EU Project “PSF-T-Technical Barriers to Trade: Study on practical aspects”

1. EU Project “PSF-T-Technical Barriers to Trade: Study on practical aspects” Han Zuyderwijk – IBF International Consulting Round Table Moscow, 12th February 2019

2. Basic Project Information • Project Title: “Technical Barriers to Trade: Study on practical aspects” • Time Frame: Still ongoing -February 2018 – February 2019 • Beneficiary: European Commission – DG Trade and DG Growth • Stakeholders: • “Key stakeholders include European businesses and industry associations such as Business Europe, Cembureau, Cefic, Euratex, Cotance, European Confederation of the Footwear Industry, Orgalime, CECE, VDMA, CEN/CENELEC, Association of the European Business in Russia AEB, key EU companies trading with economic subjects in the Russian Federation and other as appropriate.” • Executed by Consultancy Companies: Ecorys and IBF International Consulting • Team of Key experts : Mr. Han Zuyderwijk and Ms. Irina Kireeva

3. Project Aims • Conduct a business survey (questionnaire + interviews) among key EU companies and industry associations in selected industrial areas (based on their significances in the EU – Russia trade); • Conduct a legal study mapping out specific technical rules or practices, relating to technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment procedures which are hindering market access in Russia for EU industrial goods; • Write recommendationsidentifying priority sectors and possible means of bridging the existing legal gaps

4. Objectives • Strengthen the position of EU exporters and EU Businesses in Russia and EEU • Specific objectives: • Identify sectors and technical barriers where approximation to EU rules, or more consistent implementation of existing regulations, would result in better access in the markets for industrial goods; • Define possible actions aimed at reducing trade barriers resulting from divergences in technical regulations, standards, conformity assessment and related rules for industrial goods; • Raise awareness of the business community of the existing barriers and possible actions for their reduction/elimination.

5. Outputs • Study identifying significant industrial sectors, mapping the lack/compatibility of the technical regulatory frameworks between EU and Russia, focusing on practical problems businesses face; • Dissemination of the main report in English and Russian; • A Round Table in Moscow; • Presentation of the study to the Market Access Advisory Committee (MAAC) in Brussels.

6. Activities • Designed, test and conduct an online questionnaire (being executed, ongoing) • Determine priority industrial sectors based on significance for EU-Russia trade • Interviews with Business Associations and Companies, regulatory research and identifying practical problems • Legal research • Report • Round Table

7. Priority Sectors • Statistical study. Eurostat Data. • Decided on: • Chemicals/chemical industry; • Machinery; • Automotive industry/transport equipment other than rolling stock and tramway stock; • Optical and photographic instruments; • Electrical equipment. • Construction; • Footwear; • Textiles, including (industrial) textiles.

8. Survey • (On-line) Questionnaire • Developed with help of professional surveying company • Set back: server problems at the moment the questionnaire went live • Responses in annex to the report • Interviews with company representatives • Interviews with representatives of business associations • Group/Round table interviews • Position papers from business associations

9. Findings • Typical is that most issues that are reported are general issues related to the TR system or its implementation. Some sector specific approximation issues. • In general, no great differences between technical requirements in Technical Regulations are reported. • List of standards: no problems as result of differences in the references to standards in the lists of standards are reported by the companies • List of standards: problem is that lists are not updated frequently enough + lack of transition period

10. Findings • Russian Federation legislation and EAEU legislation prohibits acceptance and recognition of certificates, test reports and inspection certificates from bodies not accredited in the RF/EAEU system, even when self-testing is allowed. (Despite IAF/ILAC membership of ROSAKKREDITATION) • Despite public hearings at drafting stage of Technical Regulation, companies feel their problems are not heard and regulatory authorities do not seem to understand the compliance problems of manufacturers and importers; • Proportionality missing: • Samples • Regulations enter into force, while there are no CABs • System Information System • Labeling • Lack of transition period in lists of standards

11. Findings • Concerning introduction of mandatory standards coupled with mandatory certification in the construction sector. Example: new mandatory standards for cement (lacks EU harmonization with EN197) are introduced under article 46 of Federal Law 184, without public hearing- violation of WTO TBT rules and undermines harmonization in EEU and approximation with EU; • Economic operators miss clear instructions and guidance how the authorities want them to comply.

12. Findings Specific Sectors • Report does include priority sector specific issues: • Chemical sector: registration system not ready + registration much more far reaching then in the EU REACH • Machinery (agricultural machinery): emission requirements • Automotive sector: Electronic Passport System • Construction sector: new mandatory cement standards block market access • Footwear/Textiles: stringent standards + new labeling system

13. Conclusions • Russia/EAEU and the EU have the most approximated technical regulation system from all main EU trade partners. • Problems that are reported are seldomly related to differences in standards or technical requirements, mostly implementation • Most mentioned problem is acceptance of foreign test reports and certificates • Problems can be bridged and further approximation achieved • Continued regulatory dialogue and technical cooperation projects are necessary

14. Recommendations • Technical cooperation project with ROSAKKREDITATIA – interpretation of procedures and real mutual recognition of reports and certificates • Technical cooperation on Regulatory Impact Analysis – improve proportionality • Technical cooperation to support development of legislation for general product safety, comparable with the European Union General Product Safety Directive. • Technical cooperation in the area of market surveillance • Regulatory Dialogue

15. Thank you for your attention!