Evaluation of the Market Access PartnershipWe offer research, consultancy and project management, specialising in economic, social and spatial development. ... Setting priorities on

Evaluation of the Market Access Partnership

Final Report

Client: European Commission DG Trade Unit G3

Rotterdam, November 20, 2012

Personal data in this document have been redacted according to the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 and the European Commission Internal Data Protection

Regulation 2018/1725


Client: European Commission DG Trade Unit G3

Paul Wymenga

Nora Plaisier

Dr Floor Smakman

Dr GertJan Linders

Rotterdam, November 20, 2012

2 AC23760

About Ecorys

At Ecorys we aim to deliver real benefit to society through the work we do. We offer research,

consultancy and project management, specialising in economic, social and spatial development.

Focusing on complex market, policy and management issues we provide our clients in the public,

private and not-for-profit sectors worldwide with a unique perspective and high-value solutions.

Ecorys’ remarkable history spans more than 80 years. Our expertise covers economy and

competitiveness; regions, cities and real estate; energy and water; transport and mobility; social

policy, education, health and governance. We value our independence, integrity and partnerships.

Our staff are dedicated experts from academia and consultancy, who share best practices both

within our company and with our partners internationally.

Ecorys Netherlands has an active CSR policy and is ISO14001 certified (the international standard

for environmental management systems). Our sustainability goals translate into our company policy

and practical measures for people, planet and profit, such as using a 100% green electricity tariff,

purchasing carbon offsets for all our flights, incentivising staff to use public transport and printing on

FSC or PEFC certified paper. Our actions have reduced our carbon footprint by an estimated 80%

since 2007.

ECORYS Nederland BV

Watermanweg 44

3067 GG Rotterdam

3006 AD Rotterdam

The Netherlands

T

F

E @ecorys.com

Registration no. 24316726

W www.ecorys.nl

This report was commissioned and financed by the European Commission. The views expressed

are those of the consultant, and do not represent an official view of the Commission.

Table of contents

Evaluation of the Market Access Partnership 3

Preface 5

Summary 7

1 Background, objectives and approach 11

1.1 Background 11

1.2 Objectives 13

1.3 Approach of the evaluation 14

1.4 Approach 14

2 Descriptive account of the MAP 17

2.1 Descriptive account of the MAP 17

2.1.1 Policy context – the Market Access Strategy 17

2.1.2 Description of the Market Access Partnership 19

2.2 Reconstruction of the intervention logic of Market Access Partnership 22

3 Survey results 23

3.1 Introduction 23

3.2 Characterisation of the respondents 24

3.3 Perceptions on functioning of MAP of survey respondents 28

3.3.1 Procedures 28

3.3.2 Barriers 30

3.3.3 Communication 32

3.3.4 Results of addressing barriers 34

4 Key findings 37

4.1 Organisation and role of different stakeholders 37

4.1.1 Actual situation 37

4.1.2 Evaluative assessment 39

4.2 Communication 44



4.3 Barriers addressed 47



4.4 Results achieved 48

5 Conclusions 51

5.1.1 Relevance 51

5.1.2 Efficiency 51

5.1.3 Effectiveness 52

5.1.4 Impact 53

6 Recommendations for improvement 55

Annexes 57

4 Evaluation of the Market Access Partnership


5

Preface

On the 20th of December 2011, Ecorys Nederland BV was awarded the contract to evaluate the EU

Market Access Partnership (MAP).

Dr. Koen Berden did the quality control of the reporting for Ecorys Nederland BV.

During the evaluation, the evaluation team received guidance from a steering Committee under

supervision of Mr Petros Sourmelis and Mrs Madelaine Tuininga. Special thanks from the

contractor are for Ms Marie-Helene Obadalek who coordinated the evaluation at DG Trade and

provided the evaluation team with, among other things, the documentation and contact details of

the key resource persons.


7

Summary

Introduction

The Market Access Partnership (MAP) was introduced in 2007 to remove barriers for European

businesses exporting and investing in third country markets. The partners of the MAP are the

European Commission, the Member States and EU businesses. The MAP has three platforms: the

Market Access Advisory Committee (MAAC), the Market Access Working Groups (MAWG) in

Brussels, and the local Market Access Teams (MAT) in third countries, which mirror the activities of

the Brussels-based platforms.

The MAP focuses on the following areas: 1) Strengthening the network of market access experts;

2) Setting priorities on which market access barriers to remove; 3) Using EU’s global and bilateral,

trade deals to support the MAP; and 4) Using MATs to identify potential market access barriers and

to tackle them.

DG Trade commissioned this evaluation of the MAP to assess its relevance, impact, effectiveness,

and efficiency as well as to suggest improvements to its structure and scope.

Methodology

The evaluation combined the main evaluation questions with indicators chosen to measure

relevance, impact, effectiveness, and efficiency. It was agreed that the evaluation would take a

predominantly qualitative approach.

An on-line survey was sent to members of the MAAC, the MAWG and the MATs to gather their

perceptions on how the MAP functions. Interviews were also held with selected stakeholders of the

MAAC and three MAWGs, which included an interactive session with the MAAC. In addition, case

studies on MATs were conducted in selected third countries.

A descriptive account of the Market Access Strategy and the MAP

A description of the underlying policy of the MAP and a reconstruction of this intervention is given in

the report.

Survey results and key findings

This report summarises the survey results and the key findings on the process and organisation of

the stakeholders of the MAP, the communication between these stakeholders, the barriers

addressed, and the results achieved.

Conclusions

Overall the MAP is positively evaluated on the evaluation criteria stated above.

The MAP is assessed to be relevant because it focuses on market access for EU businesses in

accordance with the objectives of “Trade, Growth and World Affairs”. The MAP has been working

on key barriers in a systematic way while also devoting time to address many other barriers in third

countries.

The MAP is found to be generally efficient when looking to its input-output relation; however, it

could be made more efficient by further improving the focus of the MAAC meetings and

concentrating on those barriers that are economically most significant and which carry a better


chance of being adequately solved. This should be done sometimes regardless of the insistence of

some lobbies.

Regarding the effectiveness of the MAP, a substantial number of potential barriers have been

addressed before they become entrenched in law. On the other hand, a large majority of the

existing market access barriers has still not been solved. The effectiveness of the MAP seems to

stem not just from joint action, but maybe more importantly from a common voice of the three MAP

partners.

Given that a large majority of the barriers have not been solved, the impact will be relatively low.

For those barriers that have been solved it is difficult to assess the impact in quantitative terms,

given the methodological problems in assessing the precise economic value – in market terms – of

most obstacles to trade. Furthermore, although some barriers have been avoided via “early

warning” follow-up actions, given the time complex Market Access barriers often require to be lifted,

it may also be too early to assess the quantitative impact of the MAP. For these reasons, the study

mostly relies on qualitative data produced by a survey among stakeholders.

Some positive aspects of the MAP include:

It creates a clear window for market access issues;

It works on actual problems and finding solutions;

It creates more leverage for smaller Member States; and

It allows companies to take a European route rather than a bilateral one, which is often a

preferred option because this creates more anonymity (the bilateral route means a

complaint can be more easily traced back to a specific company).

Some bottlenecks of the MAP include:

The larger Member States sometimes prefer to act unilaterally, which limits the

possibilities for joint and coordinated action;

The MAP may become a victim of its own success because the number of cases is

increasing but resources within the EC and the MS are limited;

It has a limited set of instruments if the third countries are not willing to co-operate to solve

the problem: not all market issues can be challenged in the WTO and DS can only be

used in a limited number of cases.

Recommendations

Relevance:

a. The stakeholders want to focus on more barriers and countries. In times of economic

crisis, the work of the MAP becomes increasingly important.

b. Make a clear difference in the treatment of key and non-key barriers in the MAP.

c. Raise awareness on the function of the MAP with the MATs.

Efficiency:

d. Improve the distribution of analytical work by delegating more of that work to the Member

States.

e. If Business brings up a barrier, it should be accompanied by relevant supporting evidence

on which action can be taken.

f. Ensure good preparation of information to send in advance of the MAAC meetings to the

participants.

g. More direct communication lines at a technical level between the MAWG and MAT(WGs)

in key markets.

Effectiveness:

h. Work together with like-minded non-EU actors for the MAP.


9

i. Consider technical assistance in combination with gentle persuasion to overcome barriers.

j. Make processes and procedures clearer and more transparent without losing flexibility.

k. Create better institutional memory by documenting more of what has been done.

l. Share experiences from different MATs and MAWGs on the approach, process and

procedures for dealing with market access barriers.

Impact:

m. Design a methodology to quantify the impact of the MAP, bearing in mind that the “early

warning” follow-up actions have prevented some barriers.

11Evaluation of the Market Access Partnership

1 Background, objectives and approach

1.1 Background

The EU's Market Access Strategy (MAS) was launched in 1996 to enforce multilateral and bilateral

trade deals and open third country markets to EU exports. The strategy was based on two pillars: 1)

providing EU businesses with information on market access conditions and 2) creating a framework

within which the barriers to trade in goods and services, intellectual property and investment are

tackled.

The first pillar was given shape in the form of the Market Access Database (MADB) on the DG

Trade website, which provides information on tariff and non-tariff issues per country for companies

wishing to export to third countries.

The strategy and particularly the second pillar of the strategy was given a further impetus in 2007

with the launch of the Market Access Partnership, which brings together the European Commission,

national governments and businesses with the ultimate aim of removing barriers for EU exporters

and investors on markets outside the EU.

The MAP has an EU structure and an external, third country structure and is built on three main

platforms of coordination for all key stakeholders:

(1) The Market Access Advisory Committee (MAAC);

(2) Market Access Working Groups on the EU side (MAWG);

(3) The local Market Access Teams (MAT) in third countries, established as diplomatic trade tools

in third countries. This structure is illustrated in the figure below, which also includes the key

partners to the MAP (Commission, Member States and Business).

The structure of the MAP is visually presented in Figure 1.1 below, clearly depicting the Brussels

based structure on the one hand (with the MAAC and MAWG at its core) around and the third

country structures (with the MAT at their core).


Figure 1.1 The EU’s Market Access Strategy and Market Access Partnership

Market Access Strategy (1996 / 2007)

Market Access Database (MADB)

Market Acces Partnership (MAP)(2007)

Market Access Working Groups

Market Access Advisory Committee

(MAAC) Local Market Access Teams (MAT)

Member States Embassies

EU Business / others

EU Delegations

Member Sates Trade PolicyCommittee

EU business

Commission services

Communication tools:- T&I Barriers Report- Market Access Newsletter- Flashnotes- DG Trade website

Source: Ecorys, 2011

The MAAC consists of representatives of the Commission, Member States and EU business

associations. Its main tasks are to advise on the management and strategic direction of the MAP

and the MAS, to discuss specific market access barriers, and to act as a forum for the meetings of

the TBT Committee in Geneva and the Trade Barriers Regulation Committee. It is also actively

used to collect input for the EU contribution to the WTO Trade Policy Mechanism.

Market Access Working Groups focus on specific industries and relevant market access issues for

these industries often in specific countries and provide technical inputs to the MAAC. The working

groups look to provide early warnings on new measures and technical analysis of the issues, as

well as develop strategies for action.

In March 2011 there were 12 Active Working Groups, described in the table below.

Table 1.1 Active Market Access Working Groups – March 2011

Working Group Scope

SPS/Products of

Animal Origin

Started in 2005 as a WG on SPS Asia and later enlarged in scope. Business was

invited to participate from June 2008. Covering several points of offensive interest for

the food industry (meat products).

SPS/Products of

Plant Origin

Started in 2005 as a WG on SPS Asia and later enlarged in scope. Business was

invited to participate from June 2008. Covering several points of offensive interest for

the food industry (plant products).

Medical devices Started in October 2007. Targets new regulations in key emerging markets for the EU

medical devices industry (China, India) and has been enlarged to encompass other


Working Group Scope

important markets (e.g. Brazil, Turkey, Korea, Taiwan)

Electronics and ICT Started in May 2008. Currently focusing on barriers to trade for electronics and ICT in

China.

Tyres Started in June 2008. Mainly focusing on trade barriers for EU tyre exporters in China,

Indonesia, and India, but also to other third country markets such as Russia.

Automotives Started in November 2008. Mainly focusing on barriers in China, India, Russia, but also

other third country markets such as Argentina, Colombia, Japan and Turkey.

Services (Postal

courier)

Started in November 2008. Currently focusing on priority markets in China, India and

Russia but also other third country markets are analysed (Indonesia, Bangladesh,

Brazil, Bosnia, Kenya and Egypt).

Services

(Distribution)

Started in November 2008. Currently focusing on priority markets in China, India and

Russia but also other third country markets are analysed (Indonesia, Bangladesh,

Brazil, Bosnia, Kenya and Egypt).

Textiles Started in January 2009. Analyses a broad range of barriers in the sector, focusing on

the US, Russian, Indian, Turkish and Latin American markets.

