15 December 2025
Season’s Greetings
All of us in the International Trade and Food Law practice of FratiniVergano would like to wish our readers, as well as their colleagues and families, the very best for a peaceful holiday season and for a healthy and prosperous 2026.
We hope that you have enjoyed Trade Perspectives© in 2025 and that you have found it stimulating and timely. As always, we have published a total of 23 issues and invested considerable time and energy in this undertaking. We have done it with our usual passion and drive, eager to play a small, but constant role in defending the multilateral trading system and the rule of law from the ever-increasing temptations of unilateralism and protectionism.
In the new year, we shall continue with our editorial efforts, beginning with the publication of the next issue of Trade Perspectives© on 12 January 2026. Trade Perspectives© is circulated to thousands of recipients worldwide. This fills us with pride, but also with a deep sense of commitment and discipline towards our readers’ expectations.
Thank you for your interest in Trade Perspectives© and for helping us to make it a better and more useful tool of discussion. We look forward to hearing from you regularly and to another year of international trade and food law developments, hopefully not too turbulent. You can follow us on Bluesky @fratinivergano.bsky.social and find all previous issues of Trade Perspectives© on our website at https://www.fratinivergano.eu/en/trade-perspectives/.
- The EU’s Communication on Strengthening Economic Security: Towards a more assertive and protectionist trade policy framework?
- Indonesia introduces new rules aimed at facilitating import procedures and strengthening import control mechanisms
- European Parliament requests prolonged scrutiny period for a Delegated Regulation not increasing the permissible water content for poultry meat
- Recently adopted EU legislation
The EU’s Communication on Strengthening Economic Security: Towards a more assertive and protectionist trade policy framework?
By Tobias Dolle, Stella Nalwoga, and Paolo R. Vergano
On 3 December 2025, the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) and the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, Kaja Kallas, presented a Joint Communication on strengthening Economic Security. The Joint Communication “outlines concrete steps to reinforce the EU’s strength and resilience in the face of growing external economic threats”, while intending to retain the EU’s “openness and commitment to international trade and investment”. The Joint Communication mainly concerns critical raw materials and manufacturing sectors, and signals how the Commission intends to recalibrate, intensify, and, in some cases, redefine its use of trade and competition tools in response to growing external economic pressures and threats. This includes tighter scrutiny of supply chains and market-access conditions for trading partners, notably through the introduction of local content requirements.
This article provides an overview of the Joint Communication, highlights selected trade-related measures, and assesses their potential implications for the EU’s obligations under the rules of the World Trade Organization (hereinafter, WTO) and for businesses.
A more strategic and assertive EU Economic Security agenda
The Joint Communication builds on the Economic Security Strategy of 2023, which set the EU’s economic security objectives of “promoting industrial strengths, protecting European interests and partnering with like-minded countries”. While those pillars remain central, the Commission now stresses that “the need for the EU to act with greater boldness, speed and unity has become even stronger”. According to the Commission, key trading partners are “using economic levers to pursue their strategic and geopolitical objectives”, which puts the EU’s “security, public order, competitiveness and economy at risk”. The policies range from “disruptive tariffs”, notably the US Administration’s tariff policy imposed on trading partners since February 2025, and the weaponisation of dependencies, such as China’s export control measures on critical minerals, to the arbitrary deployment of trade defence measures.
In response to these economic threats, the Joint Communication outlines a “more strategic and assertive” use of existing EU tools in order to support the EU’s economic security, which is defined as the EU’s “ability to ensure security, alongside other objectives, through a strong, dynamic and resilient economy by anticipating, deterring and responding to potential or actual threats, linked to the EU’s economic relationships with the wider world”. The Joint Communication sets out a non-exhaustive list of key tools, which aim at supporting economic security. Key tools relevant for trade and competition include anti-subsidy measures, antidumping measures, safeguards, the EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation, Customs procedures and controls, and trade agreements.
Measures to reduce strategic dependencies for goods and services
More concretely, the Commission seeks to pursue its economic security objectives in two ways. Firstly, by “clarifying and improving the deployment of existing tools”. For example, the Commission intends to review the “use of strategic customs instruments (tariff suspensions, autonomous quotas) for key inputs with the view to support the competitiveness of Union enterprises”.
