Trade Perspectives©

Back

2 June 2025

Beyond “traditional” trade agreements: The legal and strategic dimensions of the EU’s emerging trade- and investment-related deals

By Stella Nalwoga, Tobias Dolle, and Paolo R. Vergano

In recent times, the EU has embarked on negotiating “alternative forms of engagement” with some of its trading partners, by pursuing what have been referred to as “trade-related agreements” or “mini trade deals”. Most recently, on 7 May 2025, the EU and Singapore signed the EU-Singapore Digital Trade Agreement (hereinafter, DTA). Other new approaches are the Sustainable Investment Facilitation Agreements (hereinafter, SIFAs), the first of which has been signed in 2023 with Angola, as well as the Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships (hereinafter, CTIPs), negotiations for which are ongoing with South Africa.

This article provides an overview of the EU’s new types of trade-related agreements, their implications, and the opportunities for businesses.

Unpacking the EU’s new forms of trade partnerships

Over the past decades, the EU has negotiated and concluded a large number of comprehensive preferential trade agreements (hereinafter, PTAs) and negotiations are still ongoing, or soon to be launched, with further trading partners. Additionally, the EU has been pursuing different types of sectoral agreements and partnerships. In January 2025, the European Commission (hereinafter, Commission) published the Competitiveness Compass for the EU, which also addresses trade policy and the EU’s new forms of engagement. The Competitiveness Compass states that EU trade policy would “continue adapting its offer and seeking new ways of deepening partnerships and creating benefits for our businesses”.

To achieve this objective, the Commission pursues a number of new kinds of trade and investment-related agreements, such as: 1) Sustainable Investment Facilitation Agreements (SIFAs); 2) Digital Trade Agreements (DTAs); and 3) Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships (CTIPs). Depending on the instrument, they set either legally binding commitments or a framework agreement to foster trade and/or investment relations.

The Digital Trade Agreements (DTAs) provide legally binding rules on digital trade-related matters and are being negotiated with specific countries with which the EU has already concluded a PTA, but one whose rules on digital trade are outdated and in need of alignment with current approaches. More specifically, the EU-Singapore Digital Trade Agreement, signed by the EU and Singapore on 7 May 2025, complements the 2019 EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. On 10 March 2025, the EU had concluded a similar DTA with South Korea, complementing the 2010 EU-Korea Free Trade Agreement. The DTAs complement the respective Chapters on Electronic Commerce in the EU’s FTAs with third countries, providing for additional legally binding commitments on, inter alia, cross-border data flows, privacy and personal data protection, prohibition of customs duties on electronic transmissions, and protection of source code of software (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 16 of 9 September 2024).

Sustainable Investment Facilitation Agreements (SIFAs) aim at promoting sustainable investment by EU businesses and to create a more transparent, efficient, and predictable business environment for investors in the respective partner countries. Such agreements do not contain trade commitments. The EU has, so far, concluded a SIFA with Angola, which entered into force on 1 September 2024. Discussions on potential SIFAs are under way with Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, and Nigeria. Currently, the EU does not have a PTA with Angola, nor Nigeria, but has concluded Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) with Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, and Ghana, instruments that do not cover investment facilitation or investment protection.

In the past, the EU had combined trade and investment-related matters in comprehensive trade and investment agreements. In 2017 the Court of Justice of the EU issued an Opinion regarding the competences to conclude the EU-Singapore FTA, finding that the Agreement covered shared competences between the EU and EU Member States regarding certain commitments on investment protection, and, therefore, needed to be concluded as a ‘mixed agreement’ requiring ratification by the EU and the EU Member States. Following this Opinion, the EU has pursued separate investment and investment protection agreements, but often still in conjunction with broader PTAs.

The EU-Angola SIFA pursues yet another approach, focusing solely on sustainable investment facilitation and promotion. More specifically, the objective of the SIFA is to ensure that investment flows contribute to both sustainable development and economic growth. Under the SIFA, the parties commit to promote investment in sustainable production and consumption, environmental goods and services, and climate-related initiatives. Additionally, the EU-Angola SIFA contains obligations regarding best efforts to ensure that investments contribute to the achievement of sustainable development commitments on labour standards, and climate change mitigation and adaptation, respectively.

Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships

The latest new instrument in the EU toolbox of trade-related agreements are the Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships (hereinafter, CTIPs), where the EU is still defining the approach during the first such negotiations, which are currently being conducted with South Africa. In the Political Guidelines for the European Commission 2024-2029, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, emphasised that, “in order to ensure access to what we need to build diversified and resilient supply chains, we will also develop a new range of Clean Trade and Investment Partnerships”.

