In a more than 500-page report released Wednesday, 1 April, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) details the barriers to trade faced by its companies around the world in 2020. The chapter on European obstacles is the longest.
From the outset, the tone is set. U.S. exporters and investors "face persistent barriers (...) in certain sectors of the European Union market", which "have contributed to annual U.S. trade deficits with the EU", according to the USTR.
The report firstly denounces European tariff peaks on certain industrial products, particularly for certain fish and seafood (up to 26%). It should be recalled that the EU is trying to conclude negotiations on these points with Washington, in order to seal a mini-agreement that would not address agricultural issues (see EUROPE 12431/4).
Regarding the EU rebalancing measures in response to US taxes on steel and aluminium (see EUROPE 12045/20, 12031/2), deplored by the USTR which points out that "the United States has urged the EU to work with the United States to address the common problem of excess capacity (...) rather than engage in unjustified retaliation designed to punish American farmers, workers, and companies".
The US faces a proliferation of Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) in the EU, which the authors attribute "in part to the process of preparation and adoption by the EU of implementing and delegated acts".
The report also details European Standardisation and Conformity Assessment Procedures, criticising the EU for its approach to standards and "its efforts to encourage governments around the world to adopt its approach, including European regional standards [which] create a difficult environment for US exporters ".
Indeed, in the report, several cases are raised which reveal this struggle between European and US standards. The implementation of EU standards by a trading partner is regularly perceived by the USTR as a barrier to the entry of US products.
Also to note here are several subsections dealing with European sustainability provisions, such as in the renewable energy and fuel quality directives or energy efficiency regulations.
Unsurprisingly, the list of grievances in the agri-food sector is long, with Washington challenging certain provisions of the quality schemes, traditional wine terms, animal welfare certification and maturation requirements for distilled alcoholic beverages.
Geographical indications remain particularly unpopular for the "overly broad protection" they provide, which is detrimental to US trademarks (see EUROPE 12243/2).
Finally, the USTR believes that EU sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) standards, such as hormones or agricultural biotechnology, "unnecessarily restrict trade ... because they are not based on scientific principles". The USTR concluded that "if the EU recognised the equivalence of US measures, trade could be facilitated considerably".
Link to the report: https://bit.ly/3dNOwec (Original version in French by Hermine Donceel)