline also incorporates the EU FTAs that were applied up to 2017 (e.g. the EU–
South Korea FTA). Accordingly, the tariff changes brought about by these are included 
in  the  baseline  tariffs  considered  for  the  simulations  and  do  not  change  in  the 
experiment. 

•  The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU is considered in the baseline. 

•  The impact of COVID-19 is not considered. The experiment runs from 2012 until 2023, 
but the COVID-19 effect is partially taken into account in the post-CETA period (2017–
2023) calculations. 

Policy scenario 

The policy scenario simulates the absence of CETA. Therefore, it is assumed that: 

•  the EU would reduce 99 % of tariffs to zero, and vice versa; 

•  the EU’s access to the Canadian market is subject to MFN tariffs as applied by Canada. 

It is important to note that the simulation comprises both changes in tariffs and non-tariff 
measures.  This  means  that  the  simulations  capture  the  Agreement’s  effects,  and  in 
particular,  any  simulated  changes  regarding  trade  facilitation  measures  and  trade  in 
services are exclusively the result of indirect adjustment effects across the economies and 
may not reflect reality. 

Gravity modelling approach 

The empirical analysis in this section is conducted in the framework of the gravity model 
as laid down by Anderson (1979). This is based on identical consumer preferences modelled 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
by  constant  elasticity  of  substitution  (CES)  utility  functions  and  with  the  Armington 
assumption  of  preference  for  domestically  produced  goods.  Following  Anderson  et  al. 
(2004), the value of exports from country i to country j can be written as follows: 

𝑋𝑖𝑗   =  

𝐸𝑗𝑌𝑖
𝑌

𝑇𝑖𝑗
(
𝑃𝑗𝜋𝑖

(1−𝜎)
)

… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … . . (1) 

where Xij denotes the value of exports, Ej is the expenditure in the destination country j, 
Yi denotes the total sales of exporter i towards all destinations, Y is the total world output, 
Tij is the iceberg trade costs and σ is the elasticity of substitution. Pj and Πi, the multilateral 
resistance  terms  (MRTs),  are  the  inward  and  outward  relative  resistance  of  a  country’s 
exports  towards  all  destinations  and  from  all  origins.  Outward  multilateral  resistance 
captures the fact that trade flows between i and j depend on trade costs across all potential 
markets for i’s exports, and inward multilateral resistance captures the fact that bilateral 
trade  depends  on  trade  costs  across  all  potential  import  markets.  The  two  indices  thus 
summarise the average trade resistance between a country and its trading partners. 

Because  MRTs  are  difficult  to  construct  directly,  applications  of  the  gravity  model  have 
resorted to using dummy variables to control for them instead. Following recent literature 
(Larch et al., 2016), the importer-time and exporter-time fixed effects are used to account 
for the MRTs. Using these fixed effects also means that there is no need to include time-
varying variables (GDP, GDP per capita, etc.) that are traditionally included in estimating 
gravity models, as these variables are completely collinear with the time-varying importer 
and exporter fixed effects. 

Trade  costs  are  proxied  by  bilateral  distance  between  trading  partners,  ln(Distij),  along 
with the usual gravity model controls, which include dummy variables identifying whether 
the  trading  partners  share  a  common  border  (CNTGij),  have/had  a  colonial  relationship 
(CLNYij),  share a  common language (LANGij) and a common legal system (LEGij). These 
variables are taken from CEPII (Head et al., 2010) and follow the definitions therein. 

Recent advancements in the estimation of structural gravity advocate the use of three-way 
fixed effects to mitigate endogeneity-induced biases in estimation (for instance, see Baier 
et al., 2007; Baier et al., 2014; Piermartini et al., 2016). The bilateral trade cost variables 
are  thus  subsumed  in  bilateral  pair-wise  fixed  effects  (µij),  leading  to  the  following 
estimating equation: 

lnXijt  = µij + αit + γjt + δPTAijt + εijt….………….………………………………………………………..(2) 

where the time-varying source (αit) and destination-country (γjt) fixed effects in (2) control 
for MRTs and the effect of the respective GDPs and other time-varying determinants in a 
panel data setting; PTAijt is a binary dummy indicating membership of a preferential trade 
agreement, and εijt is the error term. 

Two  stylised  features  of  bilateral  trade  data  that  challenge  the  estimation  of  structural 
gravity  models  are  sample  selection  and  heteroskedasticity  (Chen  et  al.,  2014).  The 
Poisson Pseudo-Maximum Likelihood (PPML) (Santos Silva et al., 2006) estimator is now 
regarded as the gold standard (for instance, see Piermartini et al., 2016) in the estimation 
of structural gravity models characterised by sample selection and heteroskedasticity. 

Thus,  equation  (2)  is  estimated  using  the  PPML  estimator,  which  accounts  for  both  the 
incidence of zero trade flows and heteroskedasticity of the error term in estimation, leading 
to unbiased estimates. The estimating equation (3) takes the following form: 

Xijt  = exp(µij + αit + γjt + δPTAijt) + εijt….………….……………………………………………………(3) 

where the dependent variable is now the value of bilateral exports in levels sourced from 
UN Comtrade over 2010–2022. 

To estimate the effect of the EU–Canada CETA on merchandise and services trade and FDI, 

59 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a  binary  dummy  D  is  constructed,  which  takes  the  value  one  for  all  export/FDI  flows 
between the EU and Canada in either direction. The sum of the estimated PTA coefficient 
and the estimated coefficient of the interaction term between D and PTA then provides the 
differential effect of CETA, thus: 

Xijt  = exp(µij + αit + γjt + δ1PTAijt + δ2Dijt.PTAijt + δ3Dijt) + εijt……….………….………………………(4) 

Difference-in-differences approach 

The difference-in-differences method is a statistical technique used to estimate the causal 
effect of a treatment, policy or intervention by comparing changes in outcomes over time 
between a treatment group and a control group. It is commonly used in economics, social 
sciences,  public  policy  analysis  and  healthcare  research.  In  this  case,  the  difference-in-
difference approach is used to estimate the trade effects of CETA by comparing the change 
in exports to a control group of ‘all other exports.’ 

The approach is often used in policy evaluation, like this one on measuring the impact of 
CETA. The strengths of this method are that you can prove causal effects without having 
to  do  randomised  trials,  it  controls  for  time-invariant  differences  and  the  approach  is 
straightforward. 

The data 

To analyse the potential impact of CETA on EU trade with Canada, the evolution of trade 
between  the  two  partners  is  compared  with  the  evolution  of  EU  trade  with  all  its  other 
trading partners for the period of 2013–2022 using annual data. That gives us a 10-year 
period, of which five years are prior to the first full year of application of the  Agreement 
(2013–2017) and five years are after its application (2018–2022). 

The analysis is conducted at the lowest level of publicly available trade data, which in the 
case of EU exports is the eight-digit level of the national classification of importers, while 
for EU imports, the eight-digit level of the combined nomenclature is used. Duties for EU 
imports and EU exports (partner country imports from the EU) are taken from the Market 
Access Map database, which also provides estimated  ad valorem equivalents for specific 
duties, where applicable. 

Data on EU exports come from the Global Trade Atlas and is mirrored by partner country 
imports  from  the  EU,  according  to  their  national  classification.  The  Global  Trade  Atlas 
covers imports of 92 countries from the EU, representing 93 % of EU exports. Data on EU 
imports comes from Eurostat (Comext) and covers all partners. 

The control for nomenclature changes and harmonised system revisions is conducted and 
all products in the regressions that have been subject to nomenclature changes and/or HS 
revisions from the  sample in all years are excluded. This  corresponds to 8 % of the 3.8 
million observations on exports and 7 % of the 2.7 million observations on imports. 

Regression specification 

To  estimate  the  impact  of  CETA  on  EU  trade  with  Canada,  the  following  specification  is 
used: 

𝑙𝑛𝑌𝑖𝑘𝑡=𝛼+𝛽1𝐶𝐸𝑇𝐴𝑖𝑡+𝛽2𝐴𝑉𝐸𝑖𝑘𝑡+𝛽3𝐹𝑇𝐴𝑖𝑡+𝛿𝑖+𝜆𝑡+𝜇𝑘+𝜀𝑖𝑘𝑡 ………………..………………………………. (5) 

where lnYikt is the log value of EU exports to or imports from country  i, of product k at 
time t. CETA is a dummy taking values of 1 for EU trade with Canada after 2017, AVEikt 
are the tariffs faced by EU exports to third countries or applied by the EU on imports from 
third countries and FTA is a dummy taking the value of 1 for EU trade in preference eligible 
products with FTA partners after application of the respective agreements, δi controls for 
time-invariant  partner  country  fixed  effects,  λt  for  time-variant  shocks  common  to  all 
countries  and  μk  product  fixed  effects  at  the  combined  nomenclature  CN8  level  for  EU 

60 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
imports and the harmonised system HS6 level for EU exports to absorb any product specific 
time-invariant shock, and εikt is the error term. 

This specification is augmented with additional variables, such as the indicator of tariff lines 
where the MFN rate is zero and various interactions to explore the different level and slope 
impacts. The use of disaggregated data and the introduction of product-fixed effects ensure 
that  the  results  are  not  driven  by  some  non-observed  factors.  In  particular,  the 
quantification of the impact of the agreement (introduced as a dummy variable) for each 
product is derived from the comparison of the trade between the EU and Canada before 
and after the agreement relative to the trade of the EU with all other  partners over the 
same period. 