Alcoholic beverages Started in September 2009. Currently focusing on barriers to trade for alcoholic

beverages in China, Russia, Thailand and Turkey as well as a number of other third

countries.

Leather Started in February 2010. Priorities include export restrictions for raw materials and

labelling, certification and testing requirements, i.e. in Morocco, Russia and Latin

America.

Chemicals Started in March 2010. Focuses on the main trade obstacles in the chemical sector. A

preliminary list of priorities was set up in the first meeting (IPR, customs, chemicals

registration, import restrictions, SPS), as well as a list of priority markets (China, India,

Russia, US, Japan, Brazil) which can be subject to changes in the future.

Source: DG Trade

To date there are MATs (more or less formalised) in approximately 30 countries. While the concept

of a MAT is a flexible one, MATs can be seen as functionally mirroring the MAAC structure in

Brussels. They provide a general platform for information gathering and analysis on key barriers in

the host country and coordination among the Commission, Member States and the business

community in the host country - involving the latter when needed, or more structurally, e.g. by

setting up specific thematic working groups when seen as necessary.

The MAP uses various communication tools (see Figure 2.1) to reach its key stakeholders and

wider audiences, including (next to the MADB) the annual Trade & Investment Barriers Report,

regular Market Access Newsletters and Flash notes and the DG Trade website more generally.

This first evaluation of the MAP will consider the different aspects of the Market Access

Partnership, as depicted in Figure 1.1. More specifically, this evaluation has two parts:

An online survey among stakeholders of the MAP with respect to the needs and opinions about

the services and products of the MAP; and

An assessment of the functioning of the three bodies of the MAP (MAAC, MAWG and MAT).

The Terms of Reference for this assignment can be found in Annex1.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this evaluation are to:


1. Assess, against the objectives defined in the Market Access Strategy, the impact of the

implementation of the Market Access Partnership and the efficiency, effectiveness and

relevance of the service provided within its framework;

2. Suggest possible changes/adaptations to be made to the structure and the scope of the

Market Access Partnership in order to enhance its effectiveness (including, where

appropriate, the introduction of new actions or action lines and/or new actors).

Evaluation questions are formulated in the TOR under the heading of Relevance, Effectiveness,

Efficiency and Conclusions, see pages 8-9 of the TOR in Annex 1. These evaluation criteria will be

answered in the conclusions, based on information gathered and analysed following the evaluation

design as will be explained in the next section.

The present assignment to evaluate the MAP was commissioned by DG Trade Unit G3 Market

Access, Industry, Energy and Raw Materials.

1.3 Approach of the evaluation

An evaluation matrix was designed and commented on by the client. The evaluation matrix is

directly linked to the evaluation questions and summarises the evaluation and judgement criteria,

the requested data or indicators and the sources of information for each evaluation question in the

TOR. This evaluation framework helped to guide the implementation of the evaluation. The

framework can be found in Annex 2.

The focus of this evaluation has been on the process side of the MAP (efficiency and impact) and

the outcomes of the Partnership (effectiveness and relevance).

The effectiveness of the MAP is analysed by looking at whether the MAP objectives have been

achieved and whether the MAP provides value added to each participant in / stakeholder of the

MAP. In addition, in five third countries case studies were conducted to provide specific examples

and experiences of the effectiveness of this platform of the MAP. Most of the evaluation questions

formulated in the ToR were on the effectiveness of the MAP.

The efficiency of the MAP is assessed by analysing the efficiency of the processes under the MAP

as well as the relationship between inputs (resources of the partners) and outputs (deliverables).

There are a number of principles that are key to an effective partnership:

There are rules or procedures of cooperation between the Partners;

There is a Strategy and an Operational Plan for the Partnership;

There is trust and transparency among the Partners in regard to the Partnership;

There is credibility among the Partners.

The extent to which the above conditions are met by the platforms of the MAP was included as part

of our research, together with the specific evaluation questions.

1.4 Approach

A predominantly qualitative approach has been applied in this evaluation and the different stages of

the MAS were systematically analysed as were the contributions made by its stakeholders

(partners). This was done while using the evaluation criteria mentioned in the ToR as guidelines.


The evaluation covered the period from 2006 to date. Rather than diving deep into the content of

the trade barriers, this evaluation concentrated on the analysis of the processes under the Market

Access Partnership (MAP), whereby all platforms and stakeholders of the Partnership were covered

by: (i) an online survey among members of the MAAC, the MAWGs and the MATs; (ii) interviews

with selected stakeholders of the MAAC and MAWGs, where always three partners were

interviewed; (iv) an interactive session of the consultant within a meeting of the MAAC; and (v) five

case studies of MAT functioning in third countries.

The results of the online survey can be found in Chapter 3. Interviews were conducted with

representatives from all three MAP stakeholders (EC staff, Member States representatives and

business representatives) in the MAAC and three MAWGs, for which the SPS, Textiles and

Alcoholic Beverages MAWGs were selected. The consultants attended a MAAC meeting in

Brussels on May 29, 2012. In third countries interviews with representatives from all three

stakeholder groups were conducted and in some cases a MAT meeting was attended.

For the five third countries the evaluation conducted in-depth interviews with stakeholders and case

studies. The criteria to select these five third countries were as follows:

1. Importance of the market in question for EU exports, considered both over time and potentially

for the future;

2. The existence of specific and very salient barriers from the perspective of EU exporters /

investors;

3. Existing trade agreements and on-going trade negotiations;

4. Geographic spread and spread across type of trading partners (developed/developing).

After consultation with the Steering Committee the following five countries were selected for case

studies of the local Market Access Teams:

1. China (criteria 1, 2) –emerging country;

2. South Korea (criteria 1, 4) – developed country;

3. India (criteria 2, 3) – developing economy;

4. Brazil (criteria 1, 4) – emerging country;

5. Ukraine (criteria 2. 3) – emerging economy.

Readers guide

The structure of this evaluation report is as follows. The next chapter presents the descriptive

account of the MAP. Chapter 3 sets out the results of the survey. Chapter 4 deals with the key

findings. Chapters 5 and 6 present, respectively, the conclusions and recommendations.


2 Descriptive account of the MAP

2.1 Descriptive account of the MAP

2.1.1 Policy context – the Market Access Strategy

The integration of the EU internal market and multilateral liberalization of trade and investment have

offered important contributions to competitiveness of EU business, generating jobs and economic

growth.1 Access to foreign markets is increasingly essential to EU business, – whether multinational

companies or SMEs. International trade and investment offer EU producers an opportunity to

realize economies of scale and access to raw materials and intermediates. EU citizens benefit from

lower prices and a larger variety of products. Sustaining and improving market access is essential

for achieving the levels of economic growth that can facilitate a sustainable modern welfare state

and create a buffer to absorb ageing and other socio-economic problems.2

Globalisation involves not only trade in final consumer goods, but also global fragmentation of value

chains and trade in services. This results in a more prominent role for trade in intermediate goods

and services, intra-firm trade and off-shoring of production processes. Value chains become

increasingly global.3

In the context of on-going integration of the EU internal market, the EC has identified the need to

also increase access of EU business to foreign markets. Policies aimed to increase EU

competitiveness at home, such as improved product market regulation, more flexible labour

markets and increased cross-border mobility, and the EU internal market for goods and services

will have more impact if EU business can benefit from improved access to foreign markets.4

Progress in market access outside the EU would enable firms to compete at a level playing field,

ensure supply of necessary inputs and realize the maximum potential benefits of globalisation.

The policy objective to increase market access in third countries thus forms an integral part of the

EC policy agenda, such as the Global Europe Strategy and the Lisbon Agenda for growth and

jobs.5 Common trade policy increasingly aims to improve market access in third countries in parallel

to the further integration of the EU market.6 Non tariff trade barriers become relatively more

important due to lower tariffs, and for the EU specifically due to the importance of services. These

barriers are more difficult to identify as they are often ‘hidden’ in national legislation.

Against this economic and policy background, the EC formulated the Market Access Strategy in

19967, and introduced the Market Access Partnership in 2007.8 These were meant to further

improve the implementation of market access policies, and cope with further economic and political

developments, notably the rise of emerging economies (such as the BRIC countries: Brazil,

1 See EC COM(96) 53 final and EC COM(2010) 612. 2 See, e.g., McKinsey & Company (2010) Beyond austerity: A path to economic growth and renewal in Europe. 3 See for example Feenstra, R.C. (1998) Integration of Trade and Disintegration of Production in the Global Economy, The

Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(4), pp. 31–50. 4 EC COM(96) 53 final. 5 EC, External Trade (2006) Global Europe Competing in the world, A contribution to the EU’s Growth and Jobs Strategy,

October. 6 EC COM(96) 53 final, page 3. 7 EC COM(96) 53 final. 8 EC COM(2007) 183 final.


Russian Republic, India and China). They also addressed the increasing prevalence and

importance of “behind the border” regulations and policies as obstacles to market access.

Rationale of the Market Access Strategy

Access to foreign markets enables EU businesses to increase competitiveness by scale effects

in production and access to inputs and raw materials;

Improving the competitiveness of EU businesses was seen to require more focus of EU

common trade policy on third-country markets, in parallel with the further development of the

Single Market;

The variety and extent of barriers to market access reinforced the need for focus on specific

third-country market access;

The increase of access to foreign markets often requires a long and gradual process of

economic integration. The MAS aimed at more effective short-term policy action to tackle

obstacles to market access. More direct involvement of businesses, Member States and

Delegations in signalling and addressing bilateral barriers should help obtain concrete benefits

for EU industry and SMEs in particular.

MAS aim and instruments

The following goals of the MAS were defined:

Trading partners’ effective adherence to their obligations under multilateral or bilateral trade

agreements;

The existing policy instruments for market opening should be used to their full extent and

comply to the objective of ensuring market access;

Active policy involvement to address non-tariff measures that affect trade and investment flows,

especially those measures that do not directly classify as trade barrier (discriminatory domestic

regulation);

To inform business about the instruments available to them to signal and address obstacles to

market access, promote trade and generate level playing fields at the EU market and abroad.

The policy instruments available to the EC to effectuate the MAS operate at the multilateral and

bilateral level. Multilateral instruments include the WTO negotiation and dispute settlement

processes. Bilateral instruments include general or sector-specific negotiations on market access,

but also systematic use of policy visits to- and from the EC.

The implementation and enforcement of free trade and investment agreements between the EU

and third countries offer a framework to deal with market access obstacles. The Trade Barriers

Regulation provides the EC with an instrument to deal with specific barriers that aims to settle

market access issues by negotiation.

These policy instruments can be effectively accompanied by flanking policies, such as mutual

recognition and development of international standards, and international industrial co-operation.

Operationalisation of the MAS

The concrete development of the MAS in accordance with its objectives and instruments involved

two levels: the bilateral and the multilateral.

At the bilateral level, the following steps were identified:

Identification of obstacles to market access (e.g., by country and sector) and prioritisation;

Identification of the approach to tackle the issue;

Match the bilateral approach to the relevant multilateral aspects and flanking policies;


Co-ordinate effectively the activities of different actors involved: the EC, Member States, EU

business, and EC delegations.

The multilateral part involved:

Concluding and enforcing the past WTO agreements;

Identification of market access challenges and priorities for putting forward on the multilateral

agenda.

The steps identified above led to the following actions:

1. The EC has built and maintained a database of existing obstacles to market access, the

Market Access Database (MADB). This was the main operational instrument for deploying

initiatives;

2. Initiatives to open markets in specific sectors, based on the information collected in the MADB.

The initiatives were intended to be demand driven, which requires extensive involvement of EU

business in identification of barriers and setting priorities.

The MAS called for involvement of multiple actors at the EC and Member State level, as well as

from the side of EU business. Concern about the best way to involve the different stakeholders of

the MAS to identify and remove (potential) obstacles to market access has led to the

reconsideration of the MAS after roughly ten years. This has eventually led to the formulation of a

renewed Market Access Strategy in 2007, to which we turn below.

2.1.2 Description of the Market Access Partnership

Over the period 1996 to 2007, EC trade policy gave priority to multilateral efforts to increase market

access. Less attention was paid to develop and follow the approach of removing specific obstacles

to market access. Given the changing nature of market access obstacles, from border barriers to

increasingly complex “behind the border” barriers and a clear demand from stakeholders to identify

and address specific barriers in specific markets, refocusing on specific barrier removal was

needed.