In March 2025, negotiations for the first CTIP were launched with South Africa. According to the Commission, the Agreement would “focus on investment, the clean energy transition, skills and technology, and on developing strategic industries along the entire supply chain”. The agreement would complement the 2016 EU-Southern African Economic Partnership Agreement to which South Africa is party. In general terms, the CTIPs are expected to be non-binding instruments and, according to the Commission, would not contain market access commitments. Instead, the trading partners would identify “individual barriers” encountered by businesses in the partner countries and then pursue discussion aimed at the removal of the identified barriers. Therefore, with South Africa, the Commission first aims at concluding a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter, MoU) with two “core components”, namely: 1) Facilitating EU investment in specific sectors in South Africa, particularly renewable energy, electricity grids and transmission, clean fuels, and raw materials; and 2) Tackling barriers to such investments on a “case-by-case” basis. The Commission intends to start negotiations with South Africa in June 2025 and to agree upon the “core components” of the MoU by November 2025. Reportedly, the EU-South Africa CTIP would be accompanied by an investment package over EUR 4.7 billion in the context of the EU’s Global Gateway initiative.

Meaningful effects?

A March 2025 report by the National Board of Trade Sweden on ‘A New Trade Policy Landscape: Mapping trade-related agreements’ concluded that trade-related agreements could provide solutions to address specific trade issues and foster cooperation, but also raise challenges, particularly as regards transparency and their effectiveness. The report highlights that legally binding measures and agreements, such as PTAs and DTAs, tend to have statistically significant trade effects for businesses, while non-binding provisions are considered to have minimal or no effects.

The EU’s new types of trade- and investment-related agreements mark a notable evolution in the EU’s trade policy toolbox. Businesses and interested stakeholders should actively monitor the related developments and voice their interests to ensure that such agreements include provisions that contain tangible commitments, delivering actual economic benefits.

For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano

ASEAN’s renewed pursuit of regional integration: The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) Strategic Plan 2026-2030

By Alya Mahira, Caitlynn Nadya, and Paolo R. Vergano

On 26 May 2025, at the 46th ASEAN Summit, ASEAN Member States (hereinafter, AMSs) adopted the ASEAN Economic Community Strategic Plan 2026–2030 (hereinafter, AEC Strategic Plan), which outlines practical directions that ASEAN intends to adopt in order to implement the economic aspects of the ASEAN Community Vision 2045 (hereinafter, Community Vision 2045).

To realise ASEAN’s objective of becoming the world’s fourth-largest economy by 2045, the AEC Strategic Plan outlines six strategic goals, 44 objectives, and 192 strategic measures, which will be implemented by the ASEAN Economic Community (hereinafter, AEC) Council with the support of the ASEAN Sectoral Ministerial Bodies under its purview, and their subsidiary bodies.

This article highlights some of the strategic measures relevant to promoting intra-ASEAN trade in goods and examines their potential implications for the future of ASEAN’s economic integration.

ASEAN Community Vision 2045 and the new AEC Strategic Plan

The Community Vision 2045 outlines a trajectory for ASEAN’s future across the economic, political-security, and socio-cultural pillars. Itarticulates ASEAN’s bold and forward-looking ambition to create a “Resilient, Innovative, Dynamic, and People-Centred ASEAN”. The key novelty lies in the “economic/socio-cultural” section, which envisions “A green ASEAN that will be achieved through sustainable growth on land and in water, as we embrace the green economy and blue economy in the regional context, and strengthen ASEAN’s position in promoting sustainability and climate responses”. This marks a potentially significant shift in ASEAN’s approach, as it expressly links economic development with socio-cultural issues, particularly sustainability, which had traditionally been excluded from the scope of ASEAN’s economic agenda. To implement the economic aspects of the Community Vision 2045, the AEC develops strategic plans in five-year cycles, with the first one spanning from 2026 to 2030.

Strategic Goal 1 aims at realising “an integrated single market, whilst seizing opportunities from new sources of competitiveness”, which is to be pursued through, inter alia, Objective 1.1, that focuses on increasing intra-ASEAN trade in goods, and Objective 1.8, that focuses on advancing the harmonisation of standards, technical regulations, and conformity assessment procedures. In general terms, over the past 15 years, the overall share of intra-ASEAN trade has not changed significantly and it has actually decreased. In fact, the share of intra-ASEAN trade in 2023 accounted for approximately 22% of total trade, which is lower than the 25% registered in 2003. This is perhaps the single biggest indicator that the the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (hereinafter, ATIGA), which has been implemented since 2010, has fallen short of its potential.

