What will the impact of the Russian retaliatory sanctions be?

Russia earlier unveiled the key plank of its retaliation against the ‘stage three’ EU sanctions confirmed last week. It has said that it will now ban all imports of fruit, veg, meat (including fish) and dairy products from the EU (as well as the US, Australia, Canada and Norway).

How will this impact Europe?

This helpful factsheet gives an idea of the overall level of EU agricultural exports to Russia. As the box above shows, agricultural exports are about 7% of total EU exports. Of this, 10% goes to Russia. This means that agricultural exports account for around 0.7% of overall EU exports – it’s important to remember that this figure includes much more than the specific parts targeted in the sanctions.

In terms of specific countries, the chart below highlights that the Baltic countries (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) will be hardest hit – in terms of the trade as a share of GDP. In absolute terms, Poland, the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark will also face losses.

How will this impact Russia?
Well, as has already been pointed out, the likely fallout will be higher prices for Russian consumers (driving up inflation more broadly) and reduced consumer choice. As we pointed out previously, Russia does import some agricultural products but only to the tune of around 1.2% GDP per year. This is dwarfed by some of its other imports.

That said, it still accounts for some 13.3% of overall imports. This is a sizeable chunk of imports to replace, but Russia has a few options:

• Expand domestic production. Not impossible given the natural resources and land at Russia’s disposal as well as the state’s resources (although these could take a hit from the escalating sanctions). In terms of security this has long been on Russia’s list of things to move towards.
• Expand production with Eurasian partners. As part of its ongoing response to the crisis Russia is deepening links with surrounding states and specifically members of the fledgling Eurasian Union. Some of these states will have significant agricultural sectors, although they will unlikely be quickly able to help supply a country the size of Russia.
• Look farther afield. Rumours of Russia trying to strike agricultural deals with Latin America abound, while (as is always the case these days) Russia will likely look to China for support. This would obviously undermine any attempt to increase food security, however, would help limit the economic impact.

Does this set the scene for a broader trade war?
Hopefully, not yet. The sanctions on both sides remain quite targeted and specific. That said, it’s hard to see how either side could easily change position. That is feeding into a broader feeling of unease when it comes to the private sectors of both sides doing business together. This indirect or de facto halting of trade is likely to be the largest negative effect from this escalation.

EU approval process for GM requires better balance between innovation and democratic accountability

Yesterday saw a debate between the EU's Europe ministers regarding the approval of Pioneer 1507 - a strain of genetically modified maize which has been developed by US firm DuPont to be pest-resistant. This is a fascinating case which sees the clash between EU legal procedures and scientific evidence on one hand, and public opinion and green lobbying on the other.

Unbelievably, DuPont first applied for EU approval back in 2001, but due to the political resistance to GM in the EU, this application was deliberately kicked into the long grass despite six separate positive opinions from the EU's food quango, the European Food Safety Agency. The wider context is a climate of political hostility which has resulted in Europe falling far behind the rest of the world when it comes to biotechnology - aside from Pioneer 1507 only one other GM crop has been approved in the past 15 years. The result is that biotech companies such as BASF and Monsanto have already left the EU and others could follow suit, with the loss of jobs, investment and trading opportunities.

Following a legal challenge by DuPont, the EU's General Court ruled that the EU was breaching its own rules by not taking a decision. Opinion among member states was divided, with five states including the UK minded to vote in favour, four including Germany minded to abstain and the remaining 19 minded to vote against (a formal vote was not actually held). Despite the large number of member states opposing the approval, no qualified majority was reached either way.

Under the EU's comitology process, when the result is indecisive, the Commission can chose to push ahead with its original proposal, and its looks set to do so (in fact during the debate the Council's legal service indicated it would be legally obliged to).

This is undoubtedly a problematic situation. On one hand, it is good that the Commission is heeding the independent scientific recommendation issued by EFSA. As EU Health Commissioner Tonio Borg argued during the debate, member states should not pick and chose when to follow such advice and when to disregard it. On the other hand it is bad from a democratic perspective when the Commission forces through something opposed by a majority of member states and public opinion - the EU was rightly slammed for proposing to ban jugs of olive oil from restaurant tables following a similarly inconclusive vote.

The case therefore illustrates the need for more flexibility in the EU on issues where member states cannot agree and where public sensitivities need to be taken into account. As UK Europe Minister David Lidington argued during the debate:

"I've no wish to force any country that doesn't want to cultivate this variety of maize to do so... in the longer term the answer surely has to be some agreement under which we agree that those member states that want to have GM crops in cultivation are free to do it while those maintain a ban are free to do so as well."

Greater flexibility for member states to ‘go it alone’ in designing appropriate regulatory frameworks for GM was also one of the recommended in the recent Fresh Start report on the EU's impact on UK Life Sciences. This would be a good compromise - that way it would be down to national governments and parliaments to decide whether to allow cultivation of GM crops - and it would be down to national politicians in favour of this to show the requisite leadership to win over public opinion.