The consultation on- and evaluation of the Market Access strategy in 2006 and the changing

economic context have led to the formulation of the Market Access Partnership in 2007 as a

renewed approach to operationalize the MAS.9 The policy change proposed by MAP, while serving

the main objective of MAS to remove obstacles to market access in third countries, aimed at

achieving a clearer, more results oriented approach to tackle market access barriers. The key

ingredients to this approach were a reinforced partnership between the actors involved at the three

levels of EC, Member States and business, and a clear focus on key priorities in terms of barriers

and markets. Specifically, the following key conclusions for improvement of MAS were identified in

the evaluation of the MAS in 2006:10

Improve the mix of policy instrument used by the EC. Multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations

need to be combined with action to ensure enforcement;

Achieve a closer co-operation between EC, Member States and business in a partnership both

at the EU level and in third countries;

Better prioritisation of actions to tackle barriers that yield the most economic benefit for the EU;

Set up a more efficient and transparent reporting, information and dissemination system on

market access issues, specifically addressing the needs of SMEs who face most pressing

9 See EC COM(2007) 183 final. 10 See EC COM(2007) 183 final, and EC Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2007) 452.


capacity constraints in dealing with foreign market access. This includes improvement of the

Market Access Database.

The MAP intends to address these needs for improvement, in order to result in quicker and more

responsive EC action to remove barriers. Central to the changes implemented by MAP is a

decentralisation of the actions, giving a more central role to local initiative from actors active in

third-country markets. Though all partners have a role in the success of such a partnership, the EC

has a co-ordinating and leading role in generating platforms for signalling and analysis of barriers,

and in tackling them with policy actions.

The general principle of the MAP is to make better use of mechanisms that were initiated in the

preceding MAS period, by deepening partnership and improving focus. Existing instruments such

as the Market Access Advisory Committee, specialized committees, local network building and

sharing of knowledge and best practice become more explicitly organized, and better linked. The

MAP aims at better co-ordination and co-operation (bottom-up participation, feedback and co-

ordinated action) and more efficient and effective use of resources (priority countries, issues and

sectors; increased signalling and response speed and more policy leverage).

The mix of policy instruments

To reach the objective of increased and sustained market access, the MAP applies a combination

of multilateral, bilateral, formal and informal instruments. The MAP sets out the following policy

agenda:

Though still important, the scope to use accession negotiations to WTO as the framework to put

market access in third countries on the agenda has become smaller over recent years;

The use of bilateral negotiations on new FTA or sectoral agreements offers a promising

complementary platform at the bilateral level to extend market access;

More focus on effective enforcement of such agreements was identified as a point of attention.

The route of dispute settlement emphasizes mediation approaches, and co-operation with third

countries to address barriers of common concern;

Technical trade assistance, mostly to developing countries, to help local capacity building and

remove bottlenecks in the enforcement of market access rules, and to prepare regulatory reform

fostering competition;

Use of EC political- and trade diplomacy for short-term intervention to address market access

problems.

Partnership with local EU Delegations, Member States and EU business was deemed essential to

increase effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of the Market Access Strategy.

Establishing a new partnership between actors

The MAP aims to establish co-operation between actors both at the EU level and in key third-

country markets. The aim of this partnership is to improve prioritizing, knowledge sharing between

local actors and market access specialists, disseminating information on key barriers to market

access, and ultimately resolve them. The partnership involves local teams in third countries, and

the Market Access Advisory Committee (MAAC) and Working Groups at the EU level.

At the local level, the MAP formalizes the networks built up between business, Member States and

EC officials in local Market Access Teams (MAT). As of October 2008, 28 Market Access Teams

had been formed.11 The MAT combines Commission Delegations, Member State embassies and

11 See Local Market Access Teams under the Market Access Partnership,

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2008/july/tradoc_139897.pdf


EU business operating in the third country. This allows more systematic contacts and coordination

in signalling and reporting barriers to market access. Given the local knowledge and experience,

MAT involvement allows more effective “early warning” identification and communication of

potential regulations that limit market access, such that pre-emptive EC policy action can be

developed. Local involvement also improves political and economic leverage of ensuing diplomatic

actions to prevent market access barriers from taking effect.

At the EU level, the MAAC combines Member State representatives and EC representatives. The

Trade Policy Committee remains the platform for policy level discussions of the most important

market access cases between these actors. However, the MAAC focuses more on technical

aspects of market access and emphasizes co-ordination of bottom-up inputs from MATs, in close

co-operation with the Trade Barriers Regulation Committee.

Given the strong need for more consultation with business in the removal of barriers, the MAP

envisaged more trilateral discussion between EC, EU business and Member States. Market Access

Working Groups have been developed that focus on different themes, sectors and types of market

access issues.

Establishing key priorities for action

The increase in prevalence, complexity and variety of NTBs imply the need for targeting the

analysis and removal of these obstacles to the areas that offer the largest impact. The system for

setting priorities aims to offer guidance, but remain flexible to enable the screening of all reported

obstacles.

The criteria for determining priorities among barriers are the following:

Potential economic benefits of aligning them in the short and medium term;

Extent of the infringement of existing agreements or rules posed by the barrier;

The likelihood of solving the issue in a reasonable amount of time.

The outcomes of the process to set priorities lead to:

A selection of key countries (potentially including OECD economies and emerging economies;

the least developed countries were explicitly excluded from selection);

A set of sectors (some were proposed in the consultation, or in the framework of EC industrial

policy);

A set of specific market access issues (such as IPR infringement).

The Working Groups that have been developed follow these lines of selection outcomes.

More effective market access policy

The ultimate goal of MAP is to offer a real contribution to common commercial policy, conferring

benefits to EU Member States, their business communities and citizens. Key outcome criteria for a

more effective, efficient and transparent Market Access Strategy, embodied in MAP are:

Prevention of new barriers to enter into effect: the MAT actions aim to improve capability to

monitor regulation, generating intelligence or “early warning” on policies detrimental to trade.

Improved process for barrier removal: better co-ordination of bottom-up initiative from MATs,

leading to analysis in MAAC and Working Groups and feedback to generate local follow-up.

This involves the operation of local MATs, MAAC and Working Groups, but also the registering

and dissemination of relevant information in the Market Access Database. The closer

partnership and prioritisation are expected to yield most impact on efficiency and transparency

in the identification and analysis of barriers. The improvement in policy actions and policy

outcomes follow from these steps, though the latter is more indirect.


Improved dissemination of information in the market access networks, including the Market

Access Database: the MAP intends to increase user-friendliness and simplify the MADB. The

aim is to enhance the visibility and use of the MADB as operational tool in the identification and

reporting of market access issues. The dissemination of information on barriers, policy actions

and their outcomes is essential for giving feedback to EU business as a return to their

investment in market access networks.

2.2 Reconstruction of the intervention logic of Market Access Partnership

The MAP is a specific set of policy instruments designed to improve the effectiveness of the market

access strategy. As noted by the EC, the more assertive trade policy approach outlined in the MAP

intends to generate more co-ordinated actions of all stakeholders. Essentially, this would lead to

bottom-up market access networks between EC, Member States, business (associations) and EU

Delegations, which focus limited resources on tackling barriers that matter most.12 The key

elements in the approach are:

Prioritisation of barriers by key sectors, countries and issues;

Renewing partnerships of the EC with MS and EU business in shaping market access networks.

The MAP is essentially “an umbrella term for a set of specific instruments and actions executed by

committees, working bodies and networks which is unfolding on the diplomatic or political level,

addressing barriers through the preparation of free trade agreements, bilateral negotiations,

regulatory dialogue and trade diplomacy.”13 As explained by Tiedemann (2009), the MAP achieves

its main innovation by extending the scope of trade diplomacy to “formalised co-operation between

multiple stakeholders on equal grounds”.14 This type of trade diplomacy is labelled as a more

involving, networking type of activity than traditional bilateral trade diplomacy (e.g., state-state,

state-firm). Thus, the MAP approach implies that stakeholders jointly set priorities and bundle their

complementary knowledge in the identification of barriers and formulation of appropriate responses.

Background fiches and hymn sheets are prepared for synchronising the approach to key market

access barriers in bilateral contacts. These barrier background fiches and hymn sheets are

circulated to the Member States with the intention to convey coordinated messages to third

countries.

12 EC Commission Staff Working Document SEC(2007) 452, page 4. 13 Tiedemann, A. (2009) “EU Market Access Teams: New Instruments to Tackle Non-tariff Barriers to Trade.” College of

Europe, EU Diplomacy Papers, 9/2009, pp. 7–8. 14 Ibid, p. 8.


3 Survey results

3.1 Introduction

The survey has been undertaken in three successive stages. The first stage represented the initial

research into the MAP and its three main groups: MAAC, MAWG and MAT. This included three in-

depth interviews with members of the MAP and a literature review.

Based upon the findings of the first stage, a preliminary questionnaire was designed by the

research team. In the second stage, this preliminary questionnaire was presented to the Steering

Committee and the necessary modifications were carried out. Two different surveys were prepared

by the consultants: one for the MAAC and the MAWG and a second one for the MAT.

The third stage consisted of the cleansing and analysis of the survey data. The output of the

analysis allowed us to obtain information on the impact, efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of

the MAP and to suggest improvements of the partnership. In addition, the survey allowed us to

shed some light on the characterisation of the participants in the MAP.

The survey details and the results per question are included in Annex 5.

The survey was launched on the13th April 2012 and closed on the 11th of June 2012. During this

period, 638 people received a message with a link to the online survey and 208 of them completed

the survey. The response rate was 33%. Feedback was received from a broad range of countries.

As an illustration of the geographical coverage of the survey, the map below shows the location of

the respondents at the time of answering the survey.

Figure 3.1 Respondents location via IP


3.2 Characterisation of the respondents

This section discusses the main attributes of the respondents. It analyses their distribution by

membership of the MAAC, MAWG and MAT, stakeholder composition, tenure and workload. A

further characterisation of the MAT is also provided.

Of the 208 respondents that completed the survey, 92 (44%) participate primarily in the MAAC, 30

(14%) in the MAWGs and 86 (41%) in the MATs15.

Figure 3.2 Membership breakdown

The 30 respondents participating in the MAWGs work on specific sectoral market access barriers.

They were mostly from the chemicals, medical devices and automotives MAWGs. The figure below

summarises the share of respondents participating in the MAWGs by sectoral group.

15 Percentages do not add up to 100 per cent due to rounding.

44%

41%

14%

MAAC MAT MAWG


Figure 3.3 Participation in MAWGs

Promoting the participation of different stakeholders and building bottom-up strategies to tackle

market access barriers for EU exporters in third country markets were two of the key new elements

of the MAP. According to the survey results, EU member states and private sector account for 80%

of the answers and the EU institutions for 17%.

Respondents representing business associations and private companies account for a higher share

in the MAAC/MAWGs. The role of the EU delegations and EU Member States steering the MAT is

confirmed in the next figure by their relatively higher participation rate in the survey.

Figure 3.4 Respondents participation in the MAAC/MAWG and MAT

The percentage of stakeholders coming from member states and the private sector has become

higher over time. According to the survey respondents, before the establishment of the MAP in

2007, Member States and the private sector represented 73% of the stakeholders, while in June

2012 this percentage increased to 82%. From those involved, we find a lower percentage coming

from Member States and the private sector.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

21% 22%

4% 7%1%

23%

5%

13%2%

3%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

EU Member State Business association

EC & EU Delegation

Private company Local (host country) trade association

Other

MAAC/MAWG MAT


Table 3.1 Stakeholder breakdown

Before 2007 June 2012

EU Institutions 27% 17%

Member states and private sector 73% 83% Note: the group member states and private sector is calculated as the sum of respondents belonging to EU member states,

business associations, private companies, local trade associations and others.

The survey indicated that 72% of the respondents have been involved in the MAP between 1 and

more than 2 years. In particular, members of the MAWG have been involved longer than the other

groups, which is logical given the fact that many MATs were only established later. During the first

five years of MAP, approximately 52% of the respondents were already involved for more than two

years. On the other hand, 17% has been involved in MAP for less than six months.

Figure 3.5 Time involved in MAAC, MAT, and MAWG

For the majority of the respondents, participation in MAP is a complementary activity on top of their

regular tasks. In the survey, 65% of the respondents spend no more than 1.5 days a month on

activities related to the MAP and 36% spend less than half a day per month. However, some 11%

of respondents spend more than 5 days per month.

13%

4% 5% 5%

20%

6% 6% 3%

19%

10% 6%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

More than 2 years Between 1 and 2 years Less than 6 months Between 6 months and 1 year

MAAC MAT MAWG


Figure 3.6 Time spent on participating in MAWG, MAT, and MAWG

The survey included some questions that allow us to describe the MATs in more detail. According

to responding MAT members, obtaining information on barriers is seen as the main advantage of

participating in a MAT. Other advantages include the exchange of information about present and

potential market barriers and the provision of a platform for discussion and dialogue on the best

strategy to tackle these barriers. Some respondents indicated the strategic value of MAT to

coordinate a common position between stakeholders. The next figure provides insight into the

relative importance of these functions according to the respondents.