Several strategic measures outlined in the AEC Strategic Plan, such as those under Objective 1.1 and 1.8, have the potential to improve intra-ASEAN trade. Measures under Objective 1.1 include the timely and effective implementation of the ATIGA, and its subsequent upgrade, as well as the enhancement of trade-related regulatory transparency. Relevant measures under Objective 1.8 include the strengthening and expediting of joint ASEAN approaches on standard harmonisation efforts.

Fostering intra-ASEAN trade by upgrading the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement

The ATIGA, in force since 17 May 2010, covers a wide range of issues, including commitments on tariff liberalisation, non-tariff measures, rules of origin, technical barriers to trade, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Having been concluded 15 years ago, the scope of the ATIGA lags behind more recent trade agreements concluded by both individual AMSs and between AMSs and their respective trading partners, which increasingly address “emerging” issues, such as small and medium enterprises, digital trade, and trade and sustainable development (TSD). To ensure that the ATIGA remains relevant and up to date, negotiations for its upgrade commenced in March 2022 and were concluded on 22 May 2025. Reportedly, AMSs intend to sign the upgraded ATIGA at the 47th ASEAN Summit in October 2025, paving the way for its implementation.

The text of the upgraded ATIGA has not yet been made publicly available, but it reportedly includes 17 new chapters, addressing topics such as trade and the environment, remanufactured goods, circular economy, supply chain connectivity, as well as micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). The conclusions of the negotiations and the extension of the ATIGA signal a positive development that could significantly enhance the process of ASEAN integration beyond traditional trade policies, and make the ATIGA more responsive to both regional and global developments.

However, the level of ambition embedded in the upgraded ATIGA still remains unclear. A crucial question is whether the new chapters only contain broad, aspirational commitments aimed at encouraging voluntary cooperation, or whether they establish binding, enforceable obligations. The absence of binding commitments could potentially hinder meaningful policy change in ASEAN, impeding the achievement of the intended objectives.

Enhancing transparency: ASEAN’s long-standing goal is still ‘work in progress’

Transparency is essential to ASEAN’s economic integration, yet it remains a longstanding priority that has not been adequately implemented. Ambitious commitments are already included in the ATIGA, with Article 13 regarded as the most comprehensive transparency provision in the Agreement and, arguably, in any international effort towards regional integration.

It mandates the establishment of the ASEAN Trade Repository (hereinafter, ATR), providing information on the trade-related measures, as well as the trade and Customs laws and procedures, of all AMSs, made available on a centralised website. The ATR seeks to ensure that all trade-related information of AMSs can be easily accessed online by ASEAN and third country Governments, as well as the private sector.

However, such benefits can only be achieved if the ATR contains up-to-date information. In reality, despite its strong potential to boost intra-ASEAN trade and to facilitate trade, the ATR has not been regularly populated and updated by AMSs, leaving key information missing and the platform, which was set up and operationalised with assistance by the European Union under its legally ARISE and ARISE Plus programmes between 2012 and 2023, outdated and underutilised.

It is interesting to note that this ambitious commitment is not specifically mentioned in the AEC Strategic Plan. Whether new transparency measures will be added under the upgraded ATIGA or existing ones further developed still remains unclear. As ASEAN moves forward, it appears that greater benefits would come from focusing on the effective implementation of the region’s existing initiatives. Often, ASEAN does not need new or better provisions in its legal instruments, but the political will by AMSs to actually implement what they so ambitiously commit to.  The ATR is one such example, perhaps the very best example, as the virtues of trade-related regulatory transparency in stimulating trade and regional economic integration are unique.

ASEAN’s path towards the regional harmonisation of standards

Achieving harmonised standards in ASEAN, especially through greater alignment with international standards, would ensure interoperability, facilitate trade, and enable the removal of technical barriers to trade. Harmonisation efforts are already well underway, guided by the ASEAN Guidelines on Standards, Technical Regulations and Conformity Assessment Procedures and Guideline on Harmonisation of Standards, which aim at establishing a consistent and effective framework for harmonisation across eight sectors, namely prepared foodstuffs, healthcare products, electrical and electronic equipment, automotives, rubber-based products, building and construction materials, wood-based products, and digital trade standards and conformance.

