Written by Ana Martinez Juan
The legal basis for the European Union (EU) relations with the Russian Federation is the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement , which came into force on 1 December 1997 and regulates the political and economic relations between the two parties. In this context, and regarding trade exchanges, Russia is the third trading partner of the EU and the EU is the first trading partner of Russia. EU exports to Russia are dominated by machinery and transport equipment, chemicals, medicines and agricultural products. Russia is the second export market for EU agricultural products, after the United States.
On 6 August 2014, the Russian government decreed a ban on certain agricultural and food products from the European Union, the United States, Canada, Australia and Norway, as a result of the implementation of economic sanctions against Russia in the context of the situation in Ukraine. On 7 August, the Russian government adopted a list of products to be banned for a period of one year . The list covers products over several sectors: fruit and vegetables, milk and dairy products and bovine, porcine and poultry meat and certain prepared meat products; fish and crustaceans are also banned.
On 22 June 2015 the Council of Foreign Affairs and International Relations extended the economic sanctions until 31 January 2016. This decision follows an agreement at the European Council in March 2015. In return, on 25 June the Russian authorities decided to prolong the ban until 6 August 2016 and to amend the list of agricultural and food products banned. In addition, on 31 July 2015 the Russian authorities decreed the destruction of banned products from the European Union, the United States, Canada, Australia and Norway found within the Russian Federation. Furthermore, on 14 August the Russian government extended the list of the countries that fall under the Russian agricultural ban, thus including Iceland, Liechtenstein, Albania and Montenegro.
Since the Russian government decreed the embargo in August 2014, the Commission, with the support of the Member States, has been monitoring its effects (market disturbances, negative impact on prices) and has introduced emergency support measures to mitigate these effects. These measures have an internal and an external dimension . Internal measures aim to stablish prices and to avoid oversupply in the EU market and consist of market measures and promotion programmes in the EU internal market. External measures aim to open alternative markets outside the EU and comprise promotion programmes in external markets, trade negotiations and reduction of trade barriers.
A year after the ban started, statistical data illustrate the impact and the evolution of the situation. Thus, the ban has affected some Member States more than others. Among those most affected are Finland , Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland.
As regards the impact on the EU exports, EU agri-food exports to Russia decreased by 43 % (from €10.2 billion to €5.8 billion) between August 2014 and June 2015, compared to the same period one year before. In spite of the Russian ban, the EU agri-food sector has compensated the losses in export sales to Russia by increasing exports to other countries (USA, Switzerland, China, Hong Kong, South Korea and Asian markets).
Concerning the cost for the EU budget and according to the data held by the Commission as of the end of May 2015, “market measures for the fruit and vegetables sector, as well as the envelopes granted to Finland and the Baltic Member States to support their milk producers is currently estimated at €178.8 million”. As regards milk and dairy products “the costs of private storage aid for butter and skimmed milk powder can only be estimated once detailed information becomes available regarding the contracted quantities and the duration of storage”. In relation to the income losses , the Commission said that “an overview of the income losses related to the Russian Embargo at Member State level is not available”.
The extension of the Russian embargo until August 2016 entails an increase of the financial expenditure not provided in the draft general budget 2016 , which was drawn up in late May 2015 and is currently in the budgetary conciliation committee . For this reason the Commission presented to the budgetary authority an amending letter to the draft general budget on 14 October 2015. In this letter, the Commission is proposing to increase expenditure for agriculture by €660.7 million compared to the draft general budget for 2016. This reinforced budget will be allocated to the support measures for the agricultural sectors banned, to the promotion programmes as well as to support sectors facing difficult market situations, in particular dairy and pigmeat.
In this financial context, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Parliament, in its opinion on the draft general budget (September 2015), regretted the cuts made to the budget for intervention in the agricultural market. The committee also called the Commission to implement all necessary measures to support the food sector hit by the embargo, in particular in the countries adjoining Russia, and to develop new markets for EU agricultural products.
This keysource gathers information about the measures introduced by the Commission, the initiatives of the Parliament as well as the discussions in the European Council. It also provides information about the effects of the embargo in the EU and statistical data on the evolution of the agricultural markets.
