NATIONAL ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF ADVANCED EDUCATION PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS
--❧•❧--

PERSONAL ASIGNMENT
Topic:

France’s import tariff policy for agricultural products in

the period of 2011-2020 and 2025 orientation

Name : Cao Diễm Hằng

Student ID : 11205164
Major : International Economics
Class : 62A Excellent International Economics
Program : AEP
Instructor : Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Thường Lạng

Hà Nội, 2022
 Table of Contents
Declaration...................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................... 2
Review of Literature ....................................................................................................... 3
1. Rationale ................................................................................................................. 3
2. Subject and Scope of the study ............................................................................... 3
3. Aims and objectives................................................................................................ 3
4. Method and procedure ............................................................................................ 3
5. Study’s Structure .................................................................................................... 3
Chapter I: Import tariffs .................................................................................................. 4
1. Definition .......................................................................................................... 4
2. Forms ................................................................................................................ 4
3. Why are tariffs imposed? .................................................................................. 4
Chapter 2: France tariff policies on agricultural products .............................................. 5
1. Recent situation ................................................................................................. 5
2. Traditional Agricultural Trade Policy Tools .................................................... 6
3. Trade policy ...................................................................................................... 7
3.1. Trade policy in 2011 .................................................................................. 7
3.2. Trade policy in 2020 ................................................................................ 10
4. Average tariffs applied by the European Union (EU) for agricultural imports
on Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) ............................................................................ 15
5. Tariff Rate Quotas ........................................................................................... 16
5.1. Aim of Tariff Quotas ................................................................................ 16
5.2. Agricultural tariff rate quotas ................................................................... 18
6. Trade and quotas ............................................................................................. 19
6.1. Tariff Rate Quota Allocation from 2011-2020 ........................................ 20
6.2. BREXIT TRQs Apportionment as from 1st January 2021 ....................... 20
Chapter 3: 2025 Orientation ......................................................................................... 26
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 27
References .................................................................................................................... 28

1
 Declaration
I do hereby declare that the work submitted in this dissertation is the result of my own
efforts and that to the best of my knowledge, has not been submitted and is not currently
being submitted either in whole or in part for Diploma of International Economics
Degree or any other degree or award in any other University. Where any secondary
information is included, it has been duly acknowledged.
Signed this 7th January, 2022
Cao Diễm Hằng
(Student)

Acknowledgement
This work would not have been possible had it not been for the innumerable amount of
help I got from different people and institutions.
First and foremost, I am grateful to the administration and staff of School of Advanced
Education Program, National Economics University, who gave me the opportunity to
pursue the programme.
I will however be remiss in this humble duty if I do not thank my lecturer and instructor
Mr. Nguyễn Thường Lạng of the Faculty of International Economics, who dedicated
his time and expertise in this program to give me the guidance that made the completion
of this work possible.
Lastly but by no means least, I would like to thank the whole class 62A of Excellent
International Economics for the moments and intellectual experiences we shared while
in course.
While thanking the above, the mistakes in this work are solely mine. Controversial
assertions of law and inconsistencies of facts, if any, are made without their help or
concurrence.

2
 Review of Literature
1. Rationale
COVID-19 pandemic has been catastrophic for almost everything including the global
economy. Among many sectors, the food and the agriculture sector were the worst hit
following the immediate lockdown and market shutdowns. Though some stability was
prevalent from supply side till date, however, the severe restrictions put in place to curb
the spread of pandemic have endangered the supply of agricultural and food articles
contemporaneously across borders and from field to fork. While the income declines
due to price fall and supplies chain disruptions due to pandemic have escalated the food
shortages in several of developing and developed countries. Nevertheless, the global
demand for food items has remained more or less unchanged owing to their inelastic
demand.
2. Subject and Scope of the study
– Subject: France tariff policies on agricultural products
– Scope: France tariff policies on agricultural products in the period of 2011-2020 and
outlook for 2025.
3. Aims and objectives
The aim of the study is to provide policymakers and negotiators with insights into the
economic impact of a selection of potential future France and EU trade agreements on
the agricultural sector in the EU28.
4. Method and procedure
The study uses methods of analysis, synthesis, and comparison to solve the posed
problems.
Data was collected from European Commission, OECD and Statista.
5. Study’s Structure
Chapter I: Import tariffs
Chapter II: France tariff policies on agricultural products
Chapter III: 2025 Orientation

