Car producers, pharmaceutical labs and powerful service operators were quick to praise the commercial deal recently signed by the European Union (EU) and Canada, because it should favour their commercial interests. The mood is not quite the same amongst farmers, torn between favoured dairy producers and beef and pork producers feeling sacrificed on the altar of free trade. Here is what the CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) would change on the day of its enforcement.

• A. Increased trade for Canadian meat and European cheese
• B. Will hormone beef or GM food be allowed in Europe?
• C. Will European geographical indications be sacrificed?

A. Increased trade for Canadian meat and European cheese

What the CETA will change

Most of CETA developments in the agriculture area will come from the extension of the import quotas, which define how many tons of each product are allowed to enter tariff-free each year.

Canadian producers will see their quotas progressively increased for several strategic products:

• Beef : a quota of 60.788 tons will be granted (as against 7.640 today)

• Pork: 75.000 tons (against 12.500)

• Wheat: 100.000 tons (against 38.853)

• Sweet corn: 8.000 tons (against 1.333)

In compensation, Europe obtained an increase in its tariff-free cheese quotas of exports to Canada from 2.950 to 18.500 tons a year.

Is it dangerous?

French producers fear that the competition triggered by the increase of quotas may harm them. To reassure them, the French authorities argue that these quotas only account for a small share of European production (0,6% of the beef production, 0,4% of pork), and that they will only be raised gradually over a 7-year period of transition.

« But what Canadians export are most high-value chunks », claims the French beef union Interbev. The Canadian quota will therefore account for 16.2% of the 400.000 tons of equivalent meat produced each year in Europe!

In the event of a sudden « imbalance in the market of an agricultural product », the EU will be able to activate a safeguard clause¹, meaning the Canadian quotas may be temporarily decreased.

What Wallonia obtained in its last minute discussion with Brussels is not the creation of this clause (which already existed), but the possibility for a Belgian region or the Belgian government to request the EU for its activation in the event of an imbalance on its domestic market.

The only « advantage » that Canada has kept over its European counterpart is a specific safeguard clause on a limited number of products (like poultry and eggs) for which no tariff preferences have been negotiated². Since the tariffs for these products are over 200% (and have not changed under CETA), such a clause would have probaly been useless on European side.

B. Will hormone beef or genetically modified food be allowed in Europe?

The claim

The increase of Canadian beef and pork quotas raised fears that hormone-fed meat and genetically-modified (GM) food, widespread in Canada, may be allowed to enter the European market.

It’s false

Europe did not accept the importation of hormone beef, chlorinated chicken, ractopamine pork or new GMOs. « All the Canadian imports will still have to comply with the European standards », stated a spokesperson for the European commission.

The Canadian beef producers will therefore have to build a hormone-free production line in order to export their meat to Europe.

Nevertheless, Interbev notes that the Europeans will have « no guarantee on the use of antibiotics and GMs in the rations » – widespread in North America, but very controled in Europe.

Finally, the CETA will certainly create new forums for European and Canadian officials to discuss the harmonisation or equivalence of future norms, but this will always be on a voluntary basis. Therefore, any modification of the hormone, ractopamine or GM rules will ultimately have to be approved by the European authorities.

C. Will European geographical indications be sacrificed?

The claim

Some politicians, like José Bové (French ecologist MEP) or Jean-François Copé (French right-wing MP), claim that the CETA has traded away the European geographical indications on food and will allow the Canadians to use them as they please.

It’s false

The aim of the CETA is, on the contrary, to improve the protection of European geographical indications, which is barely unprotected in Canada right now. The European GIs are not recognised in Canada (except for the wine, for which there is a bilateral agreement since 2003), therefore Canadian producers are only subject to the basic WTO rules, which offer a very low level of protection against counterfeiting GIs. For example, the Italian Parma ham can’t be exported to Canada under its original name right now, because a Canadian company has copyrighted the « Parma Ham » trademark to sell Canadian ham.

Under the CETA, Canada will now recognise 145 indications covering 173 different products, from cheese (parmesan, roquefort, feta) to fruits (pruneaux d’Agen), seafood (huîtres de Marennes-Oléron) or sweets (Nürnberger Lebkuchen).

That means local producers in Canada will no longer be allowed to use these counterfeited names (some exceptions will remain for certain products e.g. Canadian « feta-style » products will still be allowed and Canards à foie gras du Sud-Ouest will coexist with its Canadian counterpart).

The 145 protected indications only account for a small share of the 1 500 existing European GIs, as many critics pointed out. But the European Commission claims that this is a satisfactory negotiation result (Canada didn’t protect any GI), and that those 145 indications are the GIs most commonly counterfeited in Canada.

It should be noted that, contrary to what some say, the rules for the importat of goods in Europe will not change : no Canadian cheese counterfeiting the European GIs will be authorised on the European market.

--

¹ The safeguards clause, mentionned in CETA’s article 3.4, refers to the GATT’s article XIX and to the Safeguards Agreement.

² This clause is mentioned in CETA’s article 2.7 (3).