II.6 Evaluation limitations 

Despite the broad approach and solid methodological underpinnings of the evaluation, two 
limitations need to be noted. 

•  First,  despite  the  modelling  exercises  through  the  CGE  model  and  gravity  analysis 
allowing CETA’s effect to be isolated, for some parts of the statistical analysis isolating 
the effect of the Agreement was not possible. The second-best alternative to work with 
this  data  is  by  comparing  bilateral  EU–Canada  trends  to  one  for  the  same  variable 
between the EU and other key trading partner or other countries in the world. 

•  Second, the COVID-19 pandemic, while now over, has affected the results for the years 
2020 and 2021 considerably. This has affected the analysis to some extent, because 
when comparing the pre-CETA period to the post-CETA period, the latter is depressed 
by COVID-19. Therefore, the comparison between the pre-CETA and post-CETA periods 
may lead to an underestimation of the CETA effect. 

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. 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  III  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND,  WHERE  RELEVANT,  DETAILS  ON 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) 

The EQs were provided in the Terms of Reference for the external evaluation study. The 
evaluation  questions  cover  all  evaluation  criteria  except  for  the  criterion  of  EU  value 
added. EU  value added has not been included  in the evaluation because the Agreement 
falls under the EU’s exclusive competence for the common commercial policy, according to 
Article 3(1)(e)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union.  The  evaluation 
questions are linked to the remaining evaluation criteria are as follows: 

Effectiveness 

•  EQ1: To what extent have the objectives of CETA been achieved? 

•  EQ2:  What  are  the  factors  influencing  (either  positively  or 

negatively) the achievement of CETA’s objectives? 

•  EQ3: Has the implementation of CETA had unintended (positive 

or negative) consequences, and, if so, what are they? 

Impact 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Relevance 

•  EQ4: What has been the impact of CETA’s implementation? 

•  EQ5:  To  what  extent  has  the  implementation  of  CETA  been 

efficient with respect to achieving its objectives? 

•  EQ6:  To  what  extent  are 

the  costs  associated  with 
implementation  of  CETA  proportionate  to  the  benefits  it  has 
generated?  Is  the  distribution  of  both  costs  and  benefits 
proportionate among different stakeholder groups and interests? 

•  EQ7:  Are  there  unnecessary  regulatory  costs  (including 
administrative burden)? What is the potential for simplification? 

•  EQ8:  To  what  extent  has  the  implementation  of  CETA  been 
coherent with the EU’s trade policies, and in particular with the 
EU’s  commitment  to  sustainable  development  in  trade  policies 
as  a  contribution  towards  attainment  of  the  United  Nations 
Sustainable Development Goals? 

•  EQ9: To what extent do the provisions of CETA continue to be 
relevant in order to address the current trade needs of the EU 
and Canada? 

Responses to these evaluation questions are provided in the main body of this SWD. The 
evaluation  matrix  in  Table 7  below  provides  the  evaluation  questions,  the  judgement 
criteria  for  each  question,  the  analysis  needed  to  substantiate  findings  and  conclusions 
made in the evaluation report and the sources through which the data and information has 
been obtained. 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 7: Analytical framework for the evaluation of the Agreement’s 
implementation 
Evaluation 
questions 
EQ 1: To what 
extent have 
CETA’s objectives 
been achieved? 

Required analysis (49) 

•  Task 8.1: Analyse the 

Judgement criteria 

JC 1.1: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation led to 
the expansion and the 
diversification of trade in 
goods between the Parties, 
through the reduction or the 
elimination of tariff and non-
tariff measures (SPS, TBT) to 
trade? 

Sources of 
evidence (50) 
•  Time series analysis 
of COMEXT and UN 
Comtrade statistics 
(for bilateral/total 
trade) and the 
UNCTAD trade 
analysis information 
system (for tariffs) 

•  CGE results and 

gravity regressions 

•  Case studies 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

•  Desk research 
•  FTA legal provisions 
•  Reports from trade 
committee and sub-
committee meetings 

•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

•  Analysis of time 
series trade in 
services statistics 
(from Eurostat, 
OECD and UNCTAD) 

•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

evolution of trade in goods 
(descriptive statistics for goods 
sectors (bilateral and in 
comparison to third countries), 
evolution of trade in (critical) 
raw materials, evolution of 
bilateral tariffs and analysis of 
non-tariff measures, impact of 
NTMs (especially SPS) and 
impact on SME trade). 

•  Tasks 6 and 8.5: Determine 
the impact of the various 
institutional structures on 
CETA’s implementation 
(assessment of progress made 
by the sub-committees on TBT 
and SPS). 

•  Task 11: Case studies (trade 
in key agricultural goods, TBT 
and conformity assessment, 
trade in critical raw materials). 
•  Task 8.2: Analyse the effect 

of customs provisions, 
administrative cooperation, 
rules of origin, duty 
drawback, management of 
TRQs, agricultural safeguard 
measures, exports status 
and direct transport 
provision (bullet point 1: 
preference utilisation rate and 
foregone duty saving of 
economic operators of both 
parties). 

•  Tasks 6 and 8.5: Determine 
the impact of the various 
institutional structures on 
CETA’s implementation 
(assessment of progress made 
by the sub-committees on 
customs, trade facilitation and 
rules of origin). 

•  Task 8.4: Trade in services 

and investment 
liberalisation (statistical 
analysis of trends for trade in 
services and capital flows 
between the EU and Canada; 
analysis on public services; 
sectoral: transport, dredging, 
business services, telecom; 
temporary entry and stay of 
natural persons). 

•  Task 8.4: Trade in services 

•  Analysis of time 

and investment 
liberalisation (statistical 
analysis of trends of FDI 
between the EU and Canada, 
temporary entry and stay of 
natural persons). 

series investment 
statistics at different 
levels of 
disaggregation 

•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

JC 1.2: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation led to 
the facilitation of trade in 
goods through, in particular 
the agreed provisions 
regarding customs and 
trade facilitation, rules of 
origin, standards, 
technical regulations and 
conformity-assessment 
procedures? 

JC 1.3: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation led to 
the liberalisation of trade in 
services in conformity with 
Article V of the General 
Agreement on Trade in 
Services and flow of 
natural persons for 
business purposes? 

JC 1.4: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation led to 
the development of a climate 
conducive to increased 
investment flows, the 
improvement of the 
conditions of 
establishment between the 
Parties and the flow of 
natural persons for 
business purposes. 

(49)  Methodological tools and  indicators used are not shown in the table but are explained in the subsequent 

chapters. Priority tasks as identified in the Terms of Reference are shown in bold. 

(50)  More details on sources are provided in the subsequent chapters. 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (49) 

JC 1.5: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation led to 
increased market access for 
cross-border financial 
services, maritime 
transport services, 
telecommunication 
services and e-commerce 
(digital trade)? 
JC 1.6: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation led to 
the effective, reciprocal and 
gradual opening of 
government procurement 
markets of the Parties? 

JC 1.7: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation led to 
the promotion of free and 
undistorted competition in 
the economic and trade 
relations between the 
Parties? 
JC 1.8: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation led to 
the adequate and effective 
protection of intellectual 
property rights, including 
geographical indications? 

JC 1.9: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation led to 
the promotion of 
international trade and 
investment between the 
Parties in a way that 
contributes to the objective 
of sustainable 
development through joint 
collaborative work? 

JC 1.10: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation 
encouraged collaboration 
on broader issues of 
common interest such as 
biotechnology, forestry 
products, raw materials and 
science and technology? 

JC 1.11: To what extent has 
CETA’s implementation led to 
the establishment of an 
effective, fair and predictable 
dispute settlement 
mechanism? 
JC 2.1: What are the factors 
that have influenced 
positively the achievements 
of these objectives? 

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

•  Task 8.4: Trade in services 

and investment 
liberalisation (statistical 
analysis of trends of trade in 
services and capital flows). 

Sources of 
evidence (50) 
•  Analysis of time 
series trade in 
services statistics 
(from Eurostat, 
OECD and UNCTAD) 

•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

•  Task 11: Case studies 

•  Analysis of time 

(government procurement) 

•  Task 8.5: Analyse the 

implementation of other 
areas of the Agreement 
(assessment of progress made 
by the Committee on 
Government Procurement). 

•  Task 8.5: Analyse the 

implementation of other 
areas of the Agreement 
(competition policy). 

series procurement 
statistics at different 
levels of 
government 

•  Gravity analysis 
•  Meeting documents 

(committee 
government 
procurement) 

•  Stakeholder 

consultations 
•  Desk research 
•  Interviews 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

•  Task 8.5: Analyse the 

implementation of other 
areas of the Agreement 
(intellectual property). 
•  Task 8.3: Geographical 
indications (analysis of 
national law, enforcement 
modalities, administrative 
action). 

•  Analysis of time 

series statistics on 
GI products 

•  FTA legal provisions 
•  Meeting documents 

(Committees) 

•  Case study 
•  Desk research 
•  Stakeholder 

•  Task 11: Case studies (trade 

consultations 

in key agricultural goods). 
•  Task 6: Description of the 

Agreement and its context. 

•  Task 9: Sustainable 

development (CGE model, 
qualitative and quantitative 
assessment, gender equality, 
environmental impact, human 
rights). 

•  Task 11: Case studies 

(environmental goods and 
services). 

•  Desk research 
•  FTA legal provisions 
•  Meeting documents 
•  Interviews 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 
•  Case studies 

•  Task 8.1: Analyse the 

evolution of trade in goods 
(forestry products). 