Efforts have been undertaken to align the regulatory regimes in the region, although progress remains confined to a limited number of sectors, namely cosmetics, electrical and electronic equipment, and medical devices. Further harmonisation efforts are still needed, particularly for non-industrial goods and agricultural products, which are widely traded among AMSs, to improve the ease of doing business by, inter alia, reducing costs related to multiple testing obligations and the need for the procurement of various certificates.

Harmonisation should extend beyond the current eight sectors and address emerging priorities. For instance, although the automotive sector has been identified as a key area, regulatory harmonisation has yet to be achieved. Nonetheless, several AMSs have recently begun working on common standards for electric vehicles. While the timeline and framework of cooperation remain uncertain, ASEAN should capitalise on this momentum to initiate early regulatory discussions and support future alignment in this evolving sector, as well as in other emerging priority areas.

High expectations for ASEAN?

The AEC Strategic Plan includes comprehensive objectives and measures, marking a positive step forward for ASEAN to deepen integration, especially amid escalating geopolitical tensions, shifting trade flows, and the growing trend of ‘friendshoring’ (i.e., shifting supply chains and the related manufacturing to countries that are political and economic allies, often with the objective of reducing reliance on specific regions or countries).

It will be interesting to observe what specific initiatives emerge from the AEC Strategic Plan and, in light of the “economic/socio-cultural” section, whether ASEAN will finally introduce binding commitments on trade and sustainability, bringing the region closer to current trade policy developments in other parts of the world. To ensure effective implementation of the AEC Strategic Plan and attain its new vision of regional integration, AMSs should also address the existing development disparities and regulatory divergences, as well as the rule of law and the effective operationalisation of dispute settlement procedures that can strengthen the enforcement of the ambitions commitments that are often undertaken, but rarely implemented. Failure to do so would likely prevent ASEAN from harnessing the huge potential that its process of regional economic integration and intra-ASEAN trade can deliver.

For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) declares as ‘safe’ the sweetener acesulfame K and suggests to amend its specifications, such as the purity criteria

By Amanda Carlota, Ignacio Carreño García, and Tobias Dolle

On 30 April 2025, the popular sweetener acesulfame K has been declared as ‘safe’ by the European Food Safety Authority (hereinafter, EFSA) following a re-evaluation process. Acesulfame K is commonly used as a substitute for sugar in a wide range of foods and beverage products, including desserts, ice creams, sweets, protein shakes, and carbonated beverages marketed as no- or low-calorie.

This article reviews acesulfame K’s authorisation and re-evaluation as an additive in the EU, the re-evaluation procedure of sweeteners in the EU, the EFSA’s proposed amendments to the specifications of acesulfame K, relating to, for instance, purity criteria, as well as the industry views.

Acesulfame K’s authorisation as a food additive in the EU

Acesulfame K, also known as acesulfame potassium and ace-K, is a low-calorie artificial sweetener that is authorised to be used in the EU as a food additive under the E-number E 950 to sweeten foods and beverages, and as a table-top sweetener, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on food additives. Acesulfame K is approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose (sugar), which means that much lower amounts are needed to achieve the same level of sweetness. Unlike similar sweeteners, such as aspartame, it is said to be heat stable, meaning that it is suitable for use in baked goods, as well as cold products.

There have been calls for the widely-used sweetener to be prohibited, following claims of health concerns. For instance, in 2006 a scientific report quoting the US Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) urged to do more testing on acesulfame K, as there were shortcomings in earlier scientific assessments, and as there were health concerns associated with acesulfame K, including cancer, hormone disruption, and risks to pregnant women. The situation is similar to the sweetener aspartame, where comparable health concerns have been expressed (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 6 of 24 March 2025).

The EFSA’s re-evaluation of acesulfame K

In its Re-evaluation of acesulfame K (E 950) as food additive, published on 30 April 2025, the EFSA concludes that, “based on the available data, no safety concerns arise for genotoxicity [i.e., the ability of a substance to damage the DNA in cells] of acesulfame K (E 950) and its degradation products”. The EFSA confirms that the assessment of acesulfame K involved a “comprehensive review of existing authorisations, evaluations and new scientific data”.