Measures introduced by the Commission
Fruit and vegetables
Market withdrawals for free distribution of fruit and vegetables to charitable organizations and withdrawals of products for other purposes (animal feed, composting or distillation). Compensation for the so called green harvesting and non-harvesting .
“Under the exceptional support measures implemented up to 30 June 2015, around 770,000 tonnes were withdrawn from the markets with a support of around €155 million”.
Commission extends safety net measures for fruit and vegetables sector . Press release, 7 August 2015.
→Legal act: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1369 of 7 August 2015 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1031/2014 laying down further temporary exceptional support measures for producers of certain fruit and vegetables
Market support for perishable fruit & vegetable to continue in 2015 . Press release, 12 December 2014.
→Legal act: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1371/2014 of 19 December 2014 amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1031/2014 laying down further temporary exceptional support measures for producers of certain fruit and vegetables.
Further €165 million package for perishable fruit & vegetable market support. Press release: IP/14/1061 , 29 September 2014.
→Legal act: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1031/2014 of 29 September 2014 laying down further temporary exceptional support measures for producers of certain fruit and vegetables.
Commission suspends emergency measures for perishable fruit and vegetables and will come forward with a more targeted scheme. Press release: IP/14/996 , 10 September 2014.
Exceptional support measures for EU producers of perishable fruit & vegetables. Press release: IP/14/932 , 18 August 2014.
→Legal act: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 932/2014 of 29 August 2014 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for producers of certain fruit and vegetables and amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014.
Exceptional measures to assist peach and nectarine producers. Press release: IP/14/920 , 11 August 2014.
→Legal act: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 of 21 August 2014 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for producers of peaches and nectarines.
Milk and milk products
“To date (30 July 2015), some 108,652 tonnes of butter and 40,045 tonnes of skimmed milk powder have been offered to private storage since the start of the scheme in September 2014. 1,176 tonnes of skimmed milk powder have been offered to intervention”.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/1549 of 17 September 2015 laying down temporary exceptional measures for the milk and milk product sector in the form of extending the public intervention period for butter and skimmed milk powder in 2015 and advancing the public intervention period for butter and skimmed milk powder in 2016.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1548 of 17 September 2015 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) No 947/2014 and (EU) No 948/2014 as regards the last day for submission of applications for private storage aid for butter and skimmed milk powder.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/303 of 25 February 2015 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) No 947/2014 and (EU) No 948/2014 as regards the last day for submission of applications for private storage aid for butter and skimmed milk powder.
10.7 € million for Finland’s milk producers . Press release, 19 December 2014.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1370/2014 of 19 December 2014 providing for temporary exceptional aid to milk producers in Finland.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1337/2014 of 16 December 2014 amending Implementing Regulations (EU) No 947/2014 and (EU) No 948/2014 as regards the last day for submission of applications for private storage aid for butter and skimmed milk powder.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1336/2014 of 16 December 2014 laying down temporary exceptional measures for the milk and milk product sector in the form of advancing the public intervention period for butter and skimmed milk powder in 2015
€28 million package for Baltic Milk Producers. Press release: IP/14/1960 , 19 November 2014.
→Legal act: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1263/2014 of 26 November 2014 providing for temporary exceptional aid to milk producers in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Private Storage Aid for cheese closed. Press release: IP/14/1036 , 23 September 2014.
→Legal act: Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 992/2014 of 22 September 2014 repealing Delegated Regulation (EU) No 950/2014.
Emergency market support measures for the milk sector. Press release: IP/14/954 , 28 August 2014.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 950/2014 of 4 September 2014 opening a temporary exceptional private storage aid scheme for certain cheeses and fixing in advance the amount of aid.
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 949/2014 of 4 September 2014 laying down temporary exceptional measures for the milk and milk product sector in the form of extending the public intervention period for butter and skimmed milk powder in 2014.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 948/2014 of 4 September 2014 opening private storage for skimmed milk powder and fixing in advance the amount of aid.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 947/2014 of 4 September 2014 opening private storage for butter and fixing in advance the amount of aid.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/360 of 5 March 2015 opening private storage for pigmeat and fixing in advance the amount of aid.