•  Task 8.5: Analyse the 

implementation of other 
areas of the Agreement 
(intellectual property – biotech). 

•  Task 11: Case studies (trade 
in key agricultural goods, trade 
in critical raw materials). 

•  Desk research 
•  FTA legal provisions 
•  CGE results and 

gravity regressions 
•  Meeting documents 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 
•  Case studies 

•  Task 6: Description of the 
Agreement and its context 
(assess the effectiveness of 
dispute settlement mechanism). 

•  Desk research 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

•  Identification of factors 

influencing the achievements of 
those objectives as part of the 
analysis listed above. 

•  All sources of 
evidence / 
methodological tools 
listed under EQ1 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (49) 

Sources of 
evidence (50) 

Evaluation 
questions 
achievements of 
CETA’s objectives? 

EQ 3: Has CETA’s 
implementation 
had unintended 
(positive or 
negative) 
consequences, and 
if so, what are 
they? 

JC 2.2: What are the factors 
that have negatively 
influenced the 
achievements of these 
objectives? 
JC 3.1: What social, human 
rights, environmental or 
economic impacts have 
resulted from the Agreement 
that were not intended? 

JC 3.2: Have there been any 
positive unintended effects? 

JC 3.3: Have there been any 
negative unintended effects? 

EQ 4: What has 
been the impact of 
CETA’s 
implementation? 

JC 4.1: What has been the 
economic impact of CETA’s 
implementation? 

JC 4.2: What has been the 
social impact of CETA’s 
implementation? 

•  CGE model results 
•  Desk research 
•  Interviews 
•  Workshops 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

•  CGE model and 

gravity regression 
results 

•  Analysis of 

merchandise trade, 
reviewing growth 
trends per product 
lines and measuring 
the evolution of the 
diversification of 
exports over time 
using indicators 
(e.g. HHI). 

•  SME analysis and 

analysis of 
EU/Canada 
competitive 
positions 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 
(survey, interviews 
and Member State 
workshops), 
business survey 

•  Trade and social 

statistics 

•  CGE modelling 

results 

•  Desk research 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 
(interviews, 
surveys, etc.) 

•  Identification of stakeholder 

groups that have been affected 
by CETA’s implementation in an 
unintended manner. 

•  Identification of the effects of 
CETA’s implementation’s on 
economic, environmental, 
labour and human rights 
aspects, as listed above. 
•  Identification of stakeholder 

groups that have been affected 
by CETA’s implementation in an 
unintended manner. 

•  Identification of the effects of 
CETA’s implementation’s on 
economic, environmental, 
labour and human rights 
aspects, as listed above. 
•  Task 8.1: Analyse the 

evolution of trade in goods 
(descriptive statistics for goods 
sectors (bilateral and in 
comparison to third countries), 
evolution of trade in (critical) 
raw materials, evolution of 
bilateral tariffs and analysis of 
non-tariff measures, impact of 
NTMs (especially SPS), and 
impact on SME trade). 

•  Task 8.4: Trade in services 

and investment 
liberalisation (statistical 
analysis of trends for trade in 
services and capital flows, 
between the EU and Canada; 
analysis on public services; 
sectoral: transport, dredging, 
business services, telecom; 
temporary entry and stay of 
natural persons). 

•  Task 8.6: Modelling results: 

Based on DG Trade and 
Economic Stability’s modelling 
results, present the overall 
economic impact of CETA’s 
implementation in terms of key 
macroeconomic and sectoral 
variables. 

•  Task 11: Case studies (trade 
in key agricultural goods, TBT 
and conformity assessment, 
trade in critical raw materials). 
•  Task 9.1: CGE model (wages, 
sectoral employment, national 
income/GDP). 

•  Task 9.2: Qualitative and 
quantitative assessment 
(decent work agenda, ILO, 
poverty reduction, vulnerable 
groups, enforcement, 10 
fundamental conventions). 
•  Task 9.3: Gender equality 

(women’s economic 
empowerment, welfare and 
social situation, gender and 
work plan, participation in 
trade, female participation in 
the formal economy). 

65 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (49) 

Sources of 
evidence (50) 

JC 4.3: What has been the 
environmental impact of 
CETA’s implementation? 

JC 4.4: What has been the 
human rights impact of 
CETA’s implementation? 

JC 4.5: To what extent is the 
actual impact of CETA in line 
with the 
expected/predicted 
impact as laid out in the EU–
Canada trade sustainability 
impact assessment, other 
studies and stakeholder 
inputs? 
JC 5.1: To what extent have 
the preferences of CETA 
been used? 

EQ 5: To what 
extent has CETA’s 
implementation 
been efficient with 
respect to 
achieving its 
objectives? 

•  Task: Analyse the impact of 
CETA’s implementation on 
consumers. 

•  Task 8.6: Modelling results: 

Based on DG Trade and 
Economic Security’s modelling 
results, present the overall 
social impact of CETA’s 
implementation in terms of key 
macroeconomic and sectoral 
variables. 

•  Task 9.4: Environmental 
impact (changes in natural 
resource intensity, global 
transport, key environmental 
parameters and GHG emissions 
due to CETA’s implementation 
compared to the counterfactual 
scenario without the 
Agreement). 

•  Task 11: Case studies 

(environmental goods and 
services). 

•  Task 9.5: Human rights 

(analyse the effects of CETA’s 
implementation on human 
rights). 

•  Task 2: Analysis of existing 

studies and reports, including 
the EU–Canada trade SIA). 

•  Task 10: Stakeholders 

concerns (analyse input and 
concerns of stakeholders during 
negotiations and ratification of 
CETA). 

•  Task 8.1: Analyse the 

evolution of trade in goods 
•  Task 8.2: Analyse the effect 

of customs provisions, 
administrative cooperation, 
rules of origin, duty 
drawback, management of 
TRQs, agricultural safeguard 
measures, exports status 
and direct transport 
provision (bullet point 1: 
preference utilisation rate and 
foregone duty saving of 
economic operators of both 
parties). 

JC 5.2: How does CETA 
affect trade in goods and 
services compared to other 
countries? 

•  Task 2: Analysis of existing 

studies and reports, including 
the EU–Canada trade SIA. 

•  Task 8.1: Analyse the 

evolution of trade in goods 
(comparison of the development 
of trade in goods between the 
EU and Canada with a suitable 
reference group of countries). 
•  Task 8.4: Trade in services 

and investment 
liberalisation (comparison of 
the development of trade in 
services between the EU and 
Canada with a suitable 
reference group of countries). 
•  Identification of input and cost 

types related to CETA’s 
implementation. 

•  Calculation of CETA’s economic 
impact (based on CGE results 
and gravity work). 

66 

EQ 6: To what 
extent are the 
costs associated 
with CETA’s 
implementation 
proportionate to 

JC 6.1: What costs have 
been involved in CETA’s 
implementation (e.g. 
foregone tariff revenue, costs 
of committees / working 
group / DAG meetings, 

•  CGE model results: 

CO2 emissions, 
sectoral outputs 

•  Additional 

quantitative analysis 

•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

•  Case study 

•  Desk research 
•  CGE model results 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 
•  Desk research: 

comparative review 
of effects 
anticipated in the 
SIA and concerns 
expressed by 
stakeholders 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 
•  Analysis of the 

preference 
utilisation rates and 
tariff rate quotas 
based on data 
provided by the 
Commission 

•  Desk research 
•  Analysis of COMEXT 

and COMTRADE 
data 

•  All sources of 
evidence / 
methodological tools 
listed under EQ1 

•  CGE model results 
•  Gravity regression 

results 

•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

 
 
 
Evaluation 
questions 
the benefits it has 
generated? Is the 
distribution of both 
costs and benefits 
proportionate 
among different 
stakeholder groups 
and interests? 

EQ 7: Are there 
unnecessary 
regulatory costs 
(including 
administrative 
burden)? What is 
the potential for 
simplification? 

EQ 8: To what 
extent has CETA’s 
implementation 
been coherent with 
the EU’s trade 
policies, and in 
particular with the 
EU’s commitment 
to sustainable 
development in 
trade policies as a 
contribution 
towards 
attainment of the 
UN SDGs? 

EQ 9: To what 
extent do the 
provisions of CETA 
continue to be 
relevant in order 
to address the 
current trade 
needs of the EU 
and Canada? 

Judgement criteria 

Required analysis (49) 

Sources of 
evidence (50) 

•  Analysis of the foregone tariff 

revenues due to tariff 
reductions. 

•  Estimation of overall budgetary 
consequences of CETA for the 
EU by considering the effects of 
GDP increases on EU revenue, 
foregone tariff revenues due to 
tariff reductions between the EU 
and Canada and changes in 
trade values with other trade 
partners. 

•  Task 4: Identification of 

stakeholder groups that have 
been affected by CETA in a 
disproportionate manner 
•  Identification of input and 
regulatory costs (including 
administrative burden) related 
to CETA’s implementation. 

•  Identification of areas in which 
costs reductions and regulatory 
simplification could be achieved. 

•  Document review 
•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

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

•  Document review 
•  Description of CETA 

(task 6) 

•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

compliance costs for 
businesses)? 

JC 6.2: How do these costs 
compare to the benefits, in 
terms of GDP increases for 
example? 

JC 6.3: Is the distribution 
of costs and benefits 
proportionate among 
different stakeholder groups 
and interests? 

