Multiple external influences and domestic change in the contested neighborhood: the case of food safety

Abstract

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards (SPS) are a cornerstone of the Deep and Comprehensive Free-Trade Areas (DCFTAs) negotiated between the European Union (EU) and Eastern European Neighborhood Countries (NCs) under the Eastern Partnership. These are expected to eliminate quotas as well as both tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade, thus improving the existing export opportunities for food and feed products from Ukraine, Moldova, and South Caucasus countries. However, NCs face multifaceted challenges in meeting the stringent EU regulatory and administrative requirements in the SPS area. Domestically, in light of Soviet legacies (including a food safety system which deeply differed from WTO-compliant standards), approximation with EU SPS standards requires massive reforms and involve high costs for partner countries – to be borne not only by state authorities but also private businesses. Yet reforms to comply with EU demands are also closely intertwined with regional interdependencies and Russia’s bilateral and multilateral policies. The article scrutinizes the interplay between domestic preferences, EU demands for reform and Russia’s policies. It points to a complex and multifaceted relationship between engagement into a macro-level regional framework and shifting sectoral compliance patterns. The paper highlights disjunctures between sector-specific compliance processes with EU demands, on the one hand, and macro-level relations between these countries and the EU and Russia on the other. As the article argues, this is because external actors’ policies are filtered by domestic interests, preferences, and practices. Ultimately, these shape the adoption and application of external templates.

Keywords:

• Eastern Partnership
• European Neighborhood Policy
• Russia
• deep economic integration
• food safety
• sanitary and phytosanitary standards
• Armenia
• Georgia
• Ukraine

Notes

1. These include Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, and Tunisia. Currently, Syria is not actively involved in the policy.

2. The acquis (or acquis communautaire) is the body of common rights and obligations that is binding on all the EU member states.

3. These include laws, decrees, regulations, requirements, and procedures to protect human, animal, or plant life or health from risks arising from plant pests, contaminants, toxins, or disease-causing organisms in foods, beverages, or feedstuffs, and diseases carried by animals. The EU’s standards derive from the integrated approach developed in the early 2000s, which draws together all aspects of food safety throughout the whole food chain “from farm to fork.”

4. Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs; Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin in order to guarantee a high level of food safety and public health; Regulation (EC) No. 854/2004 putting in place a Community framework of official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption.

5. Author’s interview, Head of external relations division, State Service for Food Safety, Yerevan, November 2011.

6. Governmental Decree N 711 of July 26, 2011.

7. The number of inspectors was increased to 300, of which 150 are located in Yerevan. Author’s interview, deputy director, State Service for Food Safety, Yerevan, February 2014.

8. The decision was announced on 3 September 2013, five weeks after the negotiations for a DCFTA were completed and two months before the Eastern Partnership Vilnius summit, where the EU and Armenia should have initialed the association agreement.

9. Author’s interview, Deputy Director, State Service for Food Safety, Yerevan, February 2014.

10. Author’s interview, Director, State Service for Food Safety, Yerevan, March 2015.

11. Author’s interview, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, Yerevan, March 2015.

12. The EU accounted for 26.5% of Armenia’s total trade in 2012 and 25.8 % in 2013, while Russia’s share totaled 24.8 and 24.9%, respectively (European Commission, DG TRADE 2013, 2014).

13. Author’s interview, EUSPS expert, EU High-Level Advisory Group, Yerevan, November 2011.

14. 1.13% of the total (Dogovor o prisoedinenii 2014).

15. Author’s interview, Ministry of Economy, Yerevan, March 2015.

16. Author’s interview, SPS task manager, EU Delegation, Tbilisi, November 2011.

17. Author’s interview, Deputy Director of the National Food Agency, Tbilisi, November 2011.

18. Author’s interviews, European Commission, DG Trade and DG SANCO, Brussels, October 2012.

19. Author’s interviews, Director of the National Food Agency, Tbilisi, March 2013; Trade officer, EU Delegation to Tbilisi, April 2014.

20. The Law of Ukraine on Novel Foods further specifies the criteria defining novel food: e.g. “food produced by applying a process of cultivating animals and/or plants not used in Ukraine.” (EC and HR 2013).

21. Author’s interview, Task manager in charge of SPS and Food Safety, EU Delegation to Ukraine, Kyiv, May 2012.

22. Author’s interviews, Task manager in charge of SPS and Food Safety, EU Delegation to Ukraine, Kyiv, May 2012; IFC “Ukraine Food Safety Project” May 2012; Ukrainian Agribusiness Club, Kyiv, June 2014.

23. Author’s interview, Ukrainian Agribusiness Club, Kyiv, June 2014.