On 30 September 2014 the Commission announced the additional EU funding (€30 million for promotion programmes starting in 2015 in addition to the annual budget €60 million) as medium-term response to Russian embargo.
On 21 April 2015, the Commission approved 41 programmes for agricultural products from which 17 of these programmes target the internal EU market and 24 target third countries. These programmes worth €130 million over 3 years, €65m of which comes from the EU budget.
On 12 November 2015, the Commission approved 33 programmes , 20 target the internal market and 13 target third countries and regions. These programmes are worth €108 million over 3 years, €54 million of which comes from the EU budget.
The Commission has also intensified bilateral and regional trade negotiations in order to create new market opportunities and has also implemented actions to reduce market barriers in particular sanitary and phytosanitary measures .
Russian import embargo: EU agri-food export development until June2015 . European Commission, Directorate General for the Agriculture and Rural Development. September 2015. 2 p.
Compared to the equivalent period one year before, EU agri-food exports to Russia decreased between August 2014 and June 2015 from € 10.2 billion to € 5.8 billion (€ -4.4 billion; -43 %). This was the result of an almost complete disappearance of exports within the banned product categories and a slight decrease for products not subject to the ban.
The impact of current EU-Russia relations on the agri-food sector . European Economic and Social Committee, Group III “Various Interests” Seminar. 7 July 2015.
At this seminar topics were discussed such as the following: the impact of the current EU-Russia relations on the agri-food sector, the EU and Russia: challenges and possibilities, the agritrade challenges for Finnish Farmers, agricultural trade today and the EU position in the current market situation, the impact of difficulties in EU-Russia trade relations on the Finnish foodstuffs sector and Baltic dairy situation after Russian embargo.
Information note on the Russian ban on agri-food products from the EU . European Commission, Directorate General for the Agriculture and Rural Development. 3 September 2014. 19 p.
This information note provides information on the Russian ban in perspective, the EU market disturbances and the EU market measures, the impact of those measures by sectors, other EU instruments (trade policy measures, promotion of agricultural products etc.) and possible compensation measures for farmers affected by the ban (EU and national instruments). The note also provides statistical data (charts and tables).
Questions & Answers on the potential impact of the Russian measures against EU agricultural products and the EU response so far . MEMO 14/517 (03-09-2014). Additional questions and answers have been added on 22 September.
Expected and unexpected effects of the Russian food import ban . Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, symposium August 2015. 3 p.
According to speakers at a IAMO symposium Russia imposed an embargo on food imports from countries that participate in sanctions against it. Import substitution from domestic producers and other countries will lessen the impact on Russian consumers. As the Russian government struggles to revitalise the agrarian economy in view of economic downturn and budgetary constraints, quick import substitution of livestock products appears unlikely. Contrary to expectations of positive effects for member countries of the Eurasian Customs Union, neighbouring Kazakhstan mostly felt the downside of the Russian turbulences.
Trade diversion and high food prices: the impact of the Russian pig meat import ban / Ivan Djuric, Linde Götz and Thomas Glauben. Selected Paper prepared for presentation at the 2015 Agricultural & Applied Economics Association and Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, 26-28 July 2015. 16 p.
In this paper the authors analyze the impact of the Russian ban on import of pig meat originating in the EU on the domestic pig meat price developments in Russia. They use a regime-switching price transmission model in order to identify possible changes in the long-run equilibrium between the pig meat prices of Russia and its main non-EU trading partners. Our results indicate the reduction of transaction costs in pig meat trade between Russia and its main non-EU trading partners, followed by the increase in transmission of price changes in the long-run.
The EU and the Member States
A perfect storm for EU dairy prices . United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 14 August 2015. 7 p.
Report Highlights. Milk production margins in the European Union (EU) have turned negative in recent months as EU farmers continued to increase production following the end of the EU dairy quota system on April 1, 2015, while ignoring decreasing world dairy demand. The extension of the 2014 Russian embargo on agricultural imports has added additional downward pressure on dairy markets. This has led farmers in France to start protests, blocking roads, but also retail distribution centers and supermarkets. Belgian and U.K. farmers soon joined these protests that will culminate in Brussels during the September 7 special Agricultural Council meeting. Long-term outlook for global dairy demand remains promising, even if the current sluggish dairy market situation may not disappear overnight.