3
 Chapter I: Import tariffs
1. Definition
Import tariffs are taxes charged by the customs authority on the importation of goods
into a country. Usually, the value of the imported goods determines the amount that will
be levied on them. In some context, import tariffs also means import duties, customs
duties, tariffs or import tax.
Economically, import tariffs are charged to generate revenue for the government and to
protect local goods against the dominance of foreign products. However, there are other
reasons for imposing taxes. One of them is to restrict foreign products from flooding
the local market. Moreover, import tariffs are charged to penalise a country by means
of a sanction mechanism.
2. Forms
Tariffs usually take one of two forms: specific or ad valorem. A specific tariff is one
imposed on one unit of a good (e.g., $1,000 tariff on each imported car). An ad valorem
tariff is a tariff levied as a certain percentage of a good’s value (e.g., 10% of the value
of an imported car).
3. Why are tariffs imposed?
There are several reasons why governments impose tariffs on imported goods. Some of
the most common reasons include:
#1 To protect domestic producers
Sometimes, governments want to protect domestic producers and industries that may
experience problems from cheap imported goods. In addition, supporting the domestic
producers prevents a potential increase in unemployment
#2 To protect domestic consumers
Some cheap imported goods may be dangerous to consumers. For example, the goods
may contain elements that may harm consumers. By making the goods more expensive,
the government discourages their excessive consumption.
#3 To preserve national security
The government may want to protect industries with a strategic significance to national
security from overdependence on imports.
#4 To protect infant industries
Tariffs may protect emerging and growing industries. They will attract more consumers
to domestic products, and the growth of companies in the emerging industries will be
stimulated.

4
 Chapter 2: France tariff policies on agricultural products
1. Recent situation
Agriculture remains a vital sector of the French economy. France, whose farms export
more agricultural food products than any other EU nation (accounting for 22% of the
EU's total agricultural output), is the only country in Europe to be completely self-
sufficient in basic food production; moreover, the high quality of the nation's
agricultural products contributes to the excellence of its famous cuisine. France is one
of the leaders in Europe in the value of agricultural exports—chiefly wheat, sugar, wine,
and beef. Tropical commodities, cotton, tobacco, and vegetable oils are among the chief
agricultural imports.

Though, that would be true if only it was 10 years ago.

While the European Union has been the preserve of French farmers for many years,
Are the French agriculture and food industry undergoing a revolution internationally?

Total value of imports for agricultural and agri-food products to France between
2000 and 2020, by market of origin

French imports almost doubled between 2000 and 2020, from around 28 billion euros
to more than 55 billion euros twenty years later. Imports include both raw products such
as cereals, and processed products such as beverages. The European Union (EU) is still
the leading import market for France with nearly 38 billion euros worth of agri-food
products.