Council Regulation (EU) 2021/2278 of 20 December 2021 suspending the Common Customs Tariff duties on certain agricultural and industrial products sets the EU legal framework for duty suspensions. Recital 7 thereof states that duty suspensions pursue the objective of “improving the competitive capacity of Union industry” by lowering the cost of raw materials, semi-finished goods, or components that are either unavailable or not available in sufficient quantities in the EU, and which are needed by EU manufacturers for their finished products.
Importantly, the Regulation is reviewed and amended biannually, typically in January and July, to reflect changes requested by EU Member States, or on the basis of the Commission’s own initiative. Although the Commission is yet to provide details of the specific actions to be taken following the review of the Customs instruments, businesses should carefully assess the raw materials, semi-finished goods, or components they rely on for their products, and determine whether these may be eligible for duty suspensions.
Secondly, the Commission intends to propose several new measures to advance the EU’s economic security. For example, by the third quarter of 2026, the Commission intends to assess ways of “strengthening the protection of the industry from unfair trade policies and negative global market developments, such as overcapacity”. In this context, the Commission intends to evaluate the effectiveness and adequacy of the existing tools and consider the necessity of possible new measures.
On 8 December 2025, during a meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (hereinafter, INTA), some Members of the European Parliament (hereinafter, MEPs) recalled the Commission’s recent proposal to “protect” the EU steel market from “subsidised overcapacity”, describing it as “a very urgent proposal for a key European industry” and urged the Commission to propose measures for other key sectors “facing similar unfair competition or trade distortion practices”.
European preference criteria in procurement and the EU’s WTO obligations
As part of the review of the EU’s Public Procurement Directives, the Commission intends to propose European preference criteria in specific strategic sectors in which the EU’s “public procurement stimulates demand for European industrial leadership, increases our resilience and mitigates risks for security”. The Commission is yet to provide details on how that measure would be implemented. In general terms, local content requirements (hereinafter, LCRs) could require products in strategic sectors to meet a minimum percentage of European-origin materials and production in order to qualify for public procurement contracts and/or subsidies or other advantages to be conferred by the governments of the EU Member States to business operators in the specified industry.
During the INTA Committee meeting, some MEPs cautioned that this change in approach from an open market to a “European preference” appeared to come out of the playbook of countries relying heavily on LCRs and could raise substantial legal concerns in view of the EU’s international obligations, notably under the WTO non-discrimination principles contained in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereinafter, GATT 1994), the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (hereinafter, TRIMs Agreement), and the Agreement on Government Procurement (hereinafter, WTO GPA), as well as the provisions on prohibited subsidies of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (hereinafter, SCM Agreement) and under the EU’s bilateral trade agreements. While the Commission insists that the LCRs would be in line with the EU’s international legal commitments, this will very much depend on their design and implementation.
In general terms, LCRs imposed in the context of procurement intended for public purposes could be challenged as a violation of the national treatment obligation under Article IV of the WTO GPA, which requires the signatories, including the EU and its Member States, to provide goods, services, and suppliers from other GPA parties treatment no less favourable than that accorded to domestic counterparts. The same obligation would apply to advantages conferred by governments to private entities conditioned on the use of local inputs vis-à-vis foreign inputs under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.
Lastly, financial incentives granted to private entities, which are “contingent, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon the use of domestic over imported goods”, could also be considered as prohibited subsidies under Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. These considerations underscore the legal complexity and potential risk of legal challenges that the EU could face under both multilateral and bilateral trade commitments, depending on how such measures are ultimately crafted and implemented.
Implementation outlook
As the Joint Communication simply “outlines” the measures that the Commission intends to propose, it still lacks the level of detail necessary to properly assess the legal and trade-related implications and the impact on businesses. From an international trade perspective, the Joint Communication appears to potentially represent a significant shift in the EU’s trade policy, but also raises questions regarding the compatibility of some of the future measures with the EU’s WTO commitments. Possible future measures, such as LCRs, if implemented without careful calibration, could run afoul of WTO rules and disrupt global supply chains, including for European businesses.
