CETA: another stop. The French Senate did not ratify CETA

The free trade agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada, which came into force provisionally in September 2017, aims to delete duties on approximately 99% of products produced between the two signatory customs territories.

From EU side the CETA mus be rafied by:a) EU Parliament; b) the parliaments of all the member states.

In this context, French Senate deleted in a proposal of law the article which should allow the ratification of the mentioned agreement. According to the declaration, published in the official website, you find below the reason of this approach is that it is important to protect the EU farmers from other competitors (Canadians or South Americans for MERCOSUR) beacuse these ones can rely on more favorable economic outlook and schemes. In particular the text is: “…Le 21 mars 2024, en séance publique, le Sénat a supprimé (par 211 voix contre 44) l’article 1^er du projet de loi qui entendait autoriser la ratification de l’AECG/CETA, et a adopté l’article 2 qui autorise la ratification de l’accord de partenariat stratégique (APS).

Le 13 mars 2024, la commission des affaires étrangères, de la défense et des forces armées avait estimé qu’il convenait, dans un contexte de grande détresse du monde agricole, que la France envoie un signal fort à l’Union européenne en refusant de ratifier l’AECG/CETA, tout en rappelant que le Canada est – et doit rester – un partenaire et un allié de la France.

Selon la commission, les bénéfices macroéconomiques de la mise en œuvre provisoire de cet accord depuis 2017 restent limités et ne contrebalancent pas les risques qu’il fait peser sur l’agriculture française.

La commission a notamment relevé que :

les différences fondamentales entre les modèles d’élevage canadien et français, voire européen, conduisent nécessairement à un déficit de compétitivité en défaveur de nos éleveurs ;
plusieurs facteurs pourraient conduire à une augmentation du taux d’utilisation des contingents de viande canadienne (la recherche, par les éleveurs canadiens, de nouveaux marchés si ceux des États-Unis et de l’Asie devenaient moins accessibles, ou encore la levée possible, par l’UE, de l’interdiction de l’usage de l’acide peracétique pour la désinfection des carcasses) ;
l’absence de “clauses miroirs” impose aux agriculteurs européens plus de contraintes que celles appliquées aux importations canadiennes.

La commission a également regretté que le projet de loi autorisant la ratification des accords n’ait jamais été inscrit à l’ordre du jour du Sénat par le Gouvernement, en dépit de promesses répétées, et que son examen ait lieu près de 7 ans après l’entrée en vigueur provisoire d’un grand nombre de stipulations….”

However, without going deeper into the French decision, we take again the occasion to underline that the CETA represents a business opportunity for SMEs, for example, in the mechanics, crafts and agri-food sectors. Let’s see together what the advantages are for our agricultural producers and, above all, if they have not been included among those who can enjoy specific protections, we understand how to find answers to the problems.

First, it is worth remembering that:

The free trade agreement requires that the products to be exported: a) comply with rules that establish how these goods must be produced; b) they must be accompanied by a declaration on preferential origin; c) must be transported directly or accompanied by a certificate of non-manipulation or alteration.
With reference to agrifood, article 20.16 of section C of the CETA defines the “geographical indication” as the indications that identify an agricultural or food product as originating in the territory of a part, or of a region or locality of said territory, where a certain quality, reputation or other characteristics of the product are essentially attributable to its geographical origin.
Annex 20-A lists the geographical indications that identify a product originating in the European Union

This recognition is important because:

the geographical indication identifies the product as originating in the EU or Canada;
It is the prerequisite for a series of legal protections of this status;
Allows you to sanction production not in line with manufacturing rules;
Prevents the use in the designation or presentation of a product of any element which indicates or suggests that the product in question originates from a geographical region other than the true place of origin in such a way as to be liable to mislead the public as to geographical origin of the product;

It allows you to prevent any other use that constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10 bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1967), concluded in Stockholm on 14 July 1967.

For geographical indications not included in Annex 20-A it is useful to signal that the EU-Canada Joint Committee can add new ones.

Finally, we remind companies that own AEOs that the management of geographical indications at customs undoubtedly falls within the criterion of compliance with customs legislation.