5
In general, France had long gone from trade surplus to trade deficit in agricultural
products.
2. Traditional Agricultural Trade Policy Tools
- MFN import tariffs
The use of import tariffs is still commonplace. Tariffs are still largely in place for
cereals, prepared cereal products, rice, fruit and vegetables (including bananas),
dairy products, meat products and sugar. Within these product categories, tariff
levels can vary from product to product. In some instances, duties have been set at zero
in response to high world market prices.
The EU trades with only 10 WTO members on MFN terms (Australia, Canada, Chinese
Taipei, Hong Kong, China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore and the United
States). These 10 countries account for 43.9% of the EU’s total merchandise imports in
2009. For most countries, a variety of preferential trade arrangements are in place,
although preferences are much more limited in the food and agricultural sector than for
non-agricultural products.
- Tariff rate quotas (TRQs)
TRQs are the principal vehicle through which the EU manages access to the EU’s
agricultural markets under most trade agreements. These grant tariff concessions on
specific volumes of exports of specified commodities to the EU.
- Seasonal TRQs
Some TRQs apply only at certain times of the year. Within these time periods, import
duties are being subject to reduction or suspension. Outside of these time period imports
are subjected to the standard MFN or GSP duties. The system of seasonal TRQs is
mainly used in the fruit and vegetables sector.
- Entry price system
In some sectors imports take place on the basis of a minimum entry price system. Under
this system actual tariffs applied are set with reference to these minimum import price
levels, with the tariff being designed to take the price up to the minimum import price
level (e.g. in the fruit and vegetables sector). There are often complaints from EU
producers about abuses of the entry price system (non-payment of the relevant duties
by the importers) and pressure is mounting for its reform or replacement by a more
effective system.
- Import licences
Import licensing remains central to the EU’s managed trade regime, particularly for the
management of TRQs. Import licences can also be used to regulate who is allowed to
import, based on food safety and SPS grounds (e.g. in the dairy sector). Providing
preferential access to import licences can also be used to pursue certain policy
objectives (e.g. preferences extended to traditional refiners in importing ACP
preferential sugar).
Up until 12 June 2008, the EU had in place licensing requirements for some 500
agricultural products (at the eight-digit level). Reforms introduced at this time reduced

6
the number of agricultural products requiring import licences to 65, some 4% of total
agricultural tariff lines at the eight-digit level (down from 30%).
- Export licences.
Export licences form an integral part of the EU market management regime, particularly
in the use of export refunds. While the use of export licences is routine in many sectors,
their use can be controversial (e.g. the issuing of export licences for a further 500,000
tonnes of out of quota sugar in January 2010).
3. Trade policy
France is part of the EU (European Union), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and applies the international agreements signed
by these bodies.
3.1. Trade policy in 2011
In 2009 and 2010, export subsidy spending was about EUR 650 million and 385 million
respectively (USD 903 million and 509 million), compared to EUR 3.4 billion (USD
4.2 billion) in 2004 and EUR 925 million (USD 1.4 billion) in 2008. This gradual
decline is due to reforms of the sugar, fruits and vegetable, wine and dairy regimes and
the rise in world prices. Export subsidies for milk and milk products, which had not
been used significantly in 2008, were reintroduced temporarily in 2009 for butter,
cheese and skimmed milk powders. According to the most recent EU notifications to
the WTO on export subsidies, the European Union remained well below its WTO
ceiling for the marketing year 2007/08, overall and for most products. However, over
99% of the allowance for sugar was used in volume.
On market access, import duties on maize, sorghum and rye have been set to zero for
the 2010/11 marketing years as a result of a mechanism linking import duties to border
prices. In-quota duties on low and medium quality soft wheat and feed barley were
suspended from March to June 2011. New sugar import rules replacing the former Sugar
Protocol with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries came into force in
October 2009. Least Developed Countries benefitting from the Everything-But-Arms
agreements will have effective duty-free, quota-free access for sugar exports to the
European Union. ACP countries with Economic Partnership Agreements will also
receive those preferential terms. With the rise in sugar world prices, an exceptional
import tariff quota was opened up to 30 September 2011, within which the Most
Favoured Nation duty on sugar imports was suspended.
According to the most recent EU notifications to the WTO, import tariff quotas in
2008/09 were filled at 80-100% for 40% of quotas while imports were zero to 5% of
quota for 38% of them, notably for live bovine animals, swine carcasses and preserved
meat, chicken meat, and most dairy products except cheddar cheese. In 2009, 57% of
quotas were filled at 80-100%, while a quarter of them had a fill-rate of zero to 5%.