Figure 3.7 Reasons for participating in MAT

In the survey respondents were asked whether the EU Delegations played a steering role in setting

up MATs. Out of the 86 MAT members who answered this question, more than 85% agreed with

this statement. The steering role of the EU delegation setting up MATs in third countries is also

confirmed by 64% of the respondents, indicating that they were invited to participate in MAT by the

EU Delegation. The Figure below illustrates all the possible ways in which stakeholders became

involved.

3%

9% 10%

4%

4%

5%

9%

14%

4%

9%

10%

18%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

More than 5 days per month Between 1.5 and 5 days per months

Between 0.5 and 1.5 day per month

Less than half a day per month

MAAC MAT MAWG

24%22%

19%17%

15%

3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Obtaining information on existing and/or

potential barriers

Providing information to

the EC on existing trade and investment barriers in this

country

Provides a platform for dialogue with

the Government in this country

Providing information to

the EC on potential trade and investment barriers in this

country

Provides a platform for dialogue with

the EC

Other


Figure 3.8 Initiation of MAT

3.3 Perceptions on functioning of MAP of survey respondents

This section details the perceptions and views among survey respondents on the procedures,

barriers addressed, internal and external communication, and results achieved in the context of the

MAP16.

3.3.1 Procedures

According to the survey, roles and responsibilities for each member of MAAC, MAWG and MAT are

clear. Moreover, when members of MAAC and MAT were asked about their roles and

responsibilities within the MAP, the majority of them, 75% and 69% respectively, agreed that there

was clarity of roles. The table below summarises these estimates.

Table 3.2 Roles and responsibilities for MAAC, MAWG and MAT

The roles and responsibilities of the different members of your group are

clear

MAAC MAWG MAT

Agree 75% 73% 69%

Partly disagree/Partly agree 15% 18% 21%

Disagree 10% 11% 11%

The clarity of the procedures and division of responsibilities within MAP is necessary for the

successful functioning of the scheme. Regarding the division of tasks, MAAC provides strategic

advice and guidance to MAWG and MAT. However, only 45% of the respondents from MAWG

indicated that strategic advice from MAAC was sufficient and a higher percentage of MAT’s

members even disagreed (22%) rather than agreed (18%) with MAAC providing clear guidance to

the MAT17.

16 It has to be noted that in some tables columns or rows may not total to 100% because of rounding. 17 From interviews with the MAT it became clear that MAAC mainly communicates with EU Delegations.

64%

6%11%

2% 4%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Invited by EU Delegation

Invited by Member State

Own initiative Own initiative but made aware

by EU counterpart e.g. Brussels based

umbrella organisation

Own initiative but made aware by EU members of MAWG and/or

MAAC

Other


The input from MAWG and MAT into MAAC was felt more positively by MAAC’s members. Out of

the 83 MAAC’s participants, more than half described the inputs from the MAWG and the MAT as

useful. When members of the MAT were asked about the inputs from the MAWG, only 35%

considered those inputs as useful. The qualitative responses point towards an apparent lack of

communication between the MAT and the MAWG.

In addition to roles and responsibilities, MAT and MAWG’s members need to know to whom they

should report and what output is expected from them. In this respect the survey indicated that

MAT’s members understand the procedures within the partnership regarding the expected outputs

and about to whom it should be delivered. MAWG participants are however less confident about

expected outputs and to whom those outputs should be delivered as can be seen in the next table.


Table 3.3 MAWG and MAT’s outputs

Statements: It is clear what

output the

MAWG should

deliver

It is clear to whom

MAWG should

deliver its outputs

It is clear what

output the MAT

should deliver

It is clear to whom

MAT should

deliver its outputs

Agree 51% 46% 68% 63%

Partly disagree/Partly

agree

39% 31% 16% 19%

Disagree 9% 24% 16% 18%

Effective internal communication is a key requirement for the success of MAP and one of the

yardsticks for the evaluation of the quality of the procedures. In general and based on the survey

outcomes, communication flows within the MAP are seen as insufficient. Regarding bilateral

information flows, communication between the MAAC and the MAWG is felt as relatively better.

Communication between the MAT and the other two groups need to be improved as it can be noted

from the low percentage of MATs members indicating a sufficient level of communication between

MAT and the other two platforms of the MAP. MAAC and MAWG benefited from a common

location, whilst MATs are located in third countries far from Brussels. The exact percentage can be

seen in the next table.

Table 3.4 Communication within the MAP

Statement: There is sufficient communication within the MAP

Answers from MAAC Answers from MAWG Answers from MAT

MAAC↔MAWG MAAC↔MAT MAWG↔MAAC MAWG↔MAT MAT↔MAAC MAT↔MAWG

Agree 47% 35% 42% 40% 27% 29%

Parlty

disagree/Partly

agree

37% 46% 32% 34% 58% 56%

Disagree 16% 19% 26% 25% 15% 15%

The majority of respondents believe relevant stakeholders are well represented in their groups.

However, when the emphasis is shifted towards the representation of special stakeholders such as

SMEs or new member states then the percentages drop considerably. In some cases, lack of

representation may come from the fact that certain MS do not have Embassies in specific third

countries; this would only apply to specific MATs. Open answers point towards an inherent difficulty

to incorporate SMEs into the partnership. The table below presents the above aspects.

Table 3.5 Stakeholders representation

Statements: Most relevant stakeholders represented in

MAAC, MAWG, MAT

Stakeholders with special needs

(SMEs, new MSs) represented in

MAAC, MAWG, MAT

MAAC MAWG MAT MAAC MAWG MAT

Agree 81% 60% 61% 48% 32% 37%

Partly disagree/

Partly agree

13% 26% 25% 31% 41% 37%

Disagree 6% 14% 15% 21% 27% 26%

3.3.2 Barriers

According to the survey results, the process of identification of barriers can be described as clear,

transparent and based on objective criteria. Specifically, MAT members support this idea more


emphatically. This is relevant due to the instrumental role of MATs in the identification of the market

barriers. The next table lists the percentage of each response:

Table 3.6 Identification of the barriers, clarity, transparency and based on objective criteria

Statements: The process of identifying key barriers is

clear and transparent

The process for identifying key

barriers is based on objective

criteria

MAAC MAWG MAT MAAC MAWG MAT

Agree 61% 56% 73% 57% 53% 69%

Partly

disagree/Partly

agree

27% 29% 15% 28% 38% 18%

Disagree 13% 15% 13% 15% 9% 13%

An overwhelming majority of respondents believes the number of barriers addressed in their

respective groups is not too high. One of the risks faced by MAP was to get overloaded by an

increasing number of barriers leading to a loss in efficiency and effectiveness. However, this

perception is rejected by the survey. The table below shows the results broken down by

membership of MAAC, MAWG and MAT.

Table 3.7 Number of barriers covered

Statement: The number of barriers covered by your group is (too) high

MAAC MAWG MAT

Agree 14% 16% 12%


agree

34% 24% 33%

Disagree 52% 59% 56%

Prioritisation of the relevant barriers is crucial for the effective and efficient functioning of MAP.

According to the survey results, participants in the MAAC and MAT spend the majority of the time

dealing with barriers designated as key barriers. However, only 37% of the MAWG’s respondents

believed their working groups spent most of the time on such barriers. The table below presents

these results.

Table 3.8 Prioritisation on key barriers

Statement Our group spends the majority of the time on those barriers designated and

listed as key barriers

MAAC MAWG MAT

Agree 65% 37% 73%


agree

27% 37% 19%

Disagree 8% 25% 8%

As can be seen in the table below, the key barrier list does not contain the most relevant barriers for

26% of the respondents representing the MAWGs. It may be a lack of prioritization and clarity what

may be driving MAWG from having a wider agenda. It has to be noted that some of the answers

indicate that some working groups do not work with a key barrier list but cover all the barriers in the

sector. In those cases, the survey question may be misleading explaining part of the variation with

respect to answers from MAAC and MAT.


Table 3.9 Important barriers not included on the key barriers list

Many important barriers related to our group are not on the key

barrier list

MAAC MAWG

Agree 24% 26%

Partly disagree/Partly agree 39% 46%

Disagree 37% 29%

MATs are at the frontline of the MAP and as explained above their members play an instrumental

role in the identification and analysis of existing and newly emerging market access barriers. In

addition, MATs work as platforms, identifying, reporting and building consensus with locally based

stakeholders on market access barriers. This is complex work as it relates to domestic regulations

and policies that may not actually be intended or immediately apparent as market access barriers .

According to the survey, 49% of the MAT respondents believe that information about potential and

present barriers is difficult to access. This can for example be due to linguistic barriers (most

legislation would be in the local language). In addition, 78% suggests that the barriers addressed

within the MAT are politically sensitive.

As regards the process of identification, prioritisation, and addressing of key barriers at the MAT,

54% of the MAT members think it is a cohesive process. Some 50% believes MAT identify and

address potential barriers regularly and due to their complexity 77% indicates that most of the

barriers addressed are existing barriers.

3.3.3 Communication

According to the respondents, there is sufficient feedback from the EC regarding the results

achieved on specific barriers but there is not a clear consensus regarding the feedback on the

progress of removing, reducing or preventing each barrier.

Qualitative responses point towards two probable explanations. Firstly, there may be a lack of

clarity from the moment the industry highlights certain barriers to the next stage where the EU takes

action. Secondly, minutes of the platforms of the MAP are not regularly uploaded to the MADB and

this could complicate the follow-up of the actions taken to remove, reduce or prevent a barrier. The

next table summarizes the results from the survey.

Table 3.10 Feedback from the EC

There is sufficient feedback from the EC

on the progress of implementing a

strategy regarding

removal/reduction/prevention of specific

barriers

There is sufficient feedback from

the EC on the result achieved

regarding specific barriers

MAAC/MAWG MAT MAAC/MAWG MAT

Agree 42% 50% 57% 62%


agree

32% 35% 25% 28%

Disagree 26% 16% 19% 9%

One of the advantages of the MAP is the capacity to forge consensus between EU, Member States

and private sector with respect to the optimal way to tackle market barriers. Working in a

coordinated fashion ensures the message from the different stakeholders is consistent which

increases the likelihood of success.


According to the MAT members, the message of the EC and Member States on key barriers toward

trade partners is consistent. However, as can be seen from the table below, MAAC and MAWG’s

members show less support for this statement, suggesting that it may be easier to achieve

consensus at the local level, where stakeholders operate in relative close proximity and within the

same context.

Table 3.11 Consistency in communication to trade partners

The messages of the EC and Member States on key barriers towards

trade partners are consistent

MAAC/MAWG MAT

Agree 47% 69%


Disagree 10% 4%

According to the survey, perceptions in MAAC and MAWG about the way the EC, Member States

and embassies communicate on key barriers to trade partners differ from the MAT.

The MAP uses a number of communication tools to provide information to MAP members and to a

broader audience interested in market barriers and the work carried out by MAP. Respondents

were asked to rank the utility of some of these tools for their work. Measured as the percentage of

respondents within the MAP agreeing with the tool being useful, the Trade and Investment Barriers

Report comes first (most useful), followed by the Market Access Newsletter, the Market Access

Flash note and the Monitoring reports of potentially trade restrictive measures.

As can be seen in the table below, more than 50% of MAAC and MAWG members describe the

four tools as useful for their work. According to the survey, MAT’s members show significantly lower

percentages. The next table lists the results:

Table 3.12 Utility of communication tools

MAAC/MAWG respondents MAT respondents

Trade and

Investment

Barriers

Report

Market

Access

Newsletters

Market

Access

Flash

notes

Monitoring

report of

potential

trade

restrictive

measures

Trade and

Investment

Barriers

Report

Market

Access

Newsletters

Market

Access

Flash

notes

Monitoring

report of

potential

trade

restrictive

measures

Agree 75% 62% 56% 71% 54% 38% 35% 49%

Partly

disagree/Partly

agree

20% 26% 30% 19% 24% 34% 37% 33%

Disagree 5% 12% 14% 10% 22% 28% 27% 18%

The survey also asked MAAC and MAWG to rate the utility of three additional tools: minutes of

meetings, notifications by third countries and the DG Trade website. Out of the 123 participants in

MAAC and MAWG, 79% indicated the minutes of MAAC and MAWG were useful, 75% indicated

the notifications of third countries as an early warning were useful, and 71% indicated that the

market access website was useful.


3.3.4 Results of addressing barriers

The survey asked whether the majority of the market barriers have been reduced, removed or

prevented. In the survey, a significant number of respondents (44%) disagreed with this statement.

The following table shows the percentages of each response:

Table 3.13 Majority of barriers reduced, removed or prevented

The majority of the barriers addressed by the MAP have been reduced,

removed or prevented

MAAC/MAWG/MAP

Agree 9%

Partly disagree/Partly agree 47%

Disagree 44%

Reducing, removing or preventing market barriers appears to be a very complex task and requires

a long-term approach.