The EFSA set the related acceptable daily intake (ADI, i.e., an estimate of the amount of a substance in food or drinking water that can be consumed daily over a lifetime without presenting an appreciable risk to health) for all population groups at 15 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. This ADI replaces the one set by the EFSA’s predecessor, the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), in 2000 at 9 mg/kg bw per day. The revised ADI is based on the “no observed adverse effect level” (i.e., NOAEL, the greatest concentration or amount of a substance at which no detectable adverse effects occur in an exposed population) of 1,500 mg/kg bw per day (3% acesulfame K in the diet), which was the highest dose tested.

It has also been confirmed that even the highest estimate of consumer exposure to acesulfame K is generally below the ADI in all population groups, thereby indicating no safety concerns. The EFSA’s re-evaluation is in line with reviews conducted by regulatory authorities across the world, including the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).

The EU’s programme of reviewing sweeteners

As for all food additives, new sweeteners must undergo a safety evaluation prior to market authorisation in the EU. The EFSA’s re-assessment of acesulfame K is part of a larger programme established in 2010 under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 setting up a programme for the re-evaluation of approved food additives in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives to re-evaluate the safety of food additives that were approved in the EU before 20 January 2009.

In 2013, the EFSA had re-evaluated the safety of aspartame and concluded that aspartame and its breakdown products were safe for the general population, at current levels of exposure. After the now completed re-evaluation of acesulfame K, the EFSA will still re-evaluate the safety of the salt of aspartame-acesulfame, a sweetener that is a mixture of aspartame and acesulfame K. The EFSA indicated that, as part of the re-evaluation, it would also update its dietary exposure assessment of aspartame. The EFSA aims at publishing its opinion within this year.

With respect to the re-evaluation programme, Recital 3 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 states that “the re-evaluation of food colours has already been started with priority, since these food additives have the oldest evaluations by the SCF”. Recital 4 states that, “taking into account that sweeteners have the most recent evaluations they should be re-evaluated the last”. The order of priorities for the re-evaluation of the currently approved food additives is set on the basis of the following criteria: 1) The time since the last evaluation of a food additive by the SCF or by EFSA; 2) The availability of new scientific evidence; and 3) The extent of use of a food additive in food and the human exposure to the food additive.

Article 3(1)(c) of Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 states that the re-evaluation of approved food sweeteners had to be completed by 31 December 2020, showing that there is already a delay. A total of 21 sweeteners are currently authorised for use in the EU, including steviol glycosides from Stevia (E 960a, first evaluated in 2010); aspartame (E 951, re-evaluated in 2013); glucosylated steviol glycosides (E 960d, evaluated in 2022); and saccharins (E 954, re-evaluated in 2024). The re-evaluation is ongoing for: sorbitols (E 420), mannitol (E 421), cyclamates (E 952), isomalt (E 953), sucralose (E 955), neotame (E 961), maltitols (E 965), lactitols (E 966); and xylitol (E 967).

The EFSA’s proposed amendments to the specifications of acesulfame k

As part of its re-evaluation of acesulfame K, the EFSA recommended the European Commission to consider the revision of the specifications of acesulfame K, which have been defined in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 laying down specifications for food additives listed in Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Specifications relate to origin, purity criteria and any other necessary information for producers. The EFSA recommended the following changes in the EU specifications: 1) Inserting a maximum limit of 0.1 mg/kg for 5-chloro-acesulfame or, alternatively, request appropriate genotoxicity data for 5-chloro-acesulfame; 2) Inserting a maximum limit of 1 mg/kg for acetylacetamide; 3) Lowering the limit of lead and mercury; and 4) Including the CAS number 55589-62-3.

Industry welcomes the re-evaluation of acesulfame K

In a statement, the International Sweeteners Association (ISA) has said that “Conclusions about the safety of acesulfame K support a history of safe use for decades. The EFSA re-evaluation adds up to reviews and approval processes conducted by regulatory authorities around the world, including the JECFA, Health Canada and the Food Standards Australia and New Zealand – which all confirmed that acesulfame K is safe”.

Next steps

It is now for the European Commission to consider the revision of the specifications of acesulfame K. Interested stakeholders should also monitor the developments in relation to aspartame and the salt of aspartame-acesulfame. If new scientific evidence were to emerge, confirming that aspartame does indeed pose health risk, then the European Commission would be required to take the necessary measures pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, including the removal of aspartame and the salt of aspartame-acesulfame from the list of food additives pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.

For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Ignacio Carreño Garcia

Recently adopted EU legislation

Trade Law

Trade Remedies

Customs Law

Food Law

Amanda Carlota, Ignacio Carreño García, Tobias Dolle, Alya Mahira, Caitlynn Nadya, 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.