JC 7.1: What are the 
regulatory costs (including 
administrative burden) 
associated with CETA? 

JC 7.2: What scope, if any, 
has there been to achieve 
the objectives at a lower 
cost? 

JC 8.1: How do the 
provisions of CETA compare 
to the principles of the 
EU’s current trade policy? 

JC 8.2: How do the 
provisions of CETA compare 
to the EU’s commitments 
on sustainable 
development in trade 
policies as a contribution 
towards attainment of the 
SDGs? 

JC 9.1: What are the 
current trade issues faced 
by the EU and Canada? 

JC 9.2: To what extent have 
the provisions of CETA been 
used to address current trade 
issues? 

JC 9.3: Which trade issues 
are unlikely to be addressed 
by CETA? 

•  Identification of key trade 

issues currently faced by the EU 
and Canada. 

•  Task 11: Case studies (trade 

in critical raw materials) 
•  Qualitative assessment of 

stakeholders concerning the 
possibility of CETA to address 
the issues, and identification of 
issues that may not be resolved 
through CETA directly. 

•  Document review 
regarding working 
of the specialised 
committees and 
working groups 
established under 
CETA. 

•  Data on raw 
materials 
agreement with 
Canada 

•  Stakeholder 

consultations 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX IV STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION – SYNOPSIS REPORT 

IV.1 Consultation strategy 

The  wide-ranging  consultation  strategy  of  the  evaluation  study –  to  engage  with  key 
stakeholders – rested on five pillars. 

1.  Pillar  1.  Two  meetings  with  EU  civil  society  representatives  (civil  society  dialogue 
meetings). During these meetings, the draft  results were presented  and civil society 
organisations  were  invited  to  ask  questions  for  clarification  and  provide  feedback  on 
the (draft) results. 

2.  Pillar 2. Stakeholder consultations in Member States and Canada: 

•  an online survey for businesses and SMEs in the EU and Canada to gather inputs 

from companies (both large and small) on the functioning of CETA; 

• 

seven  online  seminars  for  selected  Member  States  or  EU  regions  to  reach  key 
stakeholders at the Member State level and discuss the effects of CETA at this level; 

•  one  online  seminar  for  Canada  to  reach  out  to  key  stakeholders  in  Canada  and 

discuss the effects of CETA in Canada; 

•  one online seminar for SMEs in the EU and Canada to engage specifically with SMEs 

on the effects of CETA and the challenges they (still) face; 

•  a  preference  utilisation  survey  in  the  EU,  Member  States  and  Canada  to  gather 

insights on why importers do or do not make use of CETA preferences; 

• 

interviews and meetings with stakeholders in the EU and Canada. 

3.  Pillar  3.  The  formal  online  public  consultation  to  gather  inputs  from  civil  society 

stakeholders on the four sustainability pillars. 

4.  Pillar  4.  Meetings  with  representatives  of  EU  institutions  and  other  discussions  to 

present draft findings and gather further inputs. 

5.  Pillar  5.  Digital  engagement  with  stakeholders  through  a  website,  social  media  and 
other  channels  to  communicate  the  progress  of  the  evaluation  and  to  continue 
requesting inputs and feedback. 

Stakeholder  engagement had taken place throughout all stages of the  evaluation study. 
Stakeholders were provided with information about the evaluation, its objectives, timeline 
and  (draft)  findings  throughout  the  entire  timespan  of  the  study.  Consultations  have 
included  sharing  updates  with  the  stakeholders  and  checking  the  draft  outcomes  for 
feedback. Moreover, the consultation process has helped gather additional evidence for all 
parts of the analysis to underpin the findings, conclusions and recommendations. 

Stakeholders  from  the  EU  and  Canada  were  identified  based  on  their  roles  in  CETA’s 
implementation  and  the  relevance  of  topics  covered  by  the  analysis.  Care  was  taken  to 
ensure  a  balanced  representation  across  multiple  dimensions,  including  the  EU  and 
Canada, various interest groups and different types of stakeholders, with a special focus 
on SMEs and vulnerable groups. The stakeholders included, but were not limited to, the 
following groups: 

1.  government  representatives –  officials  from  the  European  Commission  and 
Canadian government and related agencies (e.g. delegation representatives and former 
CETA negotiators); 

2.  businesses  and  business  associations –  horizontal  and  sectoral  representatives 
from  industries,  involved  in  trade  between  the  Parties,  such  as  various  SME  cross-
sectoral  representations,  automotives,  aerospace,  wines  and  spirits,  fruits  and 
vegetables,  dairy  products  (including  cheese),  meat  products,  textiles  and  clothing, 
pharmaceuticals and boats and luxury yachts; 

3.  other business organisations – groups supporting women entrepreneurs and SMEs, 

along with individual companies; 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  trade facilitators – organisations such as Business Europe, trade promotion agencies, 

chambers of commerce and brokers; 

5.  civil  society  representatives –  trade  unions  and  NGOs  representing  interests  of 
different groups (e.g. consumers and workers) and thematic areas (e.g. environment); 

6.  other  types  of  institutions –  human  rights  institutions,  research  institutes,  and 

academia. 

IV.2 Summary of consultation activities 

As explained in the previous  section, a mix  of  engagement activities to gather  evidence 
was used. 

Civil society dialogue meetings 

Draft evaluation reports were presented and discussed with EU civil society representatives 
at Civil Society Dialogue meetings organised by the European Commission. Meetings were 
held in April 2024 (on the draft inception report) and June 2025 (on the draft final report). 
These discussions helped consult on the proposed methodology, test findings at the final 
stage of the analysis and gather additional views and inputs. Presentations and meeting 
minutes are available on the evaluation study website. Participants had the opportunity to 
provide  verbal  and  written  feedback  to  improve  the  quality  of  the  analysis  by  adding 
evidence, corrections, and suggestions (51). 

Online surveys 

In line with established practice, the study was accompanied by online surveys. For this 
evaluation, three surveys were developed. 

•  Open public consultation survey (a general questionnaire). Available in all 24 EU 
languages,  it  included  a  wide  range  of  questions  focused  on  the  economic,  social, 
human rights and environmental impacts of the Agreement and its effects on different 
groups of stakeholders in the EU and Canada. It was promoted via email, newsletter, 
social media and stakeholder meetings held or attended by the study team. Responses 
from  all  interested  parties  were  encouraged,  including  governments,  business 
associations,  trade  unions,  NGOs,  other  civil  society  organisations,  academia,  think 
tanks,  other  public  authorities  and  individual  citizens.  A  total  of  24  responses  were 
submitted. 

•  Business/SME  survey  (a  targeted  survey  for  businesses  and  SMEs).  Also 
published in all 24 EU languages, this survey targeted the business community in the 
EU  and  Canada,  including  those  involved  in  trade  between  the  Parties.  It  covered 
questions  related  to  the  use  of  the  Agreement  and  its  different  provisions  and  the 
impacts thereof. A total of nine responses were submitted. 

•  PUR  survey  (a  questionnaire  on  PURs  for  companies).  A  new  survey  in  the 
framework of ex-post evaluations, this survey was also available in all EU languages 
and sought insights into why companies were or were not using CETA. Businesses from 
some  sectors  extensively  use  CETA  for  the  EU–Canada  trade,  while  businesses  from 
other sectors do not use CETA at all.  Getting insights into the underlying drivers for 
this pattern could help improve CETA going forward. Only two responses were received, 
so the PUR analysis was mainly based on bilateral consultations with targeted sectoral 
stakeholders (e.g. automotives). 

All three surveys remained open for over 24 weeks (from 16 May 2024 until 15 December 
2024), exceeding the standard 12-week period to maximise participation. 

(51)  Trade  Impact  B.V.,  ‘Consultations’,  Ex-post  evaluation  of  the  Comprehensive  Economic  and  Trade 
https://www.ceta-

and  Canada  website, 

between 

2024, 

the 

EU 

Agreement 
evaluation.eu/consultations. 

(CETA) 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Online seminars 

Nine  online  seminars  were  conducted  in  November  and  December  2024,  targeting 
stakeholders from Member States, Canada and EU and Canadian SMEs. The objective of 
the seminars was to present preliminary findings, gather stakeholder inputs and verify the 
preliminary results of the analysis. 

The key facts of the seminars are broken down as follows. 

Format 

Seminars were organised as virtual events lasting 1.5 hours each. 

Language 

Seminars were conducted in English, with simultaneous translations into French, German 
and  Italian  for  the  seminars  for  stakeholders  in  Belgium,  Germany,  France,  Italy  and 
Canada. 

Structure and set-up 

Seminars were divided into two sessions. One session covered economic analysis (followed 
by questions and answers) and the other session covered social, environmental and human 
rights  analyses  (followed  by  questions  and  answers).  Presentations  by  the  study  team, 
outlining  preliminary  outcomes  of  the  analysis  across  all  its  pillars,  were  followed  by 
discussions  with participants. Each seminar was tailored to a specific country / group  of 
countries  and  presented  data  relevant  to  those  stakeholders.  In  some  seminars,  local 
experts  or  companies  delivered  presentations  about  their  experiences  with  CETA  and 
answered questions from the participants. 

Attendance 

A  total  of  280  participants  took  part  in  the  seminars  out  of  382  registrations  (a  73 % 
turnout rate). The number of participants in each seminar is outlined in Table 8 (by type 
of stakeholder) and Table 9 (by Member State / Canada). 

