The EU needs to understand that trade barriers limit growth and economic recovery — as well as harming its own companies and consumers.

The new barriers, listed by the independent Global Trade Alert, include an “antidumping” duty on iron or steel fittings exported from Taiwan (whatever the country of origin). These self-harming responses to the recession are in addition to the long-standing massive Common Agricultural Policy which subsidizes inefficiency and blocks cheaper imports.

On Dec. 22, The EU prolonged tariffs of up to 16.5 percent on Vietnamese and Chinese leather shoes, started in 2006 and due to expire in 2008: this is a good example of the EU's attitude.

Some European shoe producers and trade associations claim that without the tariffs they are vulnerable to cheap imports that cost jobs in Europe. The Vietnamese and Chinese producers say that the tariffs prevent competitive producers providing employment for some of the poorest people on Earth. Both sides are right.

But EU Ministers should be supporting competitive EU businesses, the life-blood of future growth. Only shoe companies that have refused to adapt to modern globalize production want these tariffs: “the EU prefers to follow its protectionist course at the expense of successful European footwear businesses and consumers,” said Manfred Junkert, Director of the Federation of the German Footwear Industry, after the December 22 ruling by EU Ministers.

For many years some of Europe's top labels have been cutting costs to remain competitive in the cut-throat fashion industry, including outsourcing to China and Vietnam. Denmark's Ecco has invested heavily in production there since 2003, and already had investments in Indonesia and Thailand in the 1990s. “The tariffs do nothing but harm consumers, retailers and Europe's modern footwear industry,” Ecco vice-president, Gerd Rahbek-Clemmensen, said after the ruling.

Globally competitive EU footwear companies such as Geox and Clarks, not to mention the big players such as Adidas and Puma, have all invested in cost-cutting production chains around the world. Footwear jobs are still plentiful across Europe precisely because of these developments. Indeed, Ecco employs 20 percent of its workforce in Europe, mainly in sales, quality-control and high-end manufacture which requires skilled — and expensive — labour. This is similar for many of its competitors. Trade barriers only stifle development of these far more valuable EU jobs.

Even with the tariffs, all-EU-made footwear industries will continue to shrink. The 2006 tariffs simply diverted footwear imports from one lower-cost production centre to another. Vietnam and China's loss has been a gain for other Asian producers: Indonesian footwear exports to the EU have jumped by 36 percent since 2006.

Recognizing futility and potential retaliation, even Peter Mandelson, who implemented these tariffs when he was EU Trade Commissioner in 2006, admitted recently that they would “not help our long-term trade interests.”

But the complicated maze of EU procedure gave lobbyists plenty of time to ply their craft. Despite a November recommendation from the Anti-Dumping Committee to repeal the tariffs, three EU countries flip-flopped, leaving a majority for extending the tariffs at the Ministerial ruling on December 22.

On issues ranging from human rights to conflict, EU leaders think they hold world's moral compass and point the way forward. But on trade policy — where the EU has a chance to help both its own economies and the rest of the world—Brussels is heading backwards.

All these trade barriers hamper trade and recovery: the EU must stop hurting the most competitive EU companies, damaging business partners and provoking retaliation. By punishing cheaper, more efficient, producers they are forcing European consumers to foot the bill for protectionism.

Alec van Gelder is a Project Director and Timothy Cox a Research Fellow at International Policy Network, an independent economic-development think-tank in London.