The value added of the MAP was investigated by asking respondents to speculate about what

would have happened without the MAP. In this respect, the survey included questions on whether

the barriers that were addressed but have not been removed, reduced, or prevented could have

been tackled with a different strategy. In the survey 32% and 44% of MAAC/MAWG and MAT

respondents respectively were of the opinion that a different strategy would have failed. The next

table illustrates the responses.

Table 3.14 Results: different strategy

The barriers that were addressed but have not been removed reduced or

prevented could have been reduced with a different strategy

MAAC/MAWG MAT

Agree 26% 15%


Disagree 32% 44%

According to the survey, the majority indicated that the positive results achieved would have taken

longer without the MAP. However, a significant percentage of respondents show more ambivalence

in their support of the statement that these positive results could not have been achieved without

the MAP.

Table 3.15 Relation between inputs and results

Statement The positive results achieved would have

taken longer to achieve without the MAP

The positive result achieved

could not have been achieved

without the MAP

MAAC/MAWG MAT MAAC/MAWG MAT

Agree 81% 61% 53% 43%


agree

17% 31% 43% 47%

Disagree 2% 8% 4% 10%

Assessing the value added of the MAP, the MAT’s responses show lower percentages of support

than those of the MAAC and MAWGs. Nonetheless, when the MAT’s participants were asked about

the MAP ‘value for money’, 60% of them agreed and only 8% disagreed with the statement that

MAP provides a good correlation between results and inputs.


Overall, the survey indicated that MAP members across the board agreed with the statement that

the partnership provides a clear added value in tackling market access barriers as compared to

other means and channels. The next table shows the percentages.

Table 3.16 MAP value added

Statement The MAP has a clear added value in tackling market access barriers as

compared to other means/channels

MAAC/MAWG MAT

Agree 80% 69%


Disagree 6% 4%

Another method to assess MAP’s value and impact consists in comparing the process of tackling

market barriers before and after the introduction of the MAP in 2007. Out of the 208 responses, 66

respondents from the MAAC, MAWG and MAT were involved in dealing with market access before

2007.

According to their answers, the transparency of the procedures has increased (70%) and the

priority setting has become clearer (64%). The majority of the respondents (67%) believed the

information for the identification of new barriers, the policy actions taken on specific barriers, and

the prevention, removal, and reduction of the market barriers, have improved.

Similarly it was felt that cooperation and division of tasks between the different stakeholders

improved as well. According to the survey, 74% indicated co-operation between EC, Member

States and business has become closer and 51% supported the statement that roles and

responsibilities of different stakeholders have become clearer too.

The effectiveness has also improved. In the survey, 57% believed the number of barriers

addressed is higher than before 2007. However, dealing with market barriers is a tedious process

and the majority of respondents was undecided regarding the efficiency, measured as the share of

identified barriers reduced or removed and the time between identification and removal or reduction

of barriers of the MAP has decreased.

Table 3.17 Efficiency of the MAP as compared with the period before 2007

The share of identified barriers that

is reduced/removed has increased

The time between identification and

removal/reduction of barriers has

decreased

MAAC/MAWG/MAT MAAC/MAWG/MAT

Agree 39% 37%

Parlty disagree/Partly agree 45% 46%

Disagree 16% 18%

One of the MAP’s innovative aspects was the introduction of the MATs in third countries. Assessing

the value of the MATs based on answers from respondents that were previously involved in market

barriers showed that more than half indicated that attention for ‘early warning’ has increased (54%)

and introducing the MATs has improved the overall results (51%).

Winding up this chapter, the results of the survey provides information about the MAP’s

participants’ perceptions regarding the functioning of the partnership. The conundrum of the survey

results on the MAP is the perception of, on the one side, a low rate of success regarding the

number of barriers removed, reduced or prevented and, on the other side, a fairly overall positive


assessment of the relationship between inputs and results. A likely explanation to balance both

aspects needs to take into account the inherent difficulty of removing, reducing or preventing

market barriers in third countries irrespective of the chosen strategy. Other sources of information

consulted during the evaluation were used to further qualify and validate this finding, which will be

dealt with in the next chapter.


4 Key findings

4.1 Organisation and role of different stakeholders

4.1.1 Actual situation

Although there is no official document in which the procedures of the MAP (including the role of

different stakeholders, coordination between MAAC, MAWG, MATs and other relevant bodies) are

laid down , there is an internal EC document with operational guidelines but this has not been

shared with the other partners (member states and business) of the MAP.

The internal document18 lays down the role of the different stakeholders:

The EC coordinates the analysis and interventions related to barriers to trade for the European

Union.

Member States dispose of valuable information about their national industry’s problems, which

may not be available at the EU level. In addition, their bilateral contacts with trade partners offer

opportunities to raise problematic issues.

EU Business Associations contribute with a good sectoral overview of market access issues at

EU level.

The document also notes that “bringing the three types of stakeholders together ensures that

information is as complete as possible, and that the issue is not addressed only by the Commission

but also by MS in their bilateral contacts with the trade partners concerned.”

The role of the different MAP bodies (MAAC, MAWGs, and MAPs) is also briefly described in the

document:

The MAAC brings together all partners on a monthly basis, to discuss in operational terms

different barriers to trade, taking into account the relevant legal and economic background as

well as possible political aspects, in order to identify ways of resolving the issues at stake. It

looks at the list of priority barriers but also at individual barriers as they arise.

The MAWGs look into and devise possible actions with regard to the barriers for their sector,

and analyse the overall market access situation for the sector in different third country markets.

The work is more technical and very operational, sector-focused and results-driven.

MATs are active in third countries, and whereas their activities undertaken are similar to those

in Brussels, there is no one-size fits all approach to their organisation, as this depends on the

local circumstances. Tasks of the MATs include collection and first analysis of technical

information about a given barrier and its impact on European business as well as discussion on

the possible approach to follow. They are actively involved in the preparation and

implementation of specific actions to address the barriers with local authorities.

There is only limited information on the coordination between the different bodies. It shows how the

MAP works in parallel in Brussels and in the third countries concerned, as depicted in the diagram

below.

18 Market Access Strategy and Partnership Operational Guidelines, Ares (2011)23719


Figure 4.1 Relation between MAP bodies and partners

Source: Market Access Strategy and Partnership Operational Guidelines, Ares (2011)23719

An internal document with guidelines for the organisation of the MAAC meetings19, specifying

responsibilities at administrator and secretariat level, provides some further information on the

functioning of the MAAC. The MAAC acts in an advisory capacity on all matters related to the

implementation of the MAS and MAP between the EC, EU MS and EU business associations. In

the MAAC meetings the topics discussed relate to: 1) management and strategic direction of

MAP/MAS; 2) market access issues in the overall trade policy context; and 3) analysis of market

access barriers notified by business of MS. This includes the discussion on specific market access

issues with feedback from DG Trade and associated DGs, occasionally participation of colleagues

from EU Delegations, presentations of the MAWG meetings, consultation and feedback with

respect to TBT Committee meetings in Geneva, and for the Trade Barriers Regulation Committee.

Whereas Member States are considered as MAAC members, businesses are referred to as MAAC

participants. Only EU-level business associations are invited to participate in the MAAC, or can

request to be invited, although a national member organisation may represent the EU level

association. Part of the MAAC meeting is not open to business.

Since February 2010, Member States and business associations are requested two weeks prior to

the meeting to present new potential cases for analysis and discussion at the MAAC.

The document also shows that the Unit G3 within DG Trade is responsible for the communication

and coordination with Member States.

Comparing the situation before and after the establishment of the MAP

The years before the establishment of the MAP in 2007, there were less market access barriers

reported. In addition fewer persons were involved in addressing the market access barriers in DG

Trade. Although barriers were also then brought up by business or Member States (both in the EU

and third countries), there was less coordination, and each stakeholder relied mostly on its own

channels. In third countries there was limited feed in into the EU level outside what was done by the

EU Delegations, which tended to be more focused on negotiations and less on technical issues

related to market access barriers.20

19 Market Access Advisory Committee Guidelines, Note to the file, TRADE G.1/JM- D(2010) 20 Please note the local situation is reconstructed on the basis of a (limited) number of interviews as no actual documentation

on the ‘pre-MAT’ situation in third makers is available.


4.1.2 Evaluative assessment

Role of stakeholders

The role of different stakeholders is outlined in the Commission's Communication on the

partnership, and the interviews and survey show that stakeholders are generally clear on what is

expected from them. Nevertheless, the MAP does not use any standard templates, e.g. when

business or Member States identify new barriers, it is not clear what information should be exactly

provided, and by whom. If certain information is missing, it means that the EC has to spend more

time in analysing the barrier (or communicating with the partner who brought the issue up) and

assessing whether it should be addressed in the MAP.

With respect to the active participation of stakeholders (Evaluation question 3), the interviews have

shown that it is usually business that provide most information on new barriers, although sometimes

through their Member State. Some Member States are more pro-active in bringing up barriers than

others. This can probably be explained by differences in capacity between Member States

(especially at embassies in third countries) and the differences in the exchange of information

between the Ministry dealing with trade and the business community in the Member States.

In terms of addressing the barriers, it is clear that the EC takes a leading role, supported with

technical inputs from the business community. We have encountered examples of cases where

also Member States play an active role and act in a coordinated way with the EC to address a

barrier. Nevertheless, if we look at all barriers addressed, we notice that the EU aims to be as

transparent as possible about its actions (e.g. reports in the MAAC meetings, information in

restricted area of MADB) but it remains unclear to what extent Member States share similar

information with the EC and how pro-active they are in contributing to solving the case with

coordinated actions.

Despite the fact that Member States are seen as least active compared to the other partners in the

MAP, there is broad consensus on the need to have the Member States around the table, in order

to keep them aware of the market access problems and to possibly involve them in the process of

removing the barriers.

Moreover, in third countries embassies often play a role in passing on information received directly

from companies, which often (especially if they are not present yet in a country, or if they are not

represented through existing business organisations) approach their embassy first when confronted

with a trade issue (e.g. related to customs clearance). In India it was noted for instance that the

successful tackling of a potential barrier related to the food imports, was in large part due to the

close cooperation with concerned Member States and to a lesser extent food importers. Member

States were especially useful in collating on the ground information and providing it to the EU

Delegations, which allowed the latter to lobby the Indian counterpart more effectively based on

detailed and up to date information.

Finally, in some cases the diverging interests of Member States seemed to play a role, as in such

cases Member States are less interested to cooperate with other Member States on specific issues.

This appears more relevant for larger Member States who are indeed capable of addressing issues

through their own channels bilaterally. In other cases Member States were only active in those

working groups or sub-MATs that were of specific interest to them / their industries, which is logical

and not necessarily an issue. Different constellations of Member States and Private Sector

representatives are thus found lobbying locally, which is in line with the flexible needs based set-up

of the MAT.


The role of the business community is quite clear and a crucial one, as they provide the technical,

detailed and specific real time information that is needed by the main MAP platforms to identify and

fully grasp the market access barriers.

Representativeness of partners in the MAP

The survey results show that respondents feel that relevant stakeholders are well represented in

their groups, especially in the MAAC, but also the majority of the respondents of MAWGs and

MATs.

Stakeholders with special needs (e.g. SMEs, new Member States) are felt to be represented less

well in the MAP according to a majority of the respondents- again MAAC shows a more positive

result than MAWGs and MATs (Evaluation question 3). The reason for this underrepresentation of

certain stakeholder is not fully clear. In the MAT, it may be the case that some Member States do

not have sufficient capacity at their embassy or have no embassy at all in a specific third country.

The fact that the MAP, both in Brussels and in third countries is structured along sectoral and

horizontal issues means Member States can divide their resources in ways that they find most

efficient, by attending only those sessions of direct relevance to them. The extent to which new

Member States are involved actively in the MAT also depends on the relative importance of the

host country market. Thus it was found that in the case of Ukraine, new Member States such as

Poland were actively engaged – both through their embassy and business association – in

addressing market access barriers.

As regards SMEs in particular, they seem to be often less well represented in the main

(membership driven) business representative organisations such as the EUCC, while they also

appear less capable of providing the kind of detailed technical information needed. Although almost

all business associations and Chambers have a large majority of SMEs amongst their members,

"SME thinking" is still not developed everywhere. One interviewee even suggested that this also

means that MA barriers in sectors dominated by SMEs were generally harder to address as it was

harder to find a unified voice. As regards the inclusion of SMEs there definitely seems to be room

for improvement.

At the same time it should be noted that the European Association of Craft, Small and Medium

sized Enterprises (UEAPME) represents SME interests in the MAAC.

With respect to the MAWGs, new Member States may have limited capacity to be actively involved.

It should be noted that only EU-level business associations are considered as MAP partners, and

that most MAWGs are created upon the initiative of EU-level business organisations, although

individual companies may take part also in the MAWG meetings. Sectors for which no such

organisation exist, may thus receive less attention in the MAP, although these sectors may still be

important to certain Member States.