Regarding the next steps, the Commission notes that it had already begun preparations for “any necessary legislative changes, guidelines and other supportive measures” to implement the actions set out in the Joint Communication. In the process, the Commission would continue to “intensively” engage with EU Member States, third countries, and industry on the new economic security strategic approach. Over the course of the coming year, stakeholders should expect calls for public consultation and should ensure that their interests are taken into account in the preparation and adoption of the forthcoming measures.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano
Indonesia introduces new rules aimed at facilitating import procedures and strengthening import control mechanisms
By Alya Mahira, Imelda Jo Anastasya, and Paolo R. Vergano
On 5 November 2025, Indonesia’s Minister of Trade Regulation No. 37 of 2025 on Amendment to Minister of Trade Regulation No. 16 of 2025 on Import Policies and Arrangements (hereinafter, MoT Regulation 37/2025) entered into force. The Regulation amends MoT Regulation No. 16 of 2025 on Import Policies and Arrangements (hereinafter, MoT Regulation 16/2025), which forms part of the Government’s new import-policy deregulation initiative, and aims to provide “ease of doing business” for business actors holding a Business Identification Number, which also serves as Importer Identification Number (Angka Pengenal Importir, hereinafter, API). Most notably, MoT Regulation 37/2025 introduces new rules on the conversion and cancellation of APIs and removes duty exemptions for certain investment-related goods.
This article provides an overview of MoT Regulation 37/2025 and highlights the key changes for businesses.
Deregulating Indonesia’s import policies
MoT Regulation 16/2025, which took effect on 29 August 2025, established Indonesia’s new regulatory framework for imports. In an effort to simplify import procedures and improve regulatory clarity, MoT Regulation 16/2025 introduced several important changes, including a more flexible timeframe for extending import approvals, and the removal of approval requirements for certain goods, such as forestry products and certain fuels, which would facilitate their importation into Indonesia (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 16 of 8 September 2025).
In line with the Government’s import-policy deregulation initiative, MoT Regulation 16/2025 serves as an umbrella framework for eight sector-specific import regulations, allowing swift adjustments through the amendment only of the relevant sectoral regulation rather than the entire framework.
MoT Regulation 16/2025 contains, inter alia, provisions on the conversion of the different types of the API, on the Surveyor’s Report, and on investment-related goods. In Indonesia, every importer is assigned an API, which functions as the official identification number for importers. As a general rule, any export and import activities must be accompanied by a Surveyor’s Report, which refers to the verification or technical inspection report confirming the quantity and the condition of traded goods.
Under MoT Regulation 16/2025, certain goods imported to support domestic investment may benefit from import duty exemptions. MoT Regulation 37/2025 contains amendments in these areas of regulation, providing for detailed conversion and cancellation procedures for APIs, new data requirements for Surveyor’s Reports, and for the removal of the import duty exemptions for “investment-related goods”.
Conversion and cancellation of the Importer Identification Number (API)
As noted above, in Indonesia, each business intending to carry out import activities must request an API. There are two types of API: 1) A General Importer Identification (API Umum, hereinafter, API-U) for businesses that trade or distribute goods in Indonesia; and 2) A Producer Importer Identification (API Produsen, hereinafter, APIP) for businesses that import certain goods as capital goods, raw, or auxiliary materials, or for other production needs.
In view of frequent mistakes that businesses make when independently determining the applicable API type, MoT Regulation 37/2025 foresees procedures for the conversion of the API from one type to another, as well as a cancellation procedure. The conversion from one API type to another aims at aligning the API type with the actual business activities, correcting administrative errors, or ensuring compliance with import regulations.
Under Article 8 of MoT Regulation 16/2025, an importer may convert an API-U into an API-P if it has not yet obtained an Import Approval and/or a Surveyor’s Report, or if it has these documents, but is not currently importing. MoT Regulation 37/2025 further provides that a Statement Letter, which refers to a letter issued by the Director General of the Ministry of Trade to confirm the Ministry’s authorisation for certain import activities, may be taken into account when assessing the conversion request.
Article 8A of MoT Regulation 37/2025 introduces a new provision on API cancellation. An importer’s API may be cancelled only if the importer does not possess a valid Import Business License, Statement Letter, and/or Surveyor’s Report, or if the importer holds one of these documents, but is not currently conducting import activities. This cancellation allows businesses that have applied for the wrong API to cancel it immediately, without waiting for the incorrect API to be issued, so as to promptly apply for the correct one.
A cancellation may only be requested once, which means that businesses should carefully consider when to make such request. Under the new rules, the API conversion and API cancellation can be approved electronically through the Integrated Trade Service System, replacing the previous offline approval process administered by Indonesia’s Ministry of Investment and Indonesia’s Investment Coordinating Board.
According to Indonesia’s Ministry of Trade, many businesses choose an API type that does not accurately reflect their actual business activities. The new procedures provide a corrective mechanism, allowing businesses to rectify such errors without having to file a new application, thereby minimising delays and operational costs. However, instead of relying on these apparently complex procedures for corrective measures, Indonesia could consider simplifying related processes and procedures.