7
This was for example the case for live sheep, manioc, sweet potatoes, corn gluten,
sorghum, broken rice or cereal bran.
According to the most recent EU notifications to the WTO, the price-based special
safeguard system has been made operational for some poultry meat, egg and sugar
products in marketing year 2008/09. During the same period, the system has been made
operational for some fruits and vegetables. The volume-based special safeguard action
has not been invoked.
A new EU regulation on food and feed imports requires member states to designate
points of entry for consignments to the European Union. Controls will be enhanced both
on documents and on imported goods.
In response to a WTO panel over EU import arrangements for bananas, an agreement
was found with Latin American countries over the banana import regime in December
2009. Under the agreement, the EU import tariff should be cut gradually from EUR 176
(USD 233) per tonne to EUR 114 (USD 151) per tonne by 2017. It was retroactively
cut to EUR 148 (USD 196) per tonne in December 2009 and further cuts should take
place every year from 2011 to 2017 in annual instalments: EUR 143, EUR 136, EUR
132, EUR 127, EUR 117 and EUR 114.
In July 2009, the European Union and Canada signed a final settlement to resolve a
WTO dispute over genetically modified (GM) products, which was launched in 2003
when Canada, the United States and Argentina lodged complaints that the European
Union was blocking approvals of GM products with lengthy approval process. In March
2011 the European Union and Canada signed an agreement ending the dispute over beef
hormones between the two parties. It includes additional market access for Canadian
beef into the European Union through a 1 500 tonne expansion of the EU import quota
for high quality meat. In return, Canada drops all WTO-authorised retaliation sanctions
on EU exports. A similar settlement had been reached with the United States in 2009,
with the opening of a 20 000 tonne quota for US and other producers meeting the
conditions. The second stage of the ELI-US agreement would see this import quota be
transformed into a 45 000 tonne permanent quota, while the European Union-Canada
agreement also foresees an increase of the Canadian quota.
In September 2009, the European Union signed four interim Economic Partnership
Agreements with Mauritius, Seychelles, Zimbabwe and Madagascar. These replace the
former system of unilateral trade preferences granted to ACP countries, which was
deemed incompatible with WTO rules.
A Multiparty Trade Agreement between the European Union, Columbia and Peru was
initiated in March 2010. Pending approval procedures on both sides, this will provide
for full liberalisation of a range of foodstuffs and beverages, while creating low-tariff
quotas for other sensitive products. The European Union secured access to dairy
products and pigmeat, while granting increased access to bananas, rum and sugar.

8
Several bilateral agreements entered into force or were concluded. The new trade
liberalisation agreement between the European Union and Israel entered into force in
January 2010 (see Chapter 7). In October 2010, the European Union and Korea signed
a Free Trade Agreement. The agreement will enter provisionally into force in July 2011.
The new agreement governing the wine trade between Australia and the European
Union entered into force in September 2010. It safeguards the EU's wine labelling
regime, gives full protection to EU geographical indications, including for wines
intended for export to third countries, and protects EU traditional expressions. It also
provides for the phasing out of the use of a number of EU product names such as
Champagne and Port on Australian wines within a year of the agreement coming into
force.
In January 2010 the European Union and Norway concluded negotiations on an
agreement to further liberalise bilateral trade in agricultural products. The draft
agreement is subject to the approval of the respective authorities. This is part of the
regular process foreseen by the European Economic Area Agreement. Under the new
agreement, all trade barriers for less sensitive products will be eliminated. For more
sensitive products such as meat, dairy, fruits, vegetables and ornamental plants, some
tariffs quotas and tariff reductions will be granted. As a result of this agreement and
previous ones, around 60% of EU exports to Norway will be completely freed (in term
of trade value).
In May 2010, the European Union reached agreement on a trade deal with a group of
Central American countries comprising Panama, Guatemala, Costa Rica, El Salvador,
Honduras and Nicaragua. The agreement guarantees full liberalisation for industrial
products and includes some openings for agricultural products. In particular, market
access increases for dairy products from the European Union; and for bananas, beef and
rice from Central American countries.
In September 2010, the European Commission adopted a draft decision on a European
Union-Morocco bilateral trade agreement for agri-food and fisheries products. It then
passed to the Council and the European Parliament for approval. In the agricultural
products sector, the agreement will allow for the immediate liberalisation of 45% of the
value of EU exports and 70% in ten years. The tinned food, dairy products, oilseeds and
fruit and vegetable sector will benefit fully from total liberalisation. The fisheries sector
will also be opened up for EU products (91% after five years and 1610% in ten years).
For processed agricultural products full liberalisation is planned in stages over the next
ten years, with the exception of pasta, for which a quantitative restriction is provided.
The agreement will provide immediate liberalisation of 55% of EU imports from
Morocco. For products considered as most sensitive, namely tomatoes, strawberries,
courgettes, cucumbers, garlic and clementines, concessions are made in the form of
tariff quotas.