While the MAP may wish to be able to address special needs, it is also important that business with

the greatest or potential commercial interest are involved systematically in the MAP, to ensure

focus and target those barriers that matter most for the EU economy. The MAP itself does not seem

to have any mechanism to ensure this (Evaluation question 8).Although the MAP directly

communicates with business, this is not necessarily with business with the greatest commercial

interest. For this, it relies on the extent to which Member States or business associations are in

contact with the relevant sector and/or companies.


On the question whether greater involvement of the European Parliament or civil society would be

necessary or desirable (Evaluation question 8), respondents generally did not think this would add

value to the MAP. The European Parliament has several responsibilities, e.g. in the legislative

process, but it has no formal role to play when it comes to addressing trade barriers of third

countries. Also with respect to civil society there was little support of respondents to involve them.

Given that the main aim of MAP is to increase market access for EU business, the added value of

involving civil society in this process can indeed be considered low.

Organisation

When assessing the organisation of the MAP, we focus on different aspects: 1) the extent to which

the different platforms know what is expected from them; 2) the interaction between the different

platforms; and 3) management of the MAP.

Starting with the first point, we asked MAP stakeholders about the exact roles of the different MAP

platforms and the outputs they should deliver. The survey shows that the role and responsibility of

the MAAC is clear for most respondents (77%). For the MAT, around 65 percent thinks it is clear

what outputs it should deliver and to whom, while this is true for only about half of the MAWG

respondents. This is also reflected in the different methods of reporting by the MAWGs.

When looking at the interaction between the different platforms within MAP, there seems to be

room for improvement. A majority of respondents, especially those participating in the MAT, does

not consider communication between the different platforms sufficient, and this applies to

communication in all directions (i.e. MAT-MAAC, MAT-MAWG and MAAC-MAWG and vice versa).

So the arrows in figure 4.1 are not all equally well developed. In the operational guidelines21, it is

stated that “MATs are encouraged to send regular meeting reports to DG Trade”, which confirms

the limited reporting and communication obligations. Nevertheless, an increasing number of reports

are uploaded in the Member State's restricted area of the MADB according to the unit responsible

for the MAP in DG Trade.

The survey also showed that the outputs that are delivered by the MAWGs and MATs are

considered useful to about half of the respondents (Evaluation question 5). The question here,

however, is whether there is a real need or desire among stakeholders for communication with

every platform. Rather this communication takes place through a number of central interlocutors,

e.g. the EUD trade officers communicate with the MA unit at DG Trade and as requested provide

inputs to the MAWG and MADB based on information gathered, analysed and agreed upon among

stakeholders locally. It thus does not seem necessary for all MAT stakeholders to engage in such

communication. That said, what does seem to be lacking is the awareness of these different

structures, which would help create a better understanding of the work of the MAP and its principles

among local stakeholders in third countries. In the MAAC there seems to be a greater desire for

information especially from the MATs, which can probably be explained by the fact that they

oversee the MAP.

Although the MAAC should provide clear guidance to the MAP, less than a third of the MAT

respondents considers this sufficient, and 44 percent of MAWG respondents. Also the interviews

with other parts of the EC showed that while the inputs of the MAAC/MAP are considered useful, no

clear guidance or instructions are provided (Evaluation question 4). It should be noted however that

most EC staff spoken to did not expect a steering role from the MAAC, and consider the

communication with the MAAC/MAP only as information exchange or division of tasks. For

21 Market Access Strategy and Partnership Operational Guidelines, Ares (2011)23719


example, to the Trade Policy Committee representative spoken to, it was clear which issues should

be discussed in the MAAC and which ones in the TPC.

Similarly, interviews among MAT stakeholders revealed that the MAAC and MAWG communicate

almost exclusively with the EUD and vice versa and there is no links between the other

stakeholders and the MAAC / MAWG. In fact many, especially among the business community, but

also among several Member States, were not even aware of the existence of these platforms. So

respondents who indicated that the communication / guidance by MAAC was insufficient could have

simply not even known what the MAAC is.

In the case of the MAT too, there does not seem to be an expectation of clearer steering by the

MAAC, although more interaction with the MAWG was considered potentially useful by some.

With respect to the management of the MAAC by DG Trade, it is clear that they have allowed for

the agenda to expand, leading to an increasingly full MAAC agenda and more MATs and MAWGs.

The picture that emerges from the survey, interviews and attendance of meetings is that the

different platforms mainly communicate with different parts of the EC, and less with each other. So

the EC receives information on trade barriers through the MAAC, more detailed technical

information though the MAWGs, and more detailed information at country level through the

delegations/MATs (it is here where barriers can be made most specific). The EC / EUD (often in

close consultation) largely determines the strategy for addressing these barriers and involves

relevant stakeholder if it deems necessary (Evaluation question 5). This differs from what has been

portrayed in Figure 4.1, as in reality there seem to be less arrows. In third countries, the business

community and Member States seem less involved than in the EU. Although the current

communication between the different platforms and stakeholders may work well and efficiently,

what seems lacking is generally speaking awareness among local stakeholders with the various

platforms and structures of the MAP and feedback to business. As regards the contacts with

business, it must be mentioned that business in Brussels also involves full-time lobbyists whose

objective is to ensure that work on their issues is prioritised compared with other issues. This

means each contact with industry with feedback, other than to announce an issue has been solved,

is likely to result in additional pressure to pursue their issues further and necessitate justifying why it

is not done, which may take time away from pursuing more recognised priorities. A lot of time the

EC has to spent on dealing with lobbyists (i.e. MAAC, MAWG, requests from industry for meetings,

preparation of briefings for senior officials meeting with industry). None of this work is easy to avoid

and the result is that this reduces the time available to analyse in sufficient detail and actually

address them with third countries.

Our analysis has also shown that MATs work more in a parallel rather than coordinated way with

the MAAC/MAWGs, although the role of the MAT as a feed-in structure to Brussels is evident and

can be seen as crucial to ensure the barriers addressed are specific. This bottom-up approach, in

which local intelligence – necessary to make MA barriers specific and truly understand their nature

– is fed into the Brussels structures primarily through the EUD seems to work well. There is a clear

logic in local structures working in parallel and to some extent independently, as some barriers are

so engrained in local legislation and policy it is hard to address them at other than local levels

(which of course does not exclude e.g. EC or MS officials from bringing up the issues during an

official visit). Similarly, there are some diplomacy issues involved. Rather than addressing issues at

high level, more sensitive issues are perhaps initially best dealt with at lower local levels or through

local organisations. Not all issues lend themselves directly for international trade diplomacy.


While a certain degree of independence for the MATs is desirable and even necessary, it remains

important to keep each other informed. As noted earlier, especially in the MAAC there seems to be

a desire for more information from the MATs.

Evaluation question 9 on MAP en FTA monitoring

The role of the MAP in monitoring the implementation of FTAs was most clearly illustrated in the

country studies of South Korea and to a lesser extent India and Ukraine. In South Korea the work of

the MAP and the FTA implementation process are strongly intertwined and mutually reinforcing,

while in India the role of the MAP in the monitoring of the FTA once in place is seen to be crucial. In

South Korea the MAT is to an extent structured along the lines of the FTA Trade Committees and

the latter depend to a large extent on intelligence and inputs from the MAT partners when meeting

their Korean counterparts during annual reviews of progress. It is clear that the MAT are best

positioned to identify complex behind the border issues (regulatory and NTMs) that become all the

more relevant with an FTA in place, especially if the contacts with the business community are

strong and to some extent structured. In addition, the MAT and its key stakeholders locally could

monitor the actual utilisation rate of the FTA more closely and analyse possibly low utilisation rates.

At the same time, the existence of an FTA was found to make the functioning of the MAP more

effective in third countries, as it provides a high level platform for dialogue and it creates a

negotiating position, as within the context of the FTA you may have ‘something to give’ in return for

barrier removal.

Evaluation question 10 on MAT and early warning

While we have not been able to obtain numbers or very specific information on whether the EU has

improved its rate of early detection as a consequence of the MAT, the indication is that the MAT

make a positive contribution in that they bring together a number of different sources locally, many

of which have established networks in the country in questions. Market access barriers lists

compiled locally are quite specific and include many regulatory issues, while the success stories

that we encountered locally in many cases involved engagement with national regulators to

influence (or prevent) new legislation. While it is thus not possible to say whether this situation has

improved compared to before, the role of the MAT in early detection is clear and recognised by the

various stakeholders.

Further improving early warning also requires further strengthening local knowledge and networks

and structurally including inputs from these sources in the MAP process.

Organisation and procedures: improvements of the MAP compared to situation before

Before the MAP was initiated, the EC, Member States and business were also in contact with each

other, but in a less structured way. If we compare the situation before and after the MAP,

respondents feel that procedures have become more clear (75%), although this should be

interpreted in the context of absence of procedures before the MAP. Also the roles and

responsibilities and priority setting of barriers are seen to have become clearer under MAP,

although about more than a third of the respondents do not fully agree with this. Most respondents

do feel that the co-operation between different partners have become closer under the MAP (77%)

(Evaluation question 2). Information and communication on new barriers and their (strategy for)

removal) have also improved according to the respondents. From this information as well as the

interviews we can conclude that while the organisation and procedure have improved to the period

before MAP, there seems to be room for further improvements (Evaluation question 2, Evaluation

question 13)).


In the view of one of the interviewees, the MAS and MAP in particular has made the Commission

(DG Trade) more business oriented:

“While generally a strong DG, traditionally the emphasis was very much on negotiations and,

without any structured incorporation of views of industry (in contrast to MS, which were generally

consulted in a very structured way). The MAS and MAP and consequent set-up of the MA unit

within DG Trade have provided more structure and Delegations have followed this example.

What the MAS / MAP also did was define the overall purpose of EU external trade policy. There are

many opportunities to dialogue with 3rd countries and different tools to do so (WTO, bilateral

agreements, dialogue mechanisms) and the MAS provided for a common objective for the use of all

those tools and fora: Market Access for EU businesses.”

In terms of effectiveness (success in removing barriers) and efficiency (time between identification

and removal of barrier before and after MAP), there is no objective information available, and there

are as many respondents that consider the situation improved as there are respondents that do not

agree with this completely (Evaluation question 2).

Added value of the MAP from the perspective of the MAT therefore appeared to be seen mostly in

terms of structuring and coordination of efforts. From our interviews in the selected third countries it

appears that a lot of work was already done on MA issues and that all main actors were already in

some way involved. For instance, the EUD and MS had regular meetings and often there were also

regular interactions between the business community representatives and the EUD and MS

respectively. Moreover, in several countries the leading business representative organisations (EU

Chambers of Commerce (EUCC)) already had structures in place for the identification of MA issues

and for bringing them up with other stakeholders and national authorities. Often these EUCCs are

organised in different sectoral working groups and their technical knowledge comes straight from

the source: companies operating in the host market.

What the MAP provided was a structure for more regular information exchange and coordination of

actions or at least a common voice. It formed a bridge between the technical ‘real world’ level of

businesses and the policy levels at which the EC and MS operate. So while not putting in place

entirely new concepts, it structured, coordinated and strengthened existing networks.

Finally, what also became apparent is that the MATs, (potentially can) play an important role in the

monitoring of the implementation of relevant FTAs (Evaluation question 9).

In South Korea (the only country we studied to which this question really applies, as in the other

countries no FTA was being implemented at the time of the evaluation) the MAT working groups

(WG) were set up in anticipation of the FTA being concluded. These working groups show a strong

overlap with the FTA working groups, which are convened on an annual basis (Trade Committee

meetings between EU and Korean governments) to assess and monitor the implementation of the

FTA. The MAT WG provide specific inputs and convene ahead of these Trade Committee meetings

to flag any specific issues and suggest approaches to addressing them within the FTA structures.

This could be a relevant model for future EU FTAs as well (e.g. in India, Ukraine, Singapore,

Mercosur, etc.).

4.2 Communication


The MAP uses various communication tools. There are a number of communication tools that are

available to the general public and available through the DG Trade website:


Trade and Investment Barrier reports: report on progress in removing key barriers in strategic

third markets.

Market access newsletter: general information on market access related issues, with specific

attention to specific countries or working group(s), success stories and relevant events.

Market access flash notes: short news letter on results for a specific trade barrier.

Monitoring reports of potentially trade restricting measures: focusing on identification of (new)

potentially trade restricting measures in various third country markets.

Market Access Database.22

A dedicated page on Market access at the DG Trade website.

In addition, there are documents available only to the MAP partners, like minutes of the meetings

(MAAC/MAWGs/MATs). Finally, there is a website with restricted access relating to the MAP, which

is accessible to the Member States but not to business. This section contains among others the

hymn sheets. Hymn sheets are developed for all key barriers to trade and contain a description of

the background of the barrier, the objectives of the EU and suggestions for the main messages to

be conveyed to the relevant third country regarding a specific market access problem. This is an

important instrument to ensure that EC and MS have a consistent message towards third countries.