Participants 

Various  stakeholders  attended  the  seminars,  including  representatives  of  the  Canadian 
government,  the  Canadian  Delegation  in  the  EU,  the  Canadian  embassies  in  Member 
States,  the  EU  Delegation  in  Canada,  Member  State  embassies  in  Canada,  EU 
representations  in  Member  States,  ministries  of  foreign  affairs  of  Member  States  and 
Canada, ministries of environment of Member States, ministries of economy and finances 
of Member States, the European Commission, the European Parliament, politicians, more 
than  100  business  associations,  standardisation  agencies,  trade  promotion  agencies, 
chambers  of  commerce,  trade  unions,  over  60  NGOs,  consumer  organisations, 
environmental organisations, human rights organisations, research institutes, universities, 
legal practitioners, individual companies and individual citizens. Overall, the project team 
reached  out  to  a  wide  range  of  organisations,  and  almost  all  Member  States  were 
represented during the seminars (except Malta). 

Follow-up 

Discussions at workshops helped identify areas for additional analysis. Several follow-up 
interviews were conducted in November and December 2024. For instance, interviews were 
held  with  representatives  of  the  standardisation  organisation  in  Canada,  individual 
companies  from  Canada,  representatives  from  the  EU  dairy  and  meat  sectors,  the  wine 
and spirit sector, fresh tomato producers and brokers. 

Outreach efforts 

To promote the online seminars, the email addresses of organisations were collected from 
publicly  available  sources  and  local  experts’  networks.  These  experts  explicitly  obtained 
consent from their contacts to share personal data for further outreach. However, many 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
representatives  of  organisations  and  companies  were  unwilling  to  share  professional 
contact information, which posed a significant challenge during the study. Despite these 
obstacles, the outreach efforts successfully engaged a diverse group of stakeholders (52). 

Challenges 

The  evaluation  specifically  aimed  to  engage  with  organisations  and  companies  based  in 
Member  States  rather  than  relying  solely  on  the  inputs  from  Brussels-based  business 
associations representing companies in Member States. However, the response rate from 
organisations  based  in  Member  States  was  generally  low.  Many  of  these  organisations 
indicated that they were already represented at the EU level in Brussels and, as a result, 
did not see the need to participate in the seminars or provide additional input regarding 
their experiences with trade under CETA. 
A significant portion of these organisations, particularly SMEs, expressed satisfaction with 
CETA’s implementation, stating that they had  encountered no  significant challenges  and 
therefore did not allocate the time or resources to participate in the evaluation. This limited 
the breadth of direct feedback from some Member-State-level stakeholders. 
Despite these challenges, the feedback received from those who participated was highly 
valuable. Contributions included insights and evidence from representatives of key sectors 
such  as  dairy  and  meat  producers,  wine  producers,  automative  manufacturers,  boat 
producers and trade unions, to name a few. These inputs enriched the analysis by providing 
sector-specific  perspectives  and  real-world  experiences,  offering  a  more  nuanced 
understanding of CETA’s impact across different industries. 
This  mixed  level  of  engagement  underscores  both  the  success  of  CETA  in  meeting  the 
expectations  of  many  stakeholders  and  the  practical  difficulties  of  engaging  with 
organisations satisfied with the status quo. 

SME stakeholder engagement in selected Member States and Canada 

As  part  of  the  focused  outreach  to  SMEs,  the  study  implemented  several  activities  that 
directly  or  indirectly  engaged  around  175–200  SMEs.  This  engagement  included 
participation  via  SME  representations  in  Brussels  and  Member  States,  SME  and 
entrepreneur organisations in Canada and national chambers of commerce. Key activities 
and outcomes include the following. 

•  Participation in surveys. Through the open public consultation and the business/SME 

surveys, a total of eight SMEs participated. 

•  An online SME seminar. The online SME seminar had 42 participants. In addition to 
those  who  attended,  six  participants  who  were  unable  to  join  the  live  session  later 
engaged with the research team to discuss specific issues and questions related to the 
seminar topics. Their input ensured that their perspectives were included despite their 
absence. EU and Canadian SMEs provided insights into the challenges and opportunities 
they encountered under CETA, highlighted sector-specific experiences and added depth 
to the discussion on how SMEs are impacted by the Agreement. 

•  Engagement with SME representatives. Beyond the seminars, the research team 
engaged with SME representatives across the EU and Canada. In the EU, this included 
collaboration with four organisations representing SME interests from different Member 
States, individual businesses from specific sectors and trade associations. In Canada, 
local  experts  reached  out  to  three  organisations  representing  and  supporting  SMEs, 
individual  businesses  from  specific  sectors  and  local  trade  organisations.  SME 
organisations played a crucial role in providing comments to the study findings, sharing 
the results with their members, and relaying feedback from their membership bases to 
the  research  team.  Conversations  focused  on  how  EU  and  Canadian  SMEs  are 
leveraging opportunities created by CETA and  the challenges they face in navigating 

(52)  General email addresses available on organisation’s websites did not seem to reach the people responsible 
for trade files within the organisation and the study team received no response to approximately 60 % of 
all the emails that were sent out to stakeholders. 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the Agreements’ provisions, such as market entry requirements and compliance with 
EU/Canadian  standards.  This  process  ensured  that  a  broad  spectrum  of  SME 
perspectives was incorporated into the analysis. 

•  Formal submissions. In addition to informal feedback, one SME organisation from a 
Member State formally submitted a detailed written response to the study’s invitation 
for input. This submission provided in-depth analysis and specific recommendations for 
improving  support  for  SMEs  under  CETA.  The  input  was  instrumental  in  identifying 
practical  steps  to  address  barriers  faced  by  SMEs,  such  as  simplifying  procedures, 
enhancing awareness campaigns and improving access to information sources. 

Interviews 

Interviews  with  stakeholders  from  the  EU  and  Canada  were  an  important  form  of 
engagement  process.  These  interviews  provided  valuable  insights  and  additional 
information and data, helping the study team to close knowledge gaps, better understand 
the impacts  of CETA, evaluate the  operation  of the institutional framework under CETA, 
analyse the  situation in the  economic sectors involved in trade between the Parties and 
collect recommendations for improving the Agreement’s implementation. This engagement 
approach  ensured  that  diverse  perspectives,  particularly  from  SMEs,  were  incorporated 
into the analysis, complementing other forms of data collection. 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 8. Overview of the online seminars 

Germany 

Italy 

France 

Belgium 

Nether-
lands 

Regional: 
other EU 

Total no. of applications 

Share NGOs 

Share business 

Share govt/EU del. 

Share SMEs 

Share academic 

Share social partners 
Share regional 
organisations 
Share EU citizens 

Share Canadian citizens 

Share other 

12.11.202
4 

13.11.202
4 

14.11.202
4 

20.11.202
4 

27.11.202
4 

26.11.202
4 

23 

17 % 

48 % 

13 % 

13 % 

4 % 

0 % 

0 % 

4 % 

0 % 

0 % 

32 

6 % 

63 % 

9 % 

9 % 

3 % 

6 % 

0 % 

3 % 

0 % 

0 % 

31 

6 % 

42 % 

45 % 

3 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

3 % 

0 % 

0 % 

29 

3 % 

62 % 

28 % 

3 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

3 % 

0 % 

0 % 

25 

16 % 

60 % 

16 % 

4 % 

0 % 

4 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

49 

4 % 

55 % 

18 % 

18 % 

0 % 

4 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

Source: information gathered during the online seminars. 

Table 9. Participants in the online seminar split by Member State and Canada 

Participant
s by 
Member 
State / 
Canada 
EU 

Canada 

Austria 

Germany 

Italy 

France 

Belgium  Netherlan

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

4 

2 

0 

3 

1 

0 

ds 

3 

0 

0 

Regional: 
other EU 

1 

0 

3 

Regional: 
Central 
and 
Eastern 
Europe 
2 

0 

0 

(53)  Regional seminar for stakeholders in Central and Eastern Europe. 

Regional: 
Central 
and 
Eastern 
Europe (53
) 
27.11.20 
24 

53 

9 % 

62 % 

13 % 

0 % 

9 % 

6 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

SMEs 

Canada 

3.12.2024  10.12.202

64 

0 % 

27 % 

16 % 

48 % 

9 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

4 

77 

9 % 

51 % 

23 % 

9 % 

4 % 

1 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

0 % 

SMEs 

Canada 

Total 

1 

8 

0 

5 

31 

0 

22 

43 

3 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
Participant
s by 
Member 
State / 
Canada 
Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czechia 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

Germany 

Italy 

France 

Belgium  Netherlan

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

16 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

16 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

ds 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

17 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

SMEs 

Canada 

Total 

6 

1 

0 

3 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

5 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

5 

1 

3 

1 

1 

0 

2 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

24 

7 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

3 

16 

25 

7 

2 

2 

22 

3 

3 

2 

0 

26 

12 

17 

4 

6 

6 

7 

2 

Regional: 
Central 
and 
Eastern 
Europe 
0 

6 

3 

0 

3 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

3 

2 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

3 

5 

6 

0 

0 

Regional: 
other EU 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

5 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

13 

0 

0 

0 

5 

2 

74 

 
 
Participant
s by 
Member 
State / 
Canada 
Other 

Total 

Germany 

Italy 

France 

Belgium  Netherlan

0 

19 

0 

25 

0 

21 

0 

22 

ds 

0 

21 

Regional: 
other EU 

0 

38 

Regional: 
Central 
and 
Eastern 
Europe 
0 

43 

SMEs 

Canada 

Total 

0 

42 

2 

49 

2 

280 

Source: information gathered during the online seminars.