EU 28: EU Meat production hits boundaries . United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 9 September 2015.
Report Highlights. In 2016, cattle herd levels are expected to grow marginally for the EU as a whole, but there will be a great deal of fluctuation within several EU Member States due to the abolishment of the EU milk quota this year. The EU is forecast to export a record volume of pork in 2015. The current negative market conditions are anticipated to result in a smaller sow herd, and as a consequence reduced pork production and exports in 2016. Policy highlights include the new Common Agricultural Policy, an update on the EU High Quality Beef quota, the Russian ban on EU pork and political sanctions, and the Emergency Farm Council Meeting.
EU-28: Dairy and products semi-annual . United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 14 May 2015.
Report Highlights. On March 31, 2015, European milk quota system was terminated. In expectation of price volatility the European Commission introduced in September 2014 and extended till September 2015 a temporary Private Storage Aid program for butter and Non Fat Dried Milk. Although the Russian ban on imports of dairy products affected EU exports in 2014, the actual effect was smaller than originally expected.
The Russian Embargo: impact on the economic and employment situation in the EU / Susanne Kraatz. European Parliament, Policy Department A Economy and Scientific Policy, November 2014. 10 p.
This document provides an overview of the EU sanctions and Russia’s retaliatory measures. It analyzes the impact on economy and employment, compensation measures taken by the European Commission as well as initiatives by the European Parliament.
The Baltic Member States
Baltic macro outlook – Q1 15 / Danske Bank Markets. March 2015.
Effect of Russian food sanctions Lithuania (page 21) and Effect of Russian food sanctions Latvia and Estonia (page 22).
The impact of difficulties in EU-Russia trade relations on the Finnish foodstuffs sector / Presentation by Jyrki Niemi and Perttu Pyykkönen. Conference The impact of current EU-Russia relations on the agri-food sector, Helsinki 7 July 2015.
Over the years, the producer price of milk in Finland has been among the highest in the EU. However, market losses due to the Russian embargo have had direct effect on producer price and current producer price is 15% less than year before. As a result of this, farm income, i.e. the compensation for own labour and invested capital, is expected to decrease by 35-40% in an average-size dairy cattle
Le solde commercial français est encore peu affecté par l’embargo russe / Direction générale des douanes et droits indirects. Mars 2015. 2 p.
En 2014, l’embargo russe sur les produits agroalimentaires originaires de l’Union européenne et d’autres pays avancés a peu affecté le solde agroalimentaire de la France. En 2013, la France avait écoulé en Russie 220 millions d’euros de produits sous embargo, soit seulement 3% de ses ventes à la Russie. Certains pays européens ayant été plus touchés que la France, les effets indirects liés à l’écoulement sur le marché français de leurs produits soumis à embargo sont potentiellement plus importants mais encore peu visibles. Certaines filières sont cependant particulièrement affectées
Russia Tightens Restrictions on Polish Exports of Food Products . United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 3 September 2015. 3 p.
Report Highlights: On February 20, 2015, Russian food safety authorities temporarily banned imports of cheese products and cheese-like products from Poland justifying their decision by protection of consumers. According to the announcement the results of tests of one of the products indicated a discrepancy with technical requirements of the regulations of the Custom Union regarding labeling of milk and dairy products.
Russian ban on Polish apples sweetened by U.S. imports of juice . United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 1 June 2015. 2 p.
Report Highlights: Polish exports of apple juice to the United States in the last two months of 2014 and first two months of 2015 reached a record level of 21,020MT or US$ 23.3 million. Despite the Russian ban on imports of agricultural products, Polish farmers were able to utilize the entire 2014 crop of apples. The opening of new export markets, increase of domestic demand, partial withdrawal of apples from the Polish market subsidized by the European Union and increase of sales of the apple juice to the United States are listed as major factors which helped Polish farmers to overcome the apple crisis caused by the Russian embargo
Efectos del veto ruso en las exportaciones españolas / Juan José Otamendi García-Jalón. Boletín Económico del ICE, Mayo 2015. 20 p.