The different communication tools seem to be quite complementary, focusing on different

audiences, and different topics, e.g. the market access new letters are interesting for the general

public, while the monitoring reports on potentially trade restricting measures are quite detailed and

cover many sectors and countries, and the Trade and Investment Barrier reports provide an

overview of the progress on priority issues (Evaluation question 10).

Generally the communication tools are all considered useful, with small differences in appreciation

between them (Evaluation question 11). Table 4.1 below shows the percentages of respondents

that fully or largely agrees with the usefulness of the different tools. It should be noted that the

appreciation of MAT respondents is lower, probably due to the fact that most of these

communications contain information that is not relevant to their country. Interviews in third countries

moreover revealed that many stakeholders were not really aware of these tools (particularly

business representatives). There was, however, a need expressed by many interviewees for a

central depository of information and results of work done on specific local issues.

Table 4.1 Usefulness of communication tools of MAP

Communication tool Share of MAAC/MAWG

respondents that considers

them useful (%)

Share of MAT respondents

that considers them useful

Trade and Investment Barrier report 74 56

Market Access newsletters 59 38

Market Access flash notes 55 34

Monitoring reports of potentially trade

restrictive measures 72 49

Notifications of third countries as early

warning 77 n.a.

Minutes of the MAAC/MAWG 79 n.a.

Market Access website 70 n.a. Source: evaluation survey

22 he Market Access Database (MADB) is part of the MAS, but has recently been evaluated separately and is therefore not a

part of the this MAP evaluation.


The Hymn sheets appear to be a useful tool, but on the question whether there is a clear instruction

towards Member States and embassies on how to communicate on key barriers, only 38 percent

agrees. Noteworthy with regard to the hymn sheets is that while these have been elaborated for

several of the countries visited, none of the interviewees referred to these.23

Also on the question whether the EC and MS have consistent messages, only 46 percent of the

MAAC/MAWG respondents agrees, while this percentage is much higher for the MAT respondents

(69 percent of agrees) (Evaluation question 7). The lack of clear instructions or consistent

messages could however also be due to lack of communication at national (MS) level (do MAP MS

representatives share the information from the MAP sufficiently internally?). In third countries on the

contrary, stakeholders work in much closer proximity and operate within the same context, implying

the barriers they experience are often similar (also to e.g. ‘likeminded countries’ such as US,

Canada, EEA, etc.). Thus it is easier to agree on priorities and formulate consistent messages.

However, as already indicated under organisation, stakeholders also feel that there is insufficient

information exchange between the MAP platforms, and the survey and interviews also show that

the communication between the EC and other MAP partners could be improved. In this respect

particularly feedback could be improved. Less than half (42 %) of the respondents feel that the EC

provides sufficient feedback on the progress in implementing a strategy to address a specific

barrier. Particularly some PS representatives expressed that it was not made clear enough by the

EC/EUD what was done with their inputs. Considering the number of issues that need to be

addressed and the fact that priority setting has to be done within a broader context by the EC (i.e.

EU level importance of a sector, trade-offs within negotiations, etc.) it is obviously not possible to

address all MA barriers. However, some businesses and MS in third countries argued that it was

not always clear what trade offs were made, making it unclear whether or why an issues had or had

not been taken up.

On communication of results the respondents are more positive, with 57% of the respondents

considering the feedback of the EC on results sufficient. Nevertheless, even with respect to the

results, it is striking that in interviews people did not have a clear picture on the number or

percentage of barriers solved. This is likely to be in part a consequence of the fact that resolving

trade barriers is often a long drawn out process, while it is also not only attributable to MAP

activities. Finally, as was noted by several of the MAT interviewees, reporting successes is

politically sensitive in host countries, as the local Government does not want to be seen as

succumbing to foreign pressures when it comes to what is often seen as legitimate national policy

or legislation.

The findings from the survey are in line with our additional analysis, based on the interviews,

attendance of meetings, and analysis of minutes of meeting of the MAAC, MAWGs and MATs. In

most meetings, no clear overview is made of which actions are to be undertaken and by whom, nor

do all meetings start with a clear overview of what happened between the current and previous

meeting. Especially for the Member States and business associations, the follow up of the strategy

implementation are sometimes considered as a black box, especially for those participating in the

MAAC, but similar sentiments were echoed among MAT participants. Despite the lack of

communication on the progress in addressing specific barriers, it is clear that there have been

increased efforts over the years to report on the results achieved (e.g. Trade and Investment

Barrier report, market access flashnotes), and MAP partners acknowledge this. Another positive

23 It should be noted that the Hymn Sheets are only relevant for the Member States, they are not shares with business (they are

in the restricted area of the MADB).


finding is that there is clear involvement of EC staff where relevant, with staff from country/regional

desks or DG Enterprise (TBT) attending MAP meetings and providing feedback when relevant.

The main challenges with respect to communication are thus related to reporting on the progress in

addressing barriers (monitoring) and the communication between the different MAP platforms.

Other aspects of communication (like communication with the general public) have clearly improved

since the introduction of MAP.

4.3 Barriers addressed


The MAP establishes lists with key market barriers for the EU’s main trading partners through a

bottom-up process. The MATs through the Delegations in selected partner countries in first

instance provide suggestions for key barriers after having identified and analysed such barriers

thoroughly. The Member States look at the suggested key barriers from the viewpoint of the

interests of their own national industries. The MAAC puts the final list of key barriers together. For

each of the key barriers a tailor made barrier removal strategy is developed. Background fiches and

hymn sheets on the key barriers are made to provide common messages in case of high-level visits

of EU and Member State representatives to third markets.

Under the TBT Agreement WTO Members have to notify technical regulations and conformity

assessment procedures at draft stage. DG Enterprise and Industry – the EU’s TBT Notification and

Enquiry Point - in cooperation with the Delegations, industry associations and other Commission

services assess the compatibility of these notifications with the TBT Agreement. These are also

addressed in the MAP, e.g. at the MAAC meetings. Written reactions are prepared and sent by the

EU to third countries when a notified draft is likely to create trade barriers. Also the EC is

participating in formal meetings of the TBT Committee in Geneva where interventions are made

with the purpose of removing notified measures of third countries. In order to raise awareness

among economic operators and to increase the dialogue on potential technical barriers there is an

EU-TBT website available24.

Potentially trade restrictive measures are overseen in publicly available monitoring reports. The last

two reports explain macroeconomic trends and industrialisation policies of emerging economies

and compare these with the pledges made at the G20 Summit of Cannes in November 2011 to not

introduce trade restrictive measures during the crisis and to remove such measures already

introduced. These “early warning” activities to address potential upcoming barriers to trade are

undertaken as it is assumed to be easier to reduce potential barriers than actual trade barriers.

Individual barriers outside the list of key barriers can be brought up by Member States and/or EU

business associations, which the Commission officials of the DG Trade Market Access Unit and of

other Commission Services will analyse as to the possibility for joint actions.

MAWGs at the sector level study in detail the market access issues in a certain sector, starting with

the original piece of legislation. The work of the MAWGs may be hampered by a lack of information

about the problems and not always willingness of the third country to solve the issues. Generally

Member States are only in MAWGs that are important for their own industry.

24 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tbt/



With the key barrier process and the hymn sheets, the MAP clearly contributes to the policy

objectives of Global Europe: A Stronger Partnership to Deliver Market Access which aimed at a

stronger relation between Commission, Member States and EU business to solve market access

barriers in third countries, stronger prioritising of market access barriers to make the best use of

resources in target market and more transparency of the analysis of complaints on trade barriers by

the Commission (Evaluation question 1).

The MAP contributes also to the policy objectives of Trade, Growth & World Affairs but not as much

as it could (Evaluation question 1). This Communication specifically aimed at “gaining better access

to the largest and fastest-growing economies in the world”, the US, China, Russia, Japan, India and

Brazil. On the one hand, it is recognised that the MAP has attracted a lot of interest or stakeholders

in using this instrument. On the other hand, it is our view that the MAP has diluted its efforts too

much across the globe as in parallel to the key market barriers the MAP deals with many new

barriers. This has resulted in a very heavy workload of Commission officials who only in reactive

mode have time for all kinds of trade issues that business and Member States deem important.

As regards the identification of key barriers, the respondents participating in the MAAC, MAWGs

and MAT, agreed, respectively, for 62%, 54% and 74% that the process for identifying key barriers

is clear and transparent (Evaluation question 7). The evaluators in addition have had no complaints

during the interviews on the process of key barriers identification. The three MAWGs interviewed

have a hard time to solve the market access issues. The SPS MAWG for example solved about

25% of the 100 SPS issues they face. Successes of the MAWGs are mentioned in Flash Notes.

The three MAWGs interviewed did not know exactly how many barriers had been solved by their

actions.

Of the respondents participating in the MAAC, MAWGs and MATs, respectively 59%, 53% and 70%

of the MAT were of the opinion that the key barriers process is based on objective criteria. Also the

interviewed business representatives were fine with the identification process.

The MAWGs and MATs besides dealing with the key barriers also have other non-key barriers on

their agenda to which they give full attention as well.

What should be noted, however, is that in the context of negotiating for an FTA, there is reluctance

on the part of the EC to make too publicly known the key barriers to address. Evidence from South

Korea and India suggests that the highest level priority issues are not put on the barriers lists

developed locally as input into the MADB or as discussed with all stakeholders in the MAT, as they

are considered of strategic importance in the negotiations.

4.4 Results achieved

Actual situation

Four publicly available reports informed on the implementation of the MAS.

1. The 2008 Annual Report, which is a narrative progress report.

2. The 2009 Annual Report, which in Table 2 identified 173 key barriers in 24 countries and

in Annex 1 (A) presents an overview of 31 successfully tackled market access barriers

most of which (5) in India, of which 3 SPS-related barriers.

3. The 2010 Annual Report with the Trade and Investment Barriers Report 2011

accompanied. During this year the Commission brought the total number of key barriers to

203 in 32 key trading partners. In 2010 17 key barriers were in part or in full removed by


concerted action. The Annex 1 of this report shows that 49 market access barriers were

successfully tackled in 2010, of which most (29) SPS-related barriers.

4. The Trade and Investment Barriers Report 2012 reports substantial progress on 9 barriers,

of which 3 in India. The accompanying commission staff working document (SWD(20120

19 final) shows actions on: 4 key barriers in China; 4 key barriers on India; 3 key barriers

on Japan; 4 key barriers on Brazil/Argentina; 4 key barriers on Russia; and 2 key barriers

on USA.

Information provided to the consultant by the client indicated that between 2009-2011, on a total of

220 key barriers, 24 were partially (9), or fully (15) solved, whereas progress to a varying degree

has been achieved in other 42 cases25. Among the 24 key barriers dealt with there were 8 SPS

barriers, 8 Technical Barriers to Trade and 8 other type of trade barriers.

Nine reports on the monitoring of potentially trade restrictive measures were released, the latest

one covering the period September 2011-May 2012. This last report mentions: “The stock of

potentially trade restrictive measures adopted since the beginning of the crisis is currently 534,

many of them with horizontal impact. Since October 2008 only 89 measures have been removed.”

Most of the measures identified at the start of the monitoring are still around. The pledge of the G20

leaders to rollback the potentially trade restrictive measures has by far not been realised.

The EU does react to notifications of technical regulations from third countries that may distort trade

and in several instances third countries withdrew or modified the notified decrees. In addition the

EU is engaged in offensive cases in the TBT Committee under the WTO to address specific trade

concerns with third countries.

Other trade tools of the MAP include: Trade diplomacy in contact with officials of trade partners;

free trade agreement negotiations; formal investigations of trade barriers under the Trade Barriers

Regulation; and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, which is almost never used by the EC.

Evaluative assessment

A substantial number of potential barriers have been addressed. On the other hand, a large

majority of the existing market access barriers are still unsolved. However, in order to qualify this

outcome of the assessment, one can say that the work on key barriers and potentially trade

restrictive measures appears to have more resulted in identifying and analysing them than on

removing them. Although this ought to be the end result it is mostly not achieved because of limited

tools, limited legal basis/compulsion and unwillingness of third countries to cooperate. In any case,

the role of "early warning" of barriers has brought results as this avoided that laws were adopted

which are difficult to change afterwards. Potential barriers are tackled through “early warning” and

actions with non-EU countries ensure that such barriers are not born. The Consultant understands

that “early warning” success cases can not always be published widely because of the risk of

countries losing face, hence the quantification of the “early warning” success cases can best be

done by an internal evaluation.

Most of the respondents of the MAAC and the MAWGs reject the statement that many important

barriers are not on the key barrier list. However, as noted above, in the context of on-going FTA

negotiations some may expressly not be put on these lists. During the interviews the evaluators did

not find that protectionist policies were missed by the MAP (Evaluation question Q6), although it did

emerge from interviews with local stakeholders in third countries that it is often hard to identify the

25 Eight cases were no longer relevant.


barriers that are deeply nested in local legislation and policies and even harder to address them.26

Making use of existing networks and establishing contacts and relations with host country

counterparts such as think tanks and government institutions was often seen as crucial for

identifying and addressing such issues.

