31 2014 Alexei Druzhinin/AP/SIPA Alexei Trading with Moscow: the law, the politics and the economics by Iana Dreyer and Nicu Popescu On 12 September, a purportedly technical meet- concrete trade issues – the official rationale for the ing between Ukrainian, EU and Russian trade of- move – were quickly dashed. As soon as the agree- ficials produced an outcome which took many by ment on the postponement of DCFTA was reached, surprise: a delay in the application of the free trade Russia pressed further, demanding a wholesale re- provisions of the Association Agreement until 1 negotiation of DCFTA provisions, and then the post- January 2016. ponement of the entire Association Agreement. In the run-up to the meeting, organised to address President Putin sent a letter to then European Russian commercial concerns over the Deep and Commission President Barroso on 17 September Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) between 2014 asking for ‘systemic adjustments of the the EU and Ukraine, Russia’s demands were leaked. Association Agreement, which take into account Moscow was demanding that around 2300 tariff the full range of risks to Russian-Ukrainian eco- lines in the DCFTA be exempted from customs duty nomic ties and to the entire Russian economy aris- elimination. These lines covered a wide range of ing from implementation of the agreement’. goods, but the main focus was on agricultural and industrial products, textiles, and machine tools. The Russian president also hinted that the pro- visions of the DCFTA stipulating that Ukraine Russia also sought to ensure that the DCFTA’s stip- would introduce EU technical and sanitary stand- ulation that Soviet-era technical standards (GOST) ards is in breach of Russia’s own free trade agree- be phased out would not be implemented and that ment (FTA) with the country. A week later, Putin both EU and GOST standards would coexist in warned Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko that Ukraine. Finally, Moscow insisted Ukrainian insti- Kiev was expected not to apply lower tariffs for EU tutions do not become members of EU standardisa- goods and not to implement any EU legislation as tion bodies, and that Ukraine abandon the plan to foreseen by the Association Agreement. Failure to align its sanitary and phytosanitary standards (SPS) comply would have led Russia to suspend its trade to those of the EU. preferences with Ukraine. But hopes that the decision taken on 12 September Yet, while many in Europe bought the Russian would appease Russia and leave time to discuss argument that it has legitimate concerns over the European Union Institute for Security Studies November 2014 1 deal, the figures do not substantiate the claim that Ukrainian industry from continuing to produce for DCFTA would have a significant impact on Russia’s the Russian market according to Russian (and partly economic interests. GOST) standards – nor would the implementation of EU standards by Ukraine prevent it from im- porting the relevant industrial inputs from Russia. Deconstructing the arguments This point is important as Russia and Ukraine – at least until the recent trade spats – have maintained Since the onset of the current crisis, Russia has re- integrated industrial supply chains in the aircraft, peatedly suggested that the EU-Ukraine Association armaments and railway sectors. Similar arguments Agreement will negatively affect its economy. It ar- can be made about the DCFTA requirement that gued that, as a result of the association, European Ukraine incrementally apply the EU’s SPS. goods could be relabelled as Ukrainian and then re- exported to the Russian market under the FTA of Will Russia suffer a major hit if Ukraine adopts EU the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). standards? Not likely. While Ukraine is not an in- significant market for Russia – absorbing around This argument does not hold up under scrutiny. 5% of its total exports – there is an important twist. All FTAs, including those of the CIS, include so- Russia’s entire exports to Ukraine in 2013 amount- called ‘rules of origin’. These aim to avoid precisely ed to $23 billion, two-thirds of which were energy what Moscow fears, namely trade deflection, or re- resources (among them, gas worth $10.8 billion, export. They also fix a minimum share of national petroleum oils worth $1.9 billion, and coal worth production for a product to qualify for duty-free $1.3 billion) and nuclear equipment ($604 mil- treatment under an FTA, and exporters from a sig- lion). All these goods are largely unaffected by the natory country must prove the origin of the prod- DCFTA, as the EU-Ukraine agreement contains no uct at customs. barriers related to the importing of fossil fuels, nor are nuclear equipment standards specified in the The risk of potential deal. re-export of EU goods ‘...Russian complaints that the DCFTA to Russia via Ukraine A further Russian claim should normally be po- would damage Russian-Ukrainian is that the CIS FTA and liced according to inter- the DCFTA are legally national trade norms. economic relations ignores the fact that incompatible. This is Currently, Belarus – a bilateral trade has been in free fall since simply false. FTAs leave country with which the contracting parties the EU has no Association well before Autumn 2013, when the freedom to shape trade Agreement – is believed EU-Ukraine Association Agreement was relations with their oth- to re-export European er partners as they see goods to Russia. supposed to be signed...’ fit, given that ‘rules of However, this is only origin’ for imports are possible because Russia tolerates it, not because notably designed to avoid trade deflection. This is anyone thinks Norwegian salmon or Belgian mus- why many – if not most – countries in the world sels are really ‘made in Belarus’. have multiple FTAs. Russia also claims that if Ukraine implements EU There are no legal provisions in the CIS FTA that standards in accordance with the DCFTA, Russian prevent Ukraine from creating other free trade ar- goods would face new barriers when being ex- eas, including one with the EU. Article 18 §1 of ported to Ukraine. This argument has some merit, the 2011 CIS FTA explicitly states that ‘the cur- but needs to be analysed in greater detail. The EU’s rent treaty does not preclude participating states DCFTA stipulates that Ukraine is to progressively from taking part in customs unions, free trade or introduce EU technical regulations and to phase arrangements for frontier traffic that correspond to out the uncompetitive GOST standards, although it WTO rules’. only specifies 27 EU product directives which need to be integrated into Ukrainian law within a fixed For its part, Article 39 of the EU-Ukraine Association timeframe of three to five years. Agreement stipulates that ‘this agreement shall not preclude the maintenance or establishment of cus- Over time, presumably, Russian industrial products toms unions, free trade areas or arrangements for could not be sold on the Ukrainian domestic mar- frontier traffic except insofar as they conflict with ket if they fail to comply with the new EU-inspired trade arrangements provided for in this agree- standards. Nothing, however, would forbid ment.’ European Union Institute for Security Studies November 2014 2 Russian imports/exports to Ukraine ($ billion) 60 50 40 30 imports exports 20 10 0 2011 2012 2013 Source: Statistical department of the Eurasian Economic Commission What is incompatible with other national trade factors like the economic growth cycle (which was arrangements, however, is the Eurasian Customs positive that year). Union. Membership in a customs union – which is what Russia originally demanded from Ukraine – In the summer of 2013, Russia orchestrated a full- makes it technically impossible for any one of its blown trade blockade on Ukrainian exports – a members to enter into autonomous trade deals clear violation of CIS FTA rules and of international with third countries. But Ukraine is not a member norms of behaviour related to international trade – of the Eurasian Customs Union, and even under in a move aimed at deterring Kiev from signing the pro-Russian President Yanukovich it systematically association deal with the EU. refused invitations to join the grouping. This year, Russia introduced import bans on Ukrainian dairy products and potatoes, and then Who’s to blame? began restricting imports of Ukrainian railway equipment. Russia has also reneged on an inter- Last but not least, Russian complaints that the national treaty ensuring free transit of goods, the DCFTA would damage Russian-Ukrainian econom- so-called TIR convention, despite the fact that this ic relations ignores the fact that bilateral trade has constitutes a key principle of the CIS FTA it signed been in free fall since well before Autumn 2013, with Ukraine. when the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement was supposed to be signed. This drop in trade was Moscow’s actions have had a clear negative impact mostly due to Moscow’s own policy choices and the on trade across the long border between the coun- bleak economic outlooks for both countries. tries. The numbers are clear: Russian trade volumes with Ukraine have fallen from $50 billion to $38 Since 2011, the entering into force of the Eurasian billion in just two years (2011-2013) – and 2014 is Customs Union between Russia, Belarus and likely to witness an even more dramatic fall. Kazakhstan has meant tighter customs controls with neighbouring CIS countries that did not sign up. In 2012, data from Russia’s statistical agency From Association postponement… (Rosstat) shows that Russian imports from Ukraine decreased by 10.7%, a reduction that is clearly The problem with a one-year postponement of the attributable to these restrictions and not to other Association Agreement does not lie with the delay European Union Institute for Security Studies November 2014 3 as such.