This paper examines the sectors affected by the Russian ban and exports of these sectors after the veto. According to the data, many of the sectors have find other markets for their products, while the rest experienced greater fall than would be explained by the Russian veto, which leads us to believe that behind the fall of its exports are other reasons.
La prórroga del veto ruso pone contra las cuerdas a 45.000 explotaciones frutícolas españolas . Coordinadora de Organizaciones de Agricultores y Ganaderos. Press release, 25 Junio 2015.
Visegrad Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia)
Internal Market and the EU-Russia Sanctions: examination of practice in Visegrád countries one year on / Kryštof Kruliš with research contribution of Peter Plenta, Liwiusz Wojciechowski and Norbert Szijártó. Association for International Affairs, August 2015. 23 p.
The analysis of the impact of the Russian food ban on the Visegrad Group countries must distinguish between the direct impact and the indirect impact. Poland was, after Lithuania, the second Western country most directly hurt by the Russian food ban. The direct impact on Hungarian exports of agricultural products is somewhere between the heavy damage to Poland and the almost negligible direct impact in the case of the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. The food ban resulted in the collapse of apple prices in Poland and also damaged other sectors such as mushrooms or tomatoes. Poland was also the only V4 country seriously affected in cheese exports. In the case of Hungary, the pork and poultry sectors were hit especially hard.
Russia’s economic crisis and its agricultural and food economy / William M. Liefert and Olga Liefert. The magazine of food, farm, and resource issues. 1st Quarter 2015 – 30(1). 6 p.
By the beginning of 2015, the Russian economy was facing both high inflation and a deep recession. These developments will create major challenges for the agricultural and food economy in the short to medium term, covering production, distribution, and consumption. Not all of the recent events will have negative consequences. For example, the depreciation of the ruble will make Russian agricultural exports -such as grain- more price-competitive on the world market. However, like most of the economy, the agricultural sector on balance will most likely be adversely affected by these affairs.
Food Service Sector snapshot in Russian Far East . United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 8 May 2015. 5 p.
Report Highlights: In 2014, the food service sector in the Russian Far East faced a number of serious challenges including a food import, implementation of a nationwide smoking ban in restaurants and bars and a depreciating ruble, currency fluctuations, and dropping consumer purchasing power. Nevertheless, the restaurant sector in the region has adapted by offering more middle and lower-end establishments and sourcing more ingredients from domestic suppliers.
Russian retailers modify strategies as economy slows . United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 2 March 2015. 4 p.
Report Highlights: Towards the end of 2014, the Russian economy entered a very difficult period as it was hit hard by record-low oil prices, dropping consumer purchasing power, a food import ban which pushed up inflation, and ruble devaluation. As a result, Russian retailers have begun implementing new business strategies which optimize expenses and improve staff productivity. Although the government is still only considering new price control measures, local officials in the regions have held meetings with retailers and encouraged them to (a) set minimal mark-ups for socially important products, (b) sell more locally-produced food products, and (c) freeze prices for private label products.
Food Import Ban Changing Russian Far East Food Market . United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service, 28 January 2015. 3 p.
Report Highlights: The food import ban has changed the food market in the Russian Far East. Domestic manufacturers and suppliers have taken over vast shelve space in retail stores all over the region which previously were occupied by imported products. Unfortunately, this redistribution was accompanied by sharp jumps in prices for many food products which are causing great concern to the general public. The trend of rising food prices has primarily affected meat products since there is virtually no pork production in the Russian Far East which makes it heavily dependent on imported meat.
EU Institutions – Commissioner
Opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the draft general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2016 . (07-09-2015). Procedure: 2015/2132(BUD) .
In this opinion the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development regrets the cuts made to the budget for intervention in the agricultural markets, calls on the Commission to implement all necessary measures to support Union farmers, in all agricultural fields, and the food sector hit by the embargo, in particular in the countries adjoining Russia and underscores the importance of developing new markets for maintaining competitiveness and increasing the resistance of European agriculture to market crises.
European Parliament resolution of 7 July 2015 on prospects for the EU dairy sector – review of the implementation of the Dairy Package . Procedure: 2014/2146(INI) . See the section “Impact of the Russian embargo and the current crisis in the dairy sector”.
