Blog Post

What the EU should do and not do on trade in medical equipment

The European Union has introduced export controls on some medical supplies. This was a mistake. It should announce that it is withdrawing the measure, and call on other countries to do the same.

By: Date: March 25, 2020 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

After the 2009 avian-flu pandemic, which killed more than 150,000 people worldwide, and the 2014-16 Ebola epidemic, which killed more than 11,000 people in Africa, many voices in the health community warned that, despite huge progress in medicine, the world was vastly under-prepared to respond to a global pandemic like the 1918 Spanish flu.  

Unfortunately, the warning remained largely unheeded. Like elsewhere, the response of health systems in Europe to COVID-19, although admirable, has been inadequate. In several countries and regions, medical facilities and testing capabilities are under severe strain. There are also acute shortages of basic medical equipment such as masks and ventilators. 

Faced with such shortages, many countries have taken steps to ban or limit the export of medical equipment or medicines that are vital to fight COVID-19. According to the Global Trade Alert, as of 21 March 2020, 54 governments had introduced export curbs on key medical supplies since the beginning of the year. Some European Union countries have even introduced bans or limits on exports within the EU. 

Faced with this situation, the European Commission has taken some good, but unfortunately also some bad measures.

Internal Market Commissioner Thierry Breton has written to member-state ministers, complaining that unilateral measures implemented by EU governments were disrupting the free flow of essential medical equipment within the EU. During a Bruegel/FT event, he admitted that some of these measures are still in place and explained what the Commission has been doing to try and increase the production of vital medical equipment in Europe with the limited means – essentially moral pressure – at the European Commission’s disposal. 

It was surprising, therefore, that on 14 March the Commission adopted an implementing regulation restricting the export outside the EU of five categories of personal protective equipment (PPE) used by medical personnel: protective spectacles and visors, face shields, mouth-nose-protection equipment, protective garments, and gloves. The regulation applied initially to all non-EU countries, including preferential partners, but EFTA countries (and the United Kingdom) were later exempted. The decision to place barriers on extra-EU exports seems to have been, at least partly, conceived as a quid pro quo for the agreement by member states to remove barriers to intra-EU trade, or for not implementing new ones. But the logic of closing external borders in order to keep internal borders open, which seems to have been borrowed from the refugee crisis, makes no sense because trade, unlike refugees, works two ways: exports and imports. 

As Chad Bown, from the Peterson Institute for International Economics, has shown, the EU is both an exporter and an importer of the products that it has now subjected to export controls. According to Bown’s calculations, in 2019, the EU exported $12.1 billion and imported $17.6 billion worth of these products. The breakdown of trade by product category is shown in the table.

Table 1: Extra-EU trade in medical products now subject to export controls, 2019 ($ billions)

Exports Imports
Protective spectacles and visors 0.2 0.5
Face shields 7.4 6.7
Mouth-nose-protection equipment 0.9 2.1
Protective garments 3.1 4.5
Gloves 0.4 3.7
TOTAL 12.1 17.6

 

 

 

 

Source: based on Chad Bown.

Cutting exports to foreign partners is risky for two reasons. First, it endangers countries that are also suffering from COVID-19, especially those that rely heavily on supplies from the EU. Second, it could endanger the EU itself if foreign partners are unable or unwilling to supply the EU with the medical products it needs and cannot produce. Retaliation by foreign partners could even lead to the breakdown of regional and global value chains for essential products. 

Not surprisingly, the EU measures were immediately criticised by several trading partners, including neighbours like Norway and Switzerland, which rely heavily on the EU for their supplies of PPE covered by the regulation. Consequently, the European Commission issued on 20 March a Communication stating that “in view of the deep integration of the internal market with all four member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), as well as the integration of the production value chains and distribution networks with the same countries, the Implementing Regulation does not apply to exports to those four countries, which thus remain unrestricted”. [1]  But obviously value chains do not stop at the borders of these four countries, so the potential for disruption arising from the EU export controls remains. 

As well as irritating some countries, the EU measures could also backfire. They contribute to the deterioration of the international trade climate at a time when international cooperation is most needed because of the global pandemic. Clearly, no jurisdiction can solve the health and the ensuing economic crises on its own. Unfortunately, global leadership is at an all-time low, which also explains why, contrary to what happened early during the financial crisis, there has been no global commitment to abstain from protectionist trade measures. After considerable delay, however, it was announced on 24 March that an emergency G20 virtual summit on the pandemic will be held tomorrow, 26 March. 