9
Negotiations on a European Union-Switzerland bilateral agreement for the protection
of their respective Geographical Indications (GIs) for agricultural products and
foodstuffs were concluded in December 2009. It covers 800 GIs registered in the
European Union and 22 GIs registered in Switzerland. The agreement was approved by
the EU Council of Ministers in January 2011. It will apply after approval by the
European Parliament. In July 2010, the European Union and Russia agreed to align
maximum levels of pesticides residues on fruits and vegetables.
Negotiations on free trade agreement are on-going between the European Union and a
number of countries such as India, or groups of countries (e.g. Euromed, ASEAN,
Mercosurr"). Negotiations were launched with Canada in May 2009, Singapore in
December 2009, and Malaysia in October 2010
Following Montenegro in December 2008, a number of countries applied to join the
European Union during 2009-10: Albania in May 2009; Iceland in July 2009; and Serbia
in December 2009. Accession negotiations started with Iceland in July 2010, and
continued with Croatia and Turkey.
3.2. Trade policy in 2020
3.2.1 Main policy change
Much of the policy discussion in 2019 and early 2020' was dedicated to shaping the
next iteration of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). In that vein, the first tranche
of transitional regulations needed to bridge the gap between the current CAP and the
future one was approved by parliament in December 2019, with the new CAP not
expected to enter into force before January 2022. In addition, EU rules on state aid for
Member States were revised in 2019. The Commission raised the maximum amount of
support that individual farmers can receive to EUR 20 000 (USD 22 388) per farm over
three years without the need for prior approval by the European Commission.
Various regulatory changes outside of the CAP, but with implications for the
agricultural sector, went into effect in 2019. These included new rules that banned
certain unfair trading practices in the agricultural industry, strengthened food
inspections, harmonised rules on the sale of fertiliser, and established harmonised risk
indicators for pesticides across Member States in order to facilitate the monitoring of
trends in pesticide risk reduction at Union level.
At the Member State level, a host of policy changes focused on the agri-environment
and climate. Countries implemented new regulations aiming to improve air quality and
reduce ammonia emissions, improve water availability and quality, improve soil
conditions, strengthen the circular economy, and achieve national climate targets.
3.2.2. Assessment and recommendations
- Policy reforms undertaken over the past three decades have substantially reduced the
level of support to the sector and shifted the composition of support to less production
and trade-distorting measures. In spite of substantial progress, relatively significant
10
support continues for some products — particularly for beef and veal, poultry meat and
rice — and potentially most distorting forms of support still represent nearly a quarter
of support to producers,
- While market access for agricultural products has improved through bilateral
agreements and the reduction of applied tariffs, import and export licensing, tariff rate
quotas (TRQs) and special safeguards continue to apply to a number of products.
- Climate change plans, activities, and emissions reduction targets are being
implemented both at the EU level and within individual Member States, with the goal
of achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. The effectiveness of these initiatives may be
constrained by both support to fossil fuel consumption through fuel tax rebates for
agricultural use in some Member States, and continued product-specific support which
has been associated with higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A more coherent
commitment to sustainability goals would involve a phase-out of these types of
measures.
- Support to general services has fallen in both absolute and relative terms in the past
five years, and is less than the OECD average. At the same time, the sector faces
increasing uncertainty due to climate change and other unknown risks. In order to
ensure that the sector has access to advances in technology and practices that will allow
farmers to manage on-farm risks more effectively, both the European Union and
individual Member States should consider additional investments in innovation
generally, and in science-based research, development, technology transfer and
extension services in particular.
3.2.3. Agricultural policy responses in relation to the COVID-19 outbreak
Policy measures are being deployed at both EU and Member State level in order to
mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the agricultural sector. At EU level,
policy measures taken specifically related to the agricultural sector include direct
support measures, certain time-bound derogations from competition rules, and
administrative flexibilities (EC, 2020). Several of the announced direct support
measures were part of the Commission's Coronavirus Response Investment Initiative
plus (CRI1+), which sought to increase flexibility around the utilisation of European
Structural Investment Funds (ESIF), including the European Agricultural Fund for
Rural Development (EAFRD) (EC, 2020). This funding flexibility under CRI I+
included making available loans or guarantees of up to EUR 200 000 for farmers or
other rural development (RD) beneficiaries at favourable terms. In addition, CRI I+ also
permitted Member States to allocate remaining, non-committed RD funds to help
farmers and other agri-food sector actors cope with the impacts of COVID-19, including
by supporting supply chain adjustment to direct sales, advisory services, or investments
in food marketing and packaging. The Commission estimates that roughly EUR 6
billion is still available under rural development programmes (RDPs), with the sum
rising to EUR 17 billion if amounts under pending calls for application are also
considered (EC, 2020). Outside of CRII+, the Commission released a Temporary
11
Framework for state aid measures on 19 March, which relaxed state aid rules, including
some specificities for agriculture. Under the framework, Member States are allowed to
provide direct grants of up to EUR 100 000 per farm for producers of primary
agricultural products, provided that the aid is not based on the price or quantity of
product sold (EC, 2020). This quantity can be topped up with EUR 20 000 in "de
minimis" aid, which does not require prior approval from the Commission, such that
fanners can receive total state aid of up to EUR 120 000. The framework also permits
aid up to EUR 800 000 for food processing and marketing firms.
Various administrative flexibilities were also introduced in the context of the CAP. On
6 April 2020, the Commission extended the CAP payment application deadline for both
direct payments and RD payments from 15 May 2020 to 15 June 2020 (EC, 2020).
While the extension has been granted for all Member States, the final decision on
whether to extend the deadline lies with each individual Member State. The Czech
Republic, France, Greece, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain have announced that they
will apply the extended deadline. Second, payment advances will be raised to ease
farmer cash flow constraints, with advances (available from mid-October) increased
from 50% to 70% for direct payments, and advances for some RD payments increased
from 75% to 85%. Croatia, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal have all announced
that they will advance CAP payments accordingly. Reduced on-farm spot checks were
also announced as a means to minimise physical contact and reduce administrative
burden (EC, 2020).
In addition, on 22 April the Commission announced three exceptional measures. First,
the Commission proposed a private storage aid scheme as authorised in the Common
Market Organisation (CMO) Regulation for certain dairy (butter, cheese and skimmed
milk powder) and meat products (beef, goat and sheep meat), which would temporarily
withdraw some supplies of these products from the market for a period, depending on
the product, of between 2 to 3 and 5 to 6 months. Second, the Commission would
introduce further flexibility into existing market support programmes for apiculture,
fruits and vegetables, olive oil, wine and school schemes to allow the programmes to
reorient funding toward crisis management. Finally, the proposal includes an
exceptional derogation from EU competition rules for the milk, flowers and potatoes
sectors to allow operators to collectively adopt self-organised market measures to
stabilise markets, with the provision that such measures remain in place for a maximum
of six months (EC, 20201).
At the Member State level, the response measures applied or announced vary, but
typically fall into a few broad categories: administrative or regulatory flexibilities,
general economy-wide support measures applicable to the agricultural sector, targeted
agriculture and agri-food sector support, specific commodity sector support and labour
measures. In the realm of administrative and regulatory flexibilities, some Member
States have temporarily halted or delayed on-farm compliance inspections (Estonia,
Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg and Portugal) or other compliance activities (compliance