Updated data requirements for Surveyor’s Reports
Under MoT Regulation 16/2025, one of the import requirements is a Surveyor’s Report, referring to a document confirming the verification or technical inspection attesting the quantity and condition of goods being traded. Such report is required for traders to complete Customs clearance. Under MoT Regulation 16/2025, a Surveyor’s Report must include, inter alia, the report number, issuance date, tariff classification, and the quantity and unit of the goods.
To enhance traceability, MoT Regulation 37/2025 now further requires the inclusion of the loading port for verifications conducted in bonded logistics centres or the name and address of the relevant trading zones for verifications conducted in special economic or bonded zones. These additional reporting elements aim at improving compliance and monitoring by providing information on where the goods were loaded or verified, enabling authorities to trace the movement of goods.
Elimination of the investment-related import duty exemptions
MoT Regulation 37/2025 eliminates the import duty exemptions granted under MoT Regulation 16/2025, which allowed goods included on a “masterlist” issued by Indonesia’s Ministry of Investment and Indonesia’s Investment Coordinating Board, covering machinery, goods, and materials for industrial development, to be imported duty-free for investment purposes. These exemptions remain applicable only for goods shipped before 5 November 2025 and arriving at the destination port no later than 3 February 2026.
The removal of the investment-related import duty exemptions reflects the Government’s broader objective of promoting domestic production and reducing reliance on imports, including for investment purposes, particularly in sectors dominated by foreign businesses, such as electronics. By removing duty-free access for imported inputs, businesses that rely on imported components may face higher input costs and potential supply chain disruptions in cases where domestic substitutes are unavailable, insufficient, or simply more costly.
Commercial implications and outlook
Although MoT Regulation 37/2025 was statedly issued to enhance regulatory certainty and strengthen import control mechanisms, not all of its amendments may achieve the stated objective of improving the “ease of doing business”. Rather, the complex procedures and the removal of the import duty exemptions appear to maintain or increase burdens for traders.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano
European Parliament requests prolonged scrutiny period for a Delegated Regulation not increasing the permissible water content for poultry meat
By Amanda Carlota, Ignacio Carreño García, and Tobias Dolle
On 6 October 2025, the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) adopted Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) …/… supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards marketing standards for poultry meat, and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 (hereinafter, Delegated Regulation). With respect to the marketing standard for poultry meat, the Delegated Regulation upholds existing foie gras (i.e., fattened duck or goose liver) standards and does not foresee to increase the permissible water content for poultry meat.
This article addresses the establishment of maximum water content levels in poultry meat, discusses the rationale for the rules, and analyses the implications for producers.
The permissible maximum water content for poultry meat
In its 2020 Communication A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system, the Commission had announced the revision of marketing standards to provide for the uptake and supply of sustainable agricultural products and to reinforce the role of sustainability criteria, taking into account the possible impact of these standards on food loss and waste. The Delegated Regulation’s Explanatory Memorandum explains that the Commission “presents certain changes to the existing legal framework to reinforce sustainability”.
A public consultation on the draft Delegated Regulation was held from 21 April 2023 to 19 May 2023 in order to gather the views of citizens and stakeholders. Some stakeholders argued for an increase of the maximum water content limits in poultry meat, as “modern breeding techniques with fast growing breeds result in higher physiological water content in animals”. The physiological water content in poultry, when it is higher, increases the weight of the meat, affecting quality perceptions and price.
The Commission notes that, “In order to cater for consumer concerns and animal welfare considerations, it is preferable not to increase the current water content limits”. With respect to the maximum water content in poultry meat, Recital 13 of the Delegated Regulation states that, “In order to avoid consumer deception, and in view of economic and technological developments in the production of poultry meat, the maximum water content of poultry meat should be fixed and a monitoring system both in slaughterhouses and at all marketing stages should be defined without violating the principle of the free circulation of products in the single market”.
Article 14(1) of the Delegated Regulation states that: “Frozen and quick-frozen chicken carcasses may be marketed within the Union only if the water content (…) does not exceed the technically unavoidable values set out in Annex VII to this Regulation”. Annex VII sets out formulas to calculate the maximum water content in consideration of different chilling methods (e.g., air chilling, air spray chilling, and immersion chilling). Article 14(2) of the Delegated Regulation provides that fresh, frozen and quick-frozen poultry cuts (e.g., chicken breast, chicken thighs, turkey breast, turkey thighs) may be marketed within the EU only if the water content does not exceed the technically unavoidable values set out in Annex VIII to the Regulation. Annex VIII sets out, for the different products and chilling methods applied, the highest permissible ratios between the total water and protein content (i.e., W/RP ratios).