The European Union should announce at the summit that it is withdrawing its export controls on PPE, and call on all countries to remove export curbs on medical supplies and abstain from imposing new ones.

[1] The four EFTA countries are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read about event
 

Upcoming Event

Feb
4
13:00

Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism: Greening the EU trade?

Assessing CBAM from a trade perspective.

Speakers: Luis Garicano, Emily Lydgate and André Sapir Topic: Energy & Climate, Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

RCEP對亞洲影響積極,無阻價值鏈重組

總體而言,雖然RCEP成員之間在市場准入上實際提升幅度有限(例如中國和澳洲),但這一協定的意義在於讓世界意識到,亞洲仍然依賴中國市場,亞洲國家不能錯過中國放寬市場准入的機會,即使幅度有限。

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 21, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Résilience : la nouvelle boussole

Pour surmonter le choc de la pandémie de Covid-19, l’économiste écarte, dans sa chronique, l’idée d’un repli protectionniste, mais suggère de passer d’un objectif de réduction des coûts à celui de la réduction des risques.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: January 18, 2021
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The double irony of the new UK-EU trade relationship

The Trade and Cooperation Agreement signed between the European Union and the United Kingdom goes against six decades of UK efforts to avoid being economically disadvantaged in Europe. Tracking the evolution of the EU-UK relationship over the last 60 years can help in understanding this.

By: André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: January 12, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic
 

Policy Contribution

Deglobalisation in the context of United States-China decoupling

After decades of increasing globalisation, there now seems to be a slowing, or even a turn to deglobalisation, meaning decelerating trade and investment and reduced global value chains. This trend seems to have accelerated because of the United States’ push to contain China in the context of their strategic competition. So far, however, there is less evidence of deglobalisation in terms of financial flows.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Junyun Tan Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 21, 2020
Read about event Download PDF More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Europe and India: Comparing Approaches to Global Economic Challenges

Stakeholders from government, private sector, media and academia/institutions come together to review India-EU relations and point to a promising direction for the future.

Speakers: Yamini Aiyar, Suman Bery, Navroz K Dubash, Ignacio Garcia Bercero, Alicia García-Herrero, Rajat Kathuria, Gautam Mukhopadhaya, Ananth Padmanabhan, Georgios Petropoulos, André Sapir, Shyam Saran, Simone Tagliapietra and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 15, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Are we out of the woods yet?

The return to normal may just have to wait.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: December 14, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Europe is losing competitiveness in global value chains while China surges

The European Union owes much of its economic weight to its regional value chain and integration into the global value chain. But the EU’s global value chain role is shrinking, and while EU trade integration with China is increasing, it is mainly to China’s benefit, undermining the EU’s external competitiveness.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and David Martínez Turégano Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 27, 2020
Read article
 

External Publication

European Parliament

Data flows, artificial intelligence and international trade: impacts and prospects for the value chains of the future

In-depth briefing and analysis on the issues of digital trade and the geopolitics of trade provided to the European Parliament.

By: Dennis Görlich, Michèle Finck, Georgios Petropoulos, Niclas Poitiers and André Sapir Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, European Parliament Date: November 26, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

Free movement of data: how to maintain necessary sharing among the EU, UK, and USA?

In the current legal climate, how can the EU, the US and the UK continue to share data?

Speakers: Christian Borggreen, Joe Jones, Christian Kastrop, J. Scott Marcus and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: November 25, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The impact of the new Asian trade mega-deal on the European Union

Although the economic implications of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) for the EU are modest, the geopolitical and strategic implications are not. With the arrival of a new US administration and the central role of China in the bloc, the EU needs to outline an Asian commercial strategy that reconciles the importance of China and the transatlantic relationship.

By: Uri Dadush Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: November 19, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

How to keep a competitive environment while engaging with non market economies?

How can we ensure fair competition between European firms and Chinese state-backed players?

Speakers: Julia Anderson, Helge Berger, Michiel Boots, Alicia García-Herrero, Carles Esteva Mosso, Frédéric Jenny, Georgios Petropoulos, Cian Ruane, Hylke Vandenbussche and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: November 19, 2020
Load more posts