The only way the barriers can be addressed is through continuously approaching local authorities,

think tanks and institutions with the same message and gentle persuasion (or assistance in

addressing barriers in the case of less developed trading partners) rather than outright trade

diplomacy.27

In this respect it was also mentioned by various interviewees that what had been achieved usually

related to less strategic issues for the trade partner, or ‘low hanging fruit’.

The survey findings revealed no consensus on the contribution of the MATs to improved

effectiveness of the MAP among survey respondents. This is likely a consequence of the fact that

most of the MATs are relatively new and that most local stakeholders seem very focused on the

local situation and much less aware of the overall MAP structures and the possible MAT

contributions to this. This ties in with the above observation; the more complex market access

barriers necessarily need to be addressed locally through local channels and not e.g. at EU or WTO

level (this could, however be follow up steps e.g. if possible to address the issues in FTA

negotiations or if closer analysis reveals that national legislation is in breach of WTO commitments).

The tools and policy instruments are in place for monitoring protectionist policies (Evaluation

question Q6), but whether the existing tools are effective is another question. It should be realised

however that full removal of barriers may be achieved in one year, the barriers may come back in

another year. In other cases only part of the barriers is removed.

26 Especially in countries where there not a well-functioning democracy and no freedom of the press it is harder to identify

these barriers. Some documents may also be restricted, or enforcement may be an issue. 27 Several interviewees noted that this is very much an EU ‘soft approach’, which is often in contrast with the much more

confronting and hard line US approach.


5 Conclusions

5.1.1 Relevance

The MAP is assessed to be relevant because it concentrates on getting better market access for

EU businesses, which is in line with the trade policy objectives of “Trade, Growth and World

Affairs”. In addition, closer cooperation between the three key stakeholder groups is clearly needed

as was confirmed by almost all those consulted. The MAP provides an overarching structure and

objective to the EU’s trade policy tools and the work of many stakeholders within the EU and in third

countries.

However, on a less positive note, the following observations regarding the relevance of the MAP

should also be made:

One of the policy objectives of Global Europe: A stronger Partnership to deliver market

access was to have a new streamlined system to register and analyse complaints on

market access with more transparency. The requirement has been met with the prioritised

work on key barriers. However, the evaluators noted that on the remaining barriers, after

market access issues are reported, the partners could not agree on whether they received

sufficient feedback on the progress made on these issues.

Although it is an instrument for all markets, the MAP could target more specifically on

enhancing access to the EU’s strategic markets in the United States, China, India, Russia,

Japan and Brazil, as mentioned in “Trade, Growth and World Affairs”. In practice, the MAP

works on barriers with many more third countries, leading to a significant workload.

Although work on key barriers with strategic partners is done in a more focused way and is

updated more frequently, it can be questioned whether priorities should be more focused,

given that some stakeholders work on only non-key issues.

5.1.2 Efficiency

On January 1, 2012, the Market Access Unit became the Unit Market Access, Industry, Energy and

Raw Materials. This revised Unit consisted of 28 staff with an annual budget of € 700k - € 1 million.

The largest part of the budget is allocated to the Market Access Database. The remainder is for

conferences and promotional materials. The outputs of the Unit include the MAAC and MAWG

meetings and producing the reports mentioned in section 4.4. The relationship between the input

and output was found to be efficient. However, the following remarks point to a less efficient

implementation:

The staff of the unit have a public service obligation to analyse each issue that is raised.

Filtering is done through staff review and internal consultation considering issues such as:

o Is it breaching the GATT?

o What is the potential impact of the measure on EU operators?

o How many Member States would be affected?

o Is it likely that it can be successfully raised with the third country?

o What kind of leverage does the EU have in tackling the issue?

Even if there appears little chance of successfully tackling the issue, the staff need to

justify this to the professional lobby organisations who keep pushing them for action;

The Agenda of the MAAC is often overloaded. Since the beginning of the crisis in 2008

the number of NTBs has increased considerably, which led to an intensification of cases

reported to the MAAC. This consequently demonstrates evidence that the system is


working. On the other hand, the increased workload is not sufficiently offset at the MAAC

by allocating more work to the MATs and MAWGs, taking into account their capacity.

MAWGs apply different reporting methods.

Action lists or to-do lists are often missing from the minutes of the MAWG meetings that

are sent to the stakeholders.

The staff are regularly confronted by systematic lobbying through repetitive meeting

requests and e-mail/written contact from lobbying organisations, which are time

consuming to deal with and reduce the time available to address barriers.

The operation of the local MATs is assessed to be efficient based on our case studies, although the

workload at EU Delegations seems high and several Private Sector stakeholders have indicated

they would welcome more active engagement from Member States.

5.1.3 Effectiveness

The MAP strategy is followed and although most of the market access barriers have still not been

solved, stakeholders co-ordinate well and in a structured way. Most survey respondents found that

a different strategy would not produce better results. It should also be recognised that the MAP can

use hardly any other means to combat the growing number of market access issues that arise

during the current uncertain times.

In the case of FTA negotiations, the EU can provide compensation (make trade-offs against issues

that the partner may find important) to those reducing certain trade barriers, and in limited cases, it

can use the dispute settlement at the WTO. Other than that, much depends on the political will of

the third country and the diplomatic relations with the country. The willingness of businesses to

disclose information is sometimes an obstacle to address a market barrier effectively, especially in

a WTO dispute, where the full co-operation of business is essential.

Some lessons from the functioning of the MATs—drawn in this evaluation and in previous

assessments (e.g. Tiedemann, 2009) and the EC’s own assessment—already point to key factors

that could increase the effectiveness of the MAP, including cooperation with like-minded countries,

establishing links to local organisations and institutions in host countries, and finding common

grounds with local businesses.

Also, the effectiveness of the MAP seems to stem not just from joint action, but more importantly

from the strength of a common voice. The message should be the same, and this message only

gains in strength if it is sent through various channels and echoed by as many parties as possible,

including local partners in third countries.

The main findings on the effectiveness of the MAT mainly point to some key factors that influence

the performance of the MAT locally. These include the following:

Strong existing organisation, networks and structures of EU business community locally.

The existence of FTA negotiations and agreement, which give a substantial boost to MAP

activities and provide a direct platform for high-level dialogue.

The nature of the barriers addressed. The MAT is more likely to be successful in

addressing, preventing or resolving barriers if: (i) it concerns lower priority barriers for a

host country (e.g. not a strategic sector); (ii) the barrier is not intentionally raised as

protection, but as a consequence of limited capacity; (iii) the specific MA barrier occurs in

a sector with a few big companies and a few interested Member States who can easily

coordinate their positions and it does not concern complex national legislation or horizontal

issues.


A strong coordinating role of the EUD as a link between the technical and the political

issues, often driven by strong staff members.

Strong internal capacity of some of the Member States that have technical

experts/agricultural counsellors who are able to tackle the issue efficiently with the local

government. When this capacity is effectively made available to the EUD, it can help

strengthen a case being made at a higher level.

Information from the private sector regarding issues on the ground (e.g. customs

clearance) made available to the EUD / MAP through the MS; this information helps policy

makers identify key barriers and understand their nature.

Coordinating with like-minded third countries when addressing specific barriers.

EU-funded technical assistance aimed at strengthening institutional capacities and

regulatory approximating.

Issues that also affect local businesses and importers could be addressed more

effectively, especially if alliances were formed with such stakeholders in lobbying efforts.

Willingness and ability of all stakeholders to share information.

Inclusion in lobbying and policy influencing activities of non-EU parties, such as non-EU

Chambers of Commerce, think tanks, officials and experts.

5.1.4 Impact

A large majority of the market access barriers still exists, therefore the impact is limited. For those

barriers that have been solved, it is difficult to assess the impact quantitatively. Still, 59% of the

survey respondents believed that the MAP clearly helped tackle market access barriers. Given the

long time it often takes to tackle complex MA barriers in third countries, it may also be too early to

assess the quantitative impact of the MAP.

From a procedural viewpoint, with the MAP established, a structure has been set up for

stakeholders interested in access to third country markets. Survey respondents could not clearly

indicate whether barriers were dealt with more quickly under the MAP. Nonetheless the cooperation

between the Commission, Member States and businesses became closer and the provision of

information on market access issues improved.


6 Recommendations for improvement

Relevancy

The MAP is highly relevant. With respect to improved priority setting by focusing on fewer barriers

or fewer countries, our research has shown little support for this among stakeholders. In these

times of economic crisis, companies look for more export opportunities while at the same time

protectionism is on the rise, which means that the work of MAP becomes increasingly important.

Interviewees noted that the economic interests may be equally large in BRIC and non-BRIC

countries, and that the economic importance of an export market will differ by Member State or

sector. Our analysis of the barriers addressed showed that while a list of priority barriers is

developed, especially in the MAWGs and MATs, non-key barriers are also addressed, sometimes

with equal vigour. Prioritising trade barriers seem to have no practical implications. The EC should

consider either eliminating the distinction between key or non-key barriers or should define clear

guidelines on the differences between them.

The MAT is highly relevant as well, but this could be further improved by raising awareness of the

MAP as a whole and the role of the MAT therein.

Efficiency

Indicators suitable for evaluating the efficiency of the MAP’s implementation include the number of

Commission Staff engaged in the MAP and the budget for the MAP in relation to the number of

reports produced and meetings held. These indicators reflect the input:output relation of the MAP

(Q12). Another indicator is the distribution of the work among the partners. The Member States and

business organisations could be required to provide more analytical input on the barriers that they

raise in a standardised way. The evaluation team does not recommend to skip barriers or enlarge

capacity but rather to improve efficiency in the distribution of work between the partners of the MAP

and between its three platforms.

Most stakeholders believe that better organising the work is key for the future sustainability of the

MAP. To organise work better, a clearer division of tasks and responsibilities could be considered.

Member States could play a bigger role in gathering information on certain barriers and could also

be more actively involved in communicating with third countries, although diverging interests per

Member State should be taken into account in this process. It should also be clear to Member

States and Business Associations what information they should provide on a specific barrier if they

want to bring it up in the MAP. A more direct link between MAWGs or EU business associations on

the one hand and MATs on the other hand may also relieve some of the work on the EC in

Brussels. Finally, communication should flow and information should remain up-to-date, especially

for the MAAC meetings. According to interviewees, more information should be sent before the

meeting at an earlier stage, so that the meeting can focus on priority issues.

Furthermore communication on the progress in dealing with the barriers could be better monitored

by the MAP. Also to improve the communication between the MAT working groups and the MAWGs

more interaction at a technical level could be established such as:

Recording the communication by all, and entering this information into a central database

with smart search options.

Raising awareness on the MAP structures, functionalities and procedures among all key

stakeholders.


More frequent and direct communication lines at a technical level between the MAWG and

MAT WGs, especially in key markets.

Effectiveness

These lessons point towards a number of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the

MAT and the MAP as a whole:

Work together with like-minded non-EU actors when engaging in trade diplomacy locally

and for the MAP as a whole;

Consider where technical assistance may be combined with gentle persuasion to

overcome barriers;

Make processes and procedures clearer and more transparent without losing flexibility.

This includes promoting awareness of the MAP as well as of its different partners, their

information needs, and information sources;

Build on the existing networks of the business community and Member States, especially

in third countries to the extent possible since these are often competing among each

other;

Create better institutional memory by documenting more of what has been done. One

could consider creating a central database (including the information from the restricted

area of the MADB website), where all communication is stored and with smart search

options. The access of different stakeholder groups to this database or feedback for these

stakeholders should get specific attention, especially for the private sector and local

stakeholders (complying with their needs without sending out messages that are too

politically sensitive);

Share experiences from different MATs, especially in the same regions, and among

MAWGs. This information exchange could focus on the approach, process and

procedures for identifying, analysing, and addressing complex behind the border issues;

Further strengthening local knowledge and networks in strategic markets, possibly by

allocating more resources in these markets and structurally including inputs from these

sources in the MAP process.


Annexes

1. Terms of reference

2. Case studies of the MATs (China, South Korea, India, Ukraine)

.

BELGIUM – BULGARIA – HUNGARY – INDIA – THE NETHERLANDS – POLAND – RUSSIAN FEDERATION – SOUTH AFRICA – SPAIN – TURKEY – UNITED KINGDOM

Sound analysis, inspiring ideas

3006 AD Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Watermanweg 44

3067 GG Rotterdam

The Netherlands

T

F

E @ecorys.com

W www.ecorys.nl

Documents

Evaluation of the Market Access PartnershipWe offer research, consultancy and project management, specialising in economic, social and spatial development. ... Setting priorities on