75 

 
 
 
Discussions  between  the  consultant  team  of  the  evaluation  study,  the  Canadian 
government  and  the  European  Commission  focused  mostly  on  the  work  of  CETA 
committees and dialogues, but also covered content discussions on preference utilisation 
rates, agriculture and other relevant issues. Engagement with business organisations and 
individual companies addressed trade under CETA, sector-specific situations and practical 
experiences  related  to  CETA  implementation.  Similarly,  discussions  with  the  DAG 
representatives, NGOs, research institutes, trade unions and environmental organisations 
explored topics particularly relevant to the sustainability aspects of the analysis. 

In total, representatives of 154 EU and Canadian organisations and companies participated 
in  interviews.  Some  interviews,  such  as  with  local  SMEs,  were  conducted  by  local  team 
members  based  in  Canada.  While  many  interviews  were  conducted  individually,  group 
discussions  were  also  held,  including  meetings  with  Canadian  government  officials,  EU 
representatives,  DAG  members,  business  associations  and  individual  companies  from 
specific sectors. The study team ensured a balanced representation across governmental 
and  non-governmental  stakeholders,  the  four  pillars  of  the  analysis  (economic,  social, 
environmental  and  human  rights)  and  various  sectors  and  stakeholder  types,  such  as 
business associations, trade unions and NGOs. These interviews provided valuable insights, 
further complemented by written comments and additional information shared by EU and 
Canadian  stakeholders,  governments  and  civil  society  organisations  throughout  the 
evaluation. 

European Economic and Social Committee 

The study team presented the evaluation methodology, stakeholder engagement strategy 
and findings to the European Economic and Social Committee. The first meeting took place 
in June 2024 and a follow-up meeting was held in June 2025. 

Other engagements 

Throughout  the  study,  the  research  team  participated  in  additional  events  to  gather 
relevant insights and share progress with interested stakeholders. For example, the team 
joined the debrief of the Regulatory Cooperation Forum (in April 2024) and attended the 
Supply  Chain  Canada  Fall  Virtual  Symposium  on  risk  and  resilience  in  supply  chains  in 
September 2024, with thanks to the Standards Council of Canada for waiving participation 
fees. 

IV.3 Summary of communication activities 

Project website 

The  project  website  from  the  study  team (54),  launched  during  the  inception  phase  in 
English  and  French,  served  as  a  comprehensive  platform  to  inform  stakeholders  about 
project  updates,  facilitate  stakeholder  engagement  and  ensure  transparency  throughout 
the evaluation process. The website included the following features. 

General project information and updates 

The  website  presented  an  overview  of  the  ex-post  evaluation,  including  its  objectives, 
concise methodology, and team composition. Progress updates were  regularly published 
throughout the project. 

Project timeline 

The  website  provided  a  detailed  timeline  outlining  key  milestones  and  phases  of  the 
project, helping stakeholders track its progression. 

(54)  www.ceta-evaluation.eu. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Key outputs 

The website hosted essential documents, such as reports from the ex-post evaluation, draft 
documents and summaries of stakeholder engagement activities. 

Presentations and minutes from Civil Society Dialogue meetings 

It  shared  materials  and  records  from  these  meetings,  promoting  transparency  and 
inclusivity. 

Links to online surveys 

The website provided direct access to surveys designed to gather input and encouraged 
stakeholders to submit their position papers directly to the team. 

Links to other communication tools 

The website also included links to the project’s X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn accounts 
and  the  email  address  of  the  project  team.  Additionally,  links  to  the  websites  of  the 
European Commission and the Canadian government were provided. 

Newsletters and other relevant materials 

Newsletters and other relevant materials (or links to them) were made available to keep 
stakeholders informed about the latest developments.  
Additionally, the website featured subscription options for newsletters, contact forms for 
direct  communication  with  the  study  team  and  information  about  upcoming  online 
seminars  and  consultations.  These  functionalities  aimed  to  enhance  stakeholder 
engagement and ensure accessibility of the team throughout the project. 
The  website  served  as  a  hub  for  publishing  milestones  (such  as  the  publication  of  new 
reports),  informing  stakeholders  about  updates  and  important  deadlines  (such  as  the 
launch of online surveys or deadlines for submitting comments) and inviting participation 
in activities like online seminars, online surveys and interviews. 
Together  with  other  communication  tools,  the  website  aimed  to  extend  the  project’s 
outreach,  facilitate  access  to  documents  and  contact  with  the  study  team,  and  ensure 
transparency at every stage. At the time of writing, the website had been viewed by 2 875 
visitors  from  56  countries  (including  Canada,  China,  EU  Member  States,  Japan, 
Switzerland, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States). 

Email communication 

The  study  team  regularly  informed  stakeholders  about  the  project’s  progress,  achieved 
milestones,  upcoming  steps  and  the  corresponding  timeline.  As  part  of  these 
communication efforts, 10 emails, including 7 newsletters, were sent to a diverse group 
of stakeholders from the EU and Canada, reaching a mailing list of 1 459 recipients. These 
communications encouraged stakeholders to provide feedback on draft reports, participate 
in online surveys and take other relevant actions. 
Additionally,  over  1 200  individual  emails  were  exchanged  with  stakeholders  regarding 
seminars, interviews, contributions and other relevant matters. These exchanges allowed 
for more targeted and direct engagement, helping to address specific questions and collect 
useful insights. 
The emails and newsletters prompted stakeholder activity, resulting in follow-up questions 
and additional submissions that enriched the analysis. To further support communication, 
the  study  team  maintained  a  dedicated  email  address,  offering  stakeholders  a 
straightforward way to get in touch and share their inputs. 

Social media engagement 

Social media platforms, specifically dedicated X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn accounts, 
were actively used in the study project to enhance outreach and engagement. A total of 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
33  posts  were  published,  generating  23 324  views.  These  posts  provided  updates  on 
project  milestones,  invited  stakeholders  to  participate  in  seminars  and  summarised 
seminar outcomes. They also encouraged further engagement by soliciting comments and 
offering additional information and data. 

IV.4 Summary of key results of stakeholder consultations 

IV.4.1 Submissions received from stakeholders 

The study team received 177 written contributions from stakeholders. These submissions 
included  separate  inputs  exchanged  in  bilateral  conversations  or  responses  to  questions 
via email. All inputs have all been incorporated into the views and findings presented in 
the final report. 

IV.4.2 Inputs received during online seminars 

Following discussions during the online seminars, several stakeholders provided additional 
industry 
inputs.  These  contributions 
representatives  (including  cheese  producers),  which  led  to  a  follow-up  interview.  Two 
documents were submitted by vegetable producers, while NGOs focusing on environmental 
issues provided two papers. Additionally, two inputs were received from EU wine producers 
and two more came from renewable energy companies. 

four  submissions 

from  EU  dairy 

included 

In  addition  to  written  submissions,  polling  questions  posed  during  the  online  seminars 
yielded  useful  insights.  The  aggregated  responses,  as  shown  in  Figure 18,  highlighted 
several trends. Most respondents viewed CETA as having a very positive impact. Although 
views  on  CETA’s  sustainability  impacts  were  less  favourable  compared  to  its  economic 
benefits, the majority of respondents still expressed a positive opinion. Additionally, many 
participants believed that CETA had contributed to economic security. 

Figure 18. Polling responses for all online workshops combined 

Source: results from polling during online seminars. 

Regarding CETA’s support for the EU’s trade policy and its engagement with civil society 
organisations,  a  significant  number  of  respondents  indicated  uncertainty  or  a  lack  of 
knowledge about these aspects. While feedback on civil society engagement included some 
negative  responses,  support  for  the  EU’s  trade  policy  received  almost  no  negative 
feedback. 

Figure 19  provides  detailed  polling  results  for  each  online  seminar,  which,  while  not 
identical  to  the  aggregated  trends  shown  in  Figure 18,  reflect  similar  overall  patterns. 
Among  EU  stakeholders,  German  participants  were  slightly  more  critical  of  CETA’s 
sustainability  impacts,  and  other  EU  polls  also  included  a  small  number  of  critical 
responses. However, SMEs expressed notably more positive views, with stronger support 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
for CETA both in sentiment and in the number of responses. 

Polling results from Canadian stakeholders closely mirrored those of their EU counterparts 
in  most  areas.  However  Canadian  respondents  were  less  convinced  that  CETA  had 
contributed  to  Canada’s  economic  security,  a  view  that  contrasted  with  the  generally 
positive  perception  among  EU  stakeholders,  who  saw  CETA  as  significantly  improving 
economic security within the EU. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Figure 19. Polling responses for all online workshops separately 

Germany 

Italy 

France 

Belgium 

The Netherlands 

Regional: Other EU 

Regional: Central and Eastern Europe 

SMEs 

Canada 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Source: results from polling during online seminars. 

81 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
 
 
 
 
IV.4.3 Inputs received from stakeholders via surveys 

A  total  of  30  open  public  consultation  surveys  were  completed  and  submitted,  with  24 
received  through  the  online  website  and  six  via  email.  Additionally,  nine  business/SME 
surveys were completed online, and another nine were returned via email. Only two PUR 
surveys were completed. 