MEPs have submitted several written question to the Commission on this topic. We have selected the most recent ones.
Inclusion of stone fruit in the exceptional support measures following the Russian ban (29-05-2015). Answer (12-08-2015).
Russian embargo on agricultural products from EU countries (17-07-2015). Answer (04-09-2015).
Measures to alleviate the effects of the Russian embargo (07-07-2015). Answer (03-09-2015).
Measures to protect the fruit and vegetable sector from the Russian embargo (03-07-2015). Answer (21-08-2015).
Third round of compensation to fruit and vegetable producers affected by the Russian embargo (13-04-2015). Answer (18-06-2015).
Russian ban on import of food products from the EU and bilateral negotiations with some EU Member States (04-02-2015). Answer (09-03-2015).
Council of the EU
The Council of the European Union (Agriculture and Fisheries) has discussed several times the Russian embargo.
Outcome of the Council Meeting . 07-09-2015.
Outcome of the Council Meeting . 13-07-2015.
Outcome of the Council Meeting . 16-03-2015.
Outcome of the Council Meeting . 26-01-2015.
Commissioner Phil Hogan has mentioned the Russian ban in several of his speeches. The first one in his hearing (02-10-2014) in the Parliament.
Speech at the French Senate . 08-10-2015.
Strategic agenda / Civil Dialogue Group on International Aspects of Agriculture. May 2015. 5 p. This civil dialogue group has incorporate the Russian ban to its strategic agenda.
Copa and Cogeca welcome as positive step some new extra measures agreed by EU Farm Ministers today but still not sufficient to solve bad situation hitting EU agricultural markets mainly as result of Russian export ban and unfair actions by retailers . 15-09-2015. 2 p.
Economic Bulletin – Q1 2015 Highlights / FoodDrink Europe. August 2015. 10 p. See the section: “External trade: good performance despite Russian ban”
Russian food ban . Dossier. Euractiv.
Export data by Member State – July 2015 . European Commission, Directorate General for the Agriculture and Rural Development. September 2015. 2 p.
Monthly evolution of agri-food exports to third countries . European Commission, Directorate General for the Agriculture and Rural Development. August 2015. 1 p.
EU agri-food exports: August 2014 – June 2015 . European Commission, Directorate General for the Agriculture and Rural Development. August 2015. 1 p.
Short-Term Outlook for EU arable crops, dairy and meat markets in 2015 and 2016 . European Commission, Directorate General for the Agriculture and Rural Development. July 2015.
Green harvesting . Totally harvesting non-marketable (but not damaged) products on a given cultivated area, before the normal harvest.
Market withdrawals. This means withdrawing products from the market (not putting them up for sale).
Non-harvesting . Not taking any commercial production from the cultivated area during the normal production cycle. Does not include destruction of products due to climatic event or disease.
Private storage aid . Some products have a seasonal cycle, meaning that in certain periods there is a relative over-production, while later in the year there is a relative shortage. Certain external factors may increase the seasonal peak beyond normal expectations, thus potentially causing the market price to fall. In such cases it may be decided to temporarily support producers of products, such as olive oil and butter, regarding the cost of private storage.
Promotion policy . This is the promotion food and beverages produced by farmers in the European Union. Products are promoted both within the European Union itself and in third countries. To this end the European Union, its member states and the professional organisations co-finance and jointly organise promotion actions, information campaigns and trade missions. Such actions raise the publicʼs awareness of the quality of the European Union products.
Public intervention. One of the market management instruments under the single common market organisation and which functions as a safety net is public intervention. When the market price of a product reaches the reference threshold, the European Union may decide to buy a quantity of the product from the market and place it temporarily in storage. Later, when prices are recovering, the product may be sold in the internal market, sold in special destinations or exported.
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures and agreement (SPS).These are measures to protect human, animal and plant life or health and to ensure that food is safe to eat. The final act of the WTO agreement on agriculture contains the agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. It applies to all sanitary and phytosanitary measures that may have a direct or indirect impact on international trade.
Information source: Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development of the European Commission.