12
for animal husbandry subsidies in Hungary, or organic farming checks in Portugal). In
Finland in particular, the government has strongly encouraged inspection activities to
be carried out using digital document checks and remote interactions where possible.
Several countries announced that they would temporarily relax conditionality, cross-
compliance or greening mandates (Hungary, Ireland, and Portugal). Ireland announced
that they would also defer application dates and extend regulatory compliance deadlines
for several programmes, including their Young Farmer scheme, Targeted Agricultural
Modernisation Scheme and National Reserve scheme. Other countries instituted more
targeted flecibilities. For example, France issued an exceptional authorisation on the
remote sale of plants without a plant passport. In Germany, the government announced
that they would delay the full application of the amended "Fertiliser Application
Ordinance" until January 2021. The govemment of Portugal adapted certain livestock
biosecurity measures, including extending the validity of health certificates for
livestock, and extending the deadlines for livestock identification. In Spain, the
enrolment period for agricultural insurance contracts was extended, and the government
also relaxed documentation requirements for the transport of animals. Several Member
States also specified either extended deadlines for completion of RD projects (Portugal
and Romania) or extended reporting deadlines related to project execution (Romania).
Most countries instituted some type of economy-wide support measures,. some of
which could be applied to farms, processing plants, or other firms in agri-food value
chains. Some countries offered direct support for certain affected businesses (France,
Germany, Greece, Luxembourg and Spain) or to freelancers and the self-employed
(Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg and Slovakia). Wage
compensation, either for employers or employees, was also common (Croatia, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Ireland, the Netherlands and Slovakia). Many
Member States provided support through tax concessions, with some offering tax
deferrals or rebates, including for income taxes or VAT (Austria, Belgium, Croatia,
Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the
Netherlands and Slovakia); deferred or suspended social contributions for some or all
firms (Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, France, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland,
Slovakia and Spain); or late tax payment penalty suspensions or late payment waivers
(Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania and the Netherlands). Other measures targeted
access to finance, with some countries offering credit guarantees (Austria, Belgium,
Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia and Spain); improved access
to investment or business loans, including at concessional rates (Austria, Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Latvia and Portugal); or increased
access to or state guarantees for export credit (Denmark and Portugal). Other less
common measures included economic support for high-risk employees and reduced
working hour requirements for senior employees (Denmark); delayed payments for
rent, water, gas and electric bills (France); access to mediation for credit issues and
business conflicts (France); and loss carryback on income tax for 2020 for corporate
and personal income taxpayers (Poland).