As  detailed  in  Figure  20  the  survey  responses  revealed  that  stakeholders  generally 
evaluated the economic and environmental effects of CETA positively. Social and human 
rights  impacts  were  also  seen  in  a  positive  light,  though  to  a  lesser  extent.  Comparing 
responses from the EU and Canada, there were no major differences in overall perceptions. 
However,  the  most  notable  divergence  was  in  the  human  rights  pillar,  where  Canadian 
stakeholders  were  significantly  more  likely  than  their  European  counterparts  to  select  ‘I 
don’t know’ when asked about CETA’s impact on human rights. 

Figure 20. How have the effects of the Agreement worked out overall? 

How  have  the  economic  effects  of  CETA 
worked out overall? 

How  have  the  social  effects  of  CETA 
worked out overall? 

How have the environmental effects of CETA 
worked out overall? 

How  have  the  human  rights  effects  of 
CETA worked out overall? 

IV.4.4 Inputs received from stakeholders via in-depth interviews 

Stakeholders  provided  valuable  additional  materials  during  in-depth  interviews  and  as  a 
follow-up  to  the  seminars.  Contributions  included  inputs  from  a  wide  range  of  sectors, 
including the automotive industry, the aerospace industry, dairy and meat sectors, luxury 
boat producers, vegetable growers, wheat producers and wine and spirit producers. 

IV.4.5 Inputs received from small and medium-sized enterprises 

Following  the  online  seminar  for  SMEs  in  the  EU  and  Canada,  as  well  as  via  email 
correspondence, stakeholders responded to the key questions about what CETA has meant 
for  SMEs  in  different  Member  States  and  in  Canada.  Below  is  a  summary  of  the  key 
responses from SMEs. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Overall  feedback  on  the  impact  of  the  Agreement  for  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises 

•  Sectors  where  trade  liberalisation  occurred  under  CETA  have  not  experienced 
destabilisation, even though 95 % of CETA provisions have been provisionally applied 
for seven years. Instead, many sectors have grown, creating new market opportunities 
in both the EU and Canada. 

•  For  some  SMEs,  CETA  is  perceived  as  a  natural  gateway  to  the  US  market  due  to 

Canada’s membership in the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement. 

•  SMEs  could  benefit  from  increased  support  to  maximise  the  advantages  offered  by 
CETA.  One  key  suggestion  is  to  organise  targeted  information  campaigns  to  raise 
awareness  about  how  CETA  can  benefit  SMEs,  not  only  in  capital  cities  but  also  in 
regions with a high SME presence. Additionally, SMEs in Member States that have not 
yet ratified CETA would benefit from clear guidance, emphasising that they can already 
take  advantage  of  the  Agreement’s  provisions.  Efforts  should  also  focus  on  more 
awareness  among  SMEs,  thus  improving  access  to  existing  resources  such  as 
Access2Markets, which provides a wealth of relevant information for businesses. Many 
of the SMEs interested in exporting had heard of Access2Markets, but not all had taken 
the step to explore the tool and get the concrete information necessary for exporting, 
and  an  even  smaller  share  had  started  to  export.  Furthermore,  offering  tailored 
assistance  to  SMEs  in  correctly  completing  customs  forms –  a  recurring  challenge 
identified  in  discussions –  could  help  address  a  significant  barrier  and  ensure  more 
seamless participation in trade activities under CETA. 

•  Several SMEs respondents called for less complexity in accessing CETA’s benefits. These 
included  demands  for  simplified  and  transparent  information,  easier  procedures, 
training modules and awareness-raising campaigns tailored to key sectors. 

Specific  feedback  on  the  impact  of  the  Agreement  on  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises found in the stakeholder consultations by the study team 

Agriculture (EU) 

•  Fears in the EU agricultural sector ‘remain virtual for the time being’ because Canadian 
producers have only insignificantly used their quotas (e.g. on beef). Canadian exports 
have largely targeted the US and Asian markets as EU health standards are reportedly 
uneconomical to meet for products with a quota. EU agricultural exports have grown, 
as  Canada  is  a  market  where  higher  prices  can  be  achieved  compared  to  domestic 
markets. 

•  SMEs  in  the  EU  agricultural  sector  expressed  strong  support  for  cheese  quotas  but 
highlighted inefficiencies and unnecessary costs in the quota allocation process. SMEs 
reported  confusion  over  conflicting  information  about  quota  availability.  Sometimes 
SMEs  are  informed  that  the  quota  has  been  fully  utilised,  only  to  later  discover  that 
opportunities for export remain available. 

•  French wine and spirit exporters benefitted from key measures negotiated under CETA, 
including the elimination of duties on wine, removal of the ban on exporting bulk spirits 
for  blending  in  Canada,  the  elimination  of  the  federal  excise  tax  exemption  for  wine 
produced entirely in Canada and the recognition (in 2017) and update (in 2024) of the 
list of GIs. Recent developments, such as the abolition of a specific margin rate applied 
by the Société des alcools du Québec to cognac and champagne, were also welcomed. 

Agriculture (Canada) 

•  Canadian  agricultural  stakeholders  argued  that  CETA’s  benefits  favour  the  EU.  They 
highlighted  that  cheese  quotas  have  allowed  European  cheeses  to  dominate  the 
Canadian market, while the enforcement of GIs has impacted cheese names that have 
been  used  in  Canada  for  decades.  Additionally,  Canadian  beef  and  bison  exporters 
reported that the anticipated gains from exports have not materialised, citing differing 
interpretations of safety standards for consumption and the inability of the Canadian 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
government  and  the  EU  Commission  to  reach  an  agreement  to  address  these 
differences. 

•  Trade agreements such as CETA should not be used to pursue political or geopolitical 
goals. When production rules are not grounded in scientific principles or fail to address 
issues  with  global  implications,  such  as  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  the  EU  risks 
contravening WTO disciplines and undermining the fundamental rationale for trade. 

•  Canadian  stakeholders  criticised  the  EU’s  regulatory  framework  on  SPS  measures, 
highlighting several issues. These included the reduction of maximum residue levels for 
pesticides without consideration for local Canadian production conditions, the lowering 
of  maximum  levels  of  contaminants  in  deviation  from  codex  standards,  lengthy 
approvals for genetically modified crops and the absence of an enabling framework for 
new  genomic  techniques.  Stakeholders  emphasised  the  need  for  stronger  regulatory 
harmonisation to address these challenges effectively. 

Public procurement 

•  German SMEs welcomed the opportunities created by the public procurement chapter 
of  CETA.  Tools  like  Access2Procurement  (EU)  and  CanadaBuys  (Canada)  were  noted 
for their clarity and usefulness, especially on calls for tender. However, participation in 
public procurement has been limited and outcomes remain below expectations. 

Geographical indications 

•  European  SMEs  appreciated  the  strengthened  protection  of  certain  Protected 
Designations of Origin under CETA but highlighted the lack of protection for other GIs, 
which  they  deemed  regrettable  and  in  need  of  improvement.  Furthermore,  SMEs 
emphasised  the  importance  of  increasing  monitoring  efforts  to  combat  counterfeit 
products. 

• 

In Canada, the protection of GIs is significantly more limited compared to the EU. While 
agricultural and textiles SMEs in several Member States reported minimal direct impact, 
concerns  were  raised  regarding  the  enforcement  of  GIs.  SMEs  in  particular  lack  the 
resources  to  follow  up  on  infringements  effectively,  which  poses  a  challenge  for 
ensuring compliance. 

Rules of origin 

•  CETA’s  provisions  on  rules  of  origin  have  been  seen  as  particularly  attractive  for 
companies  that  would  otherwise  face  high  tariffs.  However,  correctly  claiming  these 
preferences remains a challenge for businesses. Some companies reported difficulties 
in accurately calculating local content, resulting in errors when completing the required 
forms. 

•  The Access2Markets platform and the rules of origin self-assessment tool were widely 
praised  for  their  usefulness,  with  some  stakeholders  noting  they  provide  better 
guidance  than  similar  tools  available  in  the  United  States.  However,  this  tool  still 
requires  a  level  of  intermediate  expertise,  which  some  SME  representatives  found 
difficult  to  navigate.  Furthermore,  SMEs  indicated  that  there  is  limited  support  from 
importers when needed and completing the supplier’s declaration of conformity is time-
consuming. 

Logistics services (Canada) 

•  Stakeholders questioned how CETA could better facilitate collaboration between local 
port  logistics  service  providers  in  Canada  and  their  EU  counterparts.  They  identified 
untapped  potential  in  this  area,  particularly  in  the  exchange  of  environmental  best 
practices. 

Critical raw materials 

•  SMEs  expressed  strong  support  for  the  collaboration  on  critical  raw  materials  under 
CETA.  They  emphasised  that  this  cooperation  is  essential  for  the  operation  and 
innovation  of  SMEs  across  various  sectors,  including  high-tech  product  development 
and participation in the energy transition. 

Information quality and availability for small and medium-sized enterprises 

84 

 
 
The quality and accessibility of information for SMEs were among key topics discussed with 
stakeholders. Two specific questions were posed to SMEs regarding the quality of digitally 
provided information, and the results are illustrated in Figure 21 and Figure 22. 

Figure 21. Views of small and medium-sized enterprises on the quality of 
information on the websites (in percentage) 

Source: SME stakeholder inputs from surveys and interviews. 

85 

                                                            
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 22. Views of small and medium-sized enterprises on the navigability of 
the site (in percentage) 

Source: SME stakeholder inputs from surveys and interviews. 

86 

                                                            
 
 
 
ANNEX V REFERENCES 

Anderson, J. E., ‘A Theoretical Foundation for the Gravity Equation’, The American Economic Review, 
Vol. 69, No. 1, March 1979, pp. 106–116, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1802501. 

