Evaluation of the Commission’s Market Access Database

Debriefing - Market Access Advisory Committee

Brussels, 17 November 2011

Personal data in this document have been redacted according to the General Data Protection Regulation 2016/679 and the European Commission Internal Data Protection Regulation 2018/1725

About the evaluation

• External evaluation of the Commission’s Market Access Database (MADB): follow-up upon an earlier evaluation from 2006

• Done by GHK in collaboration with Copernicus• Purpose

– assessing the effectiveness of achieving MADB’s main goals– assessing the efficiency of operations– providing recommendations for future orientations and eventual

improvements of the service (content, user-friendliness, broader reach)

• Mostly primary research– Web design and usability assessment– Online survey (202 users)– Interviews (users, data providers, EC)– User observation– “Mystery shopping” (14 trade promotion agencies)

• Timescale: February to October 2011

Patterns of usage

• Very uneven popularity of sections– ATD is by far the most often used

section in terms of number of visits

– The TBD, the SPS database and the statistical database are less used

– The Complaint Register is barely used (<1%)

• Web traffic figures reflect different frequency of usage

– Users have already visited or “used”almost all sections

– Average visits per user: ADT: 13.5, Trade Barriers: 2.2

92

88

62

47

73

52

0 50 100

Applied Tariffs db

EGIF

Statistical db

Complaint Register

Trade Barriers db

SPS Export db

65

23

8

8

8

0 50 100

Applied Tariffs db

EGIF

Statistical db

Complaint Register

Trade Barriers db

SPS Export db

Individual sections visited during MADB sessions, 2010

Proportion of respondents using individual sections

Additional user needs

• “Early warning” information

• External links for countries not yet covered

• Removing restrictions on the quota for queries for each IP

• More links for contact points

• More information on investment barriers and financial regulations/requirements in order to help exporters

Reliability of the information

• ATD and EGIF information is very reliable– Stakeholders see them as the most reliable tools available on the

internet

• Data in the TBD and the SPS is often outdated and not detailed enough

• Verification exercise confirms reliability– Results for 30 data clusters (10 countries, 3 sectors: textiles,

chemicals, wine). 242 pieces of information

– 22 possible discrepancies (9%): mostly due to time lags in updating information, or more accurate explanation on requirement not given

– Data in the MADB sometimes more reliable than information of third-country customs offices

Promotion and awareness (2)

• Only 251 “backlinks” found– 41% business representations– 18% public authorities– DE, ES, CZ most prominent (but usage data not correlated)

• MADB is very difficult to find via Google (through trade-related search terms). Out of the top 10 hits for 5 different questions…

– 4 MADB-related sites were found in Latvian– 3 in Dutch– 2 in Portuguese– 1 in French, Hungarian, Polish and Romanian– 0 in Finnish, German and Greek

• “Mystery shopping” revealed limited awareness/trust of information intermediaries

– Only 2 out of 14 trade promotion agencies/authorities recommended the MADB promptly

– In total, 6 recommended the MADB

Value of the service

• Experimental search to calculate time savings– 3 products in 7 countries– Time need: 153 minutes on average (MADB: 5 minutes)– Information obtained is not well structured, less reliable and up-to-

date• Time saving may add up to 20,833 working days a year, worth at

least €3.75 million• Additional value from the superior quality of the information

(millions of euro)• Total cost for MADB: about €2.35 million

– 2.8 euro per query, 14.8 euro for one average session– Less than the estimates for its value

• Quasi monopoly a possible problem, but…– unit prices remained stable– 10-20% discount is given on maximum budget– unit cost lower than for the Export Helpdesk

Key recommendations

1. Extend coverage of the TBD and SPS sections by stakeholder data2. Improve structure of the EGIF section3. Improve feedback mechanisms and timeliness of information4. Increase the frequency of updating the MADB5. Complement the content with additional information or links

6. Enhance the user-friendliness of the database7. Consider creating hybrid versions of the ATD and EGIF8. Consider renaming the database and target information

intermediaries in the Member States9. Improve the visibility of the MADB through search engine

optimisation (SEO)

10. Reinforce monitoring of user behaviour11. Reduce data verification and feedback time

Thank you for your attention

Senior consultantGHK Consulting