These rules and the applicable ratios remain unchanged and are identical to those established in Annex VIII to the current Commission Regulation (EC) No 543/2008 of 16 June 2008 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing standards for poultry meat on the ‘Determination of the total water content of poultry cuts’. Perhaps to address concerns, a new provision is added to Article 14 of the Delegated Regulation, which provides for an exception to these rules. A new paragraph 4 provides that the competent authority of an EU Member State may authorise the marketing of poultry meat that is not compliant with paragraphs 1 or 2, provided that the packaging is marked with a tape or label bearing, in red capital letters, the information that the “Water content exceeds EU limit”.
Higher water content of poultry meat: consumer deception or modern poultry breeds?
Following the Commission’s adoption of the Delegated Regulation, during the initial two-months scrutiny period, Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) on 20 November 2025 reportedly called for an increase in the permissible water content in poultry meat. Several MEPs, confirming industry concerns, noted that “modern breeding techniques that produce faster-growing chicken naturally lead to greater water content in animals”. Poultry processors had asked the Commission to “revise decades-old water limits to avoid penalising poultry producers that do not artificially add water during processing” to increase weight, but where the poultry naturally contains a higher amount of water. This concerns, in particular, the highest permissible ratios between the total water and protein content in poultry cuts.
Industry representatives reportedly noted that: “It’s not like we’re putting a piece of breast meat in the pan and water floods out. It’s a very slight difference”, adding that: “By consuming less feed and spending fewer days on the farm, faster-growing birds help cut the sector’s CO₂ footprint”. The Commission argues that, under the new Article 14(4) of the Delegated Regulation, “producers who exceed current restrictions can still sell their products, provided they indicate on the label that the water content exceeds the EU limit”. Other stakeholders reportedly said that: “the original water protein ratio was created for one purpose: to prevent consumers from paying for added water sold as chicken, it was never intended to regulate genetics, breeding, or welfare”.
Valid reasons to change the original water protein ratio?
Maintaining the current maximum water content of poultry meat, as the Commission intends to do, does not appear to be justified by the two rationales for setting maximum water levels expressed in Recital 13 of the Delegated Regulation: 1) “to avoid consumer deception”; and 2) “in view of economic and technological developments in the production of poultry meat”.
There is no doubt that the setting of the maximum water content of water in poultry meat is intended to avoid that water is added by operators to increase the weight of the poultry products. However, if it can be scientifically shown that the water content of certain poultry products is naturally higher than usual, without adding water, due to the poultry breeds used and the higher water content in their muscles, then there is no intention of the producers to mislead consumers. Furthermore, the “modern breeding techniques that produce faster-growing chicken” appear to be an economic and technological developments that justify an upward amendment of the maximum permitted water content.
The label suggested by the Commission that the “Water content exceeds EU limit” arguably insinuates that there is some sort of deception and breach of rules. Also, since there is no explanation as to why the water content exceeds EU limits and that this is allowed, the label does not appear useful as it could even erode consumers’ trust.
Procedural questions and outlook
Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 empowers the Commission to adopt delegated and implementing acts, which must be notified to the European Parliament and to the Council of the EU. A delegated act enters into force only “if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council”. That period may be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council of the EU. This is what has now happened.
The Delegated Regulation was adopted on 6 October 2025 and the scrutiny period ran initially until 6 December 2025. Upon request by the European Parliament, the period was extended until 6 February 2026. If either the Parliament or the Council were to raise an objection within this timeframe, the Draft Regulation would not become law. The Commission would then have to reconsider the Draft in light of the objection, deciding whether to maintain, amend, or withdraw it. As discussions within the European Parliament and the Council of the EU progress, interested stakeholders should engage with policymakers to ensure that the Delegated Regulation is not adopted in its current form and is based on science.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Ignacio Carreño Garcia
Recently adopted EU legislation
Trade Remedies
Customs Law
Food Law
Other
Imelda Jo Anastasya, Amanda Carlota, Ignacio Carreño García, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, Joanna Christy, Tobias Dolle, Alya Mahira, Stella Nalwoga, and Paolo R. Vergano contributed to this issue.
Follow us on Bluesky @fratinivergano.bsky.social
To subscribe to Trade Perspectives©, please click here. To unsubscribe, please click here.