Anderson,  J.  E.,  van  Wincoop,  E.,  ‘Trade  Costs’,  Journal  of  Economic  Literature,  Vol. 42,  No. 3, 
September 2004, pp. 691–751, https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/0022051042177649. 

Baier, S. L. and Bergstrand, J. H., ‘Do free trade agreements actually increase members' international 
trade?’,  Journal  of  International  Economics,  Vol. 71,  Issue 1,  8 March  2007,  pp. 72–95, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2006.02.005. 

Baier, S. L., Bergstrand, J. H. and Feng, M., ‘Economic integration agreements and the margins of 
international trade’, Journal of International Economics, Vol. 93, Issue 2, July 2014, pp. 339–350, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2014.03.005. 

Cernat, L., Díaz-Mora, C., Esteve, S. and Gil-Pareja, S., ‘Countries don’t trade, firms do: A firm-level 
assessment of CETA’, Pre-print Series in Industrial Strategy and International Trade, 01/2024, 2024, 
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, https://www.uclm.es/-/media/Files/C01-Centros/CEE/centro-de-
excelencia-jean-monnet/working-papers/Series-Industrial-Strategy/Pre-Print--Industrial-Strategy-
and-International-Trade-01-2024-Impact-of-CETA.ashx. 

Chen, S. and Xiong, B., ‘Estimating gravity equation models in the presence of sample selection and 
heteroscedasticity’,  Applied  Economics,  Vol. 46,  Issue 24,  21 May  2014,  pp. 2993–3003, 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2014.920481. 

Council of the European Union, ‘European Union-Canada Summit 2021 – Joint Statement’, 14 June 
2021, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/50757/20210614-joint-statement-final.pdf. 

Council of the European Union, ‘European Union-Canada Summit 2025 – Joint Statement: Enduring 
Partnership, 
2025, 
Agenda’, 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/u5fbfl5b/st10671en25-eu-canada-joint-summit-
statement.pdf. 

10671/25, 

Ambitious 

23 June 

Commission, 

European 
Single 
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/single-market-compliance-space/notified-bodies/notified-body-
list?filter=countryId:124,notificationStatusId:1. 

Compliant 

‘Bodies’, 

Market 

Space 

website, 

European 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/40403/final-2019-joint-declaration-final.pdf. 

Joint  Declaration’, 

Commission, 

‘Canada-EU 

Summit – 

17 July 

2019, 

European Commission: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, The economic impact 
of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), Publications Office of the European 
Union, 2017, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2781/236080. 

European  Commission,  ‘EU-Canada  Comprehensive  Economic  and  Trade  Agreement  (CETA) – 
evaluation’,  European  Commission  website,  https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-
your-say/initiatives/13821-EU-Canada-Comprehensive-Economic-and-Trade-Agreement-CETA-
evaluation_en. 

European Commission, ‘EU-Canada Summit – Joint Statement’, STATEMENT/23/6054, 24 November 
2023, 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/document/print/en/statement_23_6054/ST
ATEMENT_23_6054_EN.pdf. 

European  Commission,  ‘Export  info  for  Canadian  businesses’,  Directorate-General  for  Trade  and 
Economic  Security  website,  https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-
region/countries-and-regions/canada/eu-canada-agreement/export-info-businesses_en. 

European  Commission,  ‘Sustainability  Impact  Assessments’,  Directorate-General  for  Trade  and 
https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/analysis-and-
Economic 
assessment/sustainability-impact-assessments_en. 

website, 

Security 

European Commission, ‘The Draghi report on EU competitiveness’, European Commission website, 
https://commission.europa.eu/topics/eu-competitiveness/draghi-report_en#paragraph_47059. 

Government  of  Canada,  ‘A  Healthy  Environment  and  a  Healthy  Economy’,  8 April 2021, 

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/climate-
plan-overview/healthy-environment-healthy-economy.html. 

Government  of  Canada,  ‘Assessing  the  costs  and  benefits  of  a  closer  EU-Canada  economic 
partnership’, Global Affairs Canada website, 8 January 2013, https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-
agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/eu-ue/study-etude.aspx?lang=eng. 

enterprises’, 

Government of Canada, ‘Canada-European Union trade agreement benefits for small and medium-
sized 
2025, 
https://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-
acc/ceta-aecg/benefits-enterprises-
avantages.aspx?lang=eng&_ga=2.227025757.1924910850.1582553754-393611746.1582553754. 

Government 

website, 

Canada 

June 

16 

of 

Government of Canada, ‘Certification Bodies’, Government of Canada website, 28 July 2025, URL: 
https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/mutual-recognition-agreements/en/conformity-assessment-
bodies/certification-bodies. 

Government  of  Canada,  ‘Wireless  Device  Testing  Laboratories’,  Government  of  Canada  website, 
29 July  2025,  https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/mutual-recognition-agreements/en/wireless-device-
testing-laboratories. 

Head, K., Mayer, T. and Ries, J., ‘The erosion of colonial trade linkages after independence’, Journal 
of 
pp. 1–14, 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2010.01.002. 

International 

Economics, 

Issue 1, 

Vol. 81, 

2010, 

May 

Hertel, T.,  Global Trade Analysis: Modelling  and applications, Press Syndicate of  the  University of 
Cambridge, 1997, https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:gta:gtapbk:7685. 

IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, ‘The impact of pharmaceutical IP provisions in EU free trade 
agreements’,  12 November  2021,  https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports-and-
publications/reports/the-impact-of-pharmaceutical-ip-provisions-in-eu-free-trade-agreements. 

Innovation,  Science  and  Economic  Development  Canada:  Information  and  Communications 
ICT  Sector  Profile,  2023  edition,  2024,  https://ised-
Technologies  Branch,  Canadian 
isde.canada.ca/site/digital-technologies-ict/en. 

International  Monetary  Fund,  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development,  United 
Nations and World Trade Organization, Handbook on Measuring Digital Trade – Second Edition, World 
Trade 
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2023/07/handbook-on-
measuring-digital-trade-second-edition_099afd2f.html. 

Organization, 

2023, 

Koo,  H.  K.,  ‘The  effects  of  free  trade  agreements  on  SMEs’  direct  and  indirect  exports’,  World 
Economy Brief, Vol. 21, Issue 8, 8 March 2021, Korea Institute For International Economic Policy, 
https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/kiepwe/2021_008.html. 

Larch,  M.,  Monteiro,  J.-A.,  Piermartini,  R  and  Yotov,  Y.  V.,  An  Advanced  Guide  to  Trade  Policy 
Analysis: 
2017, 
https://doi.org/10.18356/57a768e5-en. 

structural 

Nations, 

gravity 

model, 

United 

April 

The 

Piermartini,  R.  and  Yotov,  Y.  V.,  ‘Estimating  Trade  Policy  Effects  with  Structural  Gravity’,  WTO 
Working 
2016, 
ERSD-2016-10, 
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/ersd201610_e.htm. 

14 July 

Paper 

Public First, ‘Unlocking Europe’s Digital Potential: How cloud computing can support the EU’s Digital 
Decade’, 2022, https://awsdigitaldecade.publicfirst.co.uk/. 

Santos Silva, J. M. C. and Tenreyro, S., ‘The Log of Gravity’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 
Vol. 88, Issue 4, November 2006, pp. 641–658, https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4.641. 

Trade Impact B.V., ‘Consultations’, Ex-post  evaluation of  the  Comprehensive  Economic and Trade 
the  EU  and  Canada  website,  2024,  https://www.ceta-
Agreement 
evaluation.eu/consultations. 

(CETA)  between 

World  Trade  Organization, 
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/statis_e/gstdh_digital_services_e.htm. 

‘Digitally  delivered  services 

trade  dataset’,  25 July  2025, 

88 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI LEGISLATION AND RELATED DOCUMENTS 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions –  2030  Digital  Compass:  the 
European  way  for  the  Digital  Decade,  COM/2021/118  final  of  9 March  2021,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52021DC0118. 

European Commission, ‘Notice concerning the provisional application of the Comprehensive Economic 
and  Trade  Agreement  (CETA)  between  Canada,  of  the  one  part,  and  the  European  Union  and  its 
Member  States,  of  the  other  part’,  Document 22017X0916(02),  16 September  2017,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX %3A22017X0916 %2802 %29. 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on adapting non-contractual 
civil  liability  rules  to  artificial  intelligence  (AI  Liability  Directive),  COM(2022)  496  final  of 
28 September 2022, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0496. 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on horizontal cybersecurity 
requirements  for  products  with  digital  elements  and  amending  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1020, 
COM(2022) 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0454. 

15 September 

2022, 

final 

454 

of 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament  and of the Council laying down harmonised 
rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act) and amending certain Union legislative acts, 
COM/2021/206 
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52021PC0206. 

21 April 

2021, 

final 

of 

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on harmonised rules on fair 
access  to  and  use  of  data  (Data  Act),  COM(2022)  68  final  of  23 February  2022,  https://eur-
lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52022PC0068. 

Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on 
contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 
2020/1828 
p 1, 
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/1925/oj. 

12.10.2022, 

Markets 

(Digital 

Act), 

265, 

OJ 

L 

Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a 
Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act), OJ L 
277, 27.10.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2065/oj. 

Regulation  (EU)  2022/868  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  30  May  2022  on 
European data governance and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1724 (Data Governance Act), OJ L 
152, 3.6.2022, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/868/oj. 

89