13
In addition, several Member States announced targeted support to the agriculture and
agri-food sectors. These interventions were largely of two basic types: establishing
emergency support funds or support payments for producers or agricultural firms
experiencing severe reductions in income or substantial increases in labour costs
(Austria, Belgian region of Flanders, Czech Republic, Finland, Greece, Latvia, and
Slovenia), or offering special financing options like loan guarantees, designated credit
lines, waving or reduction of loan fees, or loan repayment holidays (Belgian region of
Flanders, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, and Portugal). Other countries offered temporary
exemptions or delays on contributions to retirement, health or disability pensions for
farmers (Poland, and Slovenia); VAT reimbursements or accelerated VAT refunding
for farms and agricultural businesses (Hungary); deferment of agricultural insurance
premium payments (Greece); compensation for school schemes suppliers in the face of
school closures (Latvia); land sale and leaseback schemes for owners of arable land, to
alleviate serious liquidity issues caused by COVID-19 (Estonia); or postponements of
rent and fee payments due for land owned by the government (Croatia).
Some Member States have announced support measures for specific agricultural
commodity sectors that have been particularly affected by either supply chain
disruptions or collapsing demand. In the Belgian region of Flanders, compensation was
offered to growers in certain sectors whose fresh products (including flowers and
ornamental plants) could not be sold due to the pandemic. Croatia instituted assistance
measures for several sectors, including a support programme of HRK 53 million (EUR
7 million) to maintain production and employment for smallholder farms in various
sectors (fruit and vegetables, flowers, seeds, plant reproductive material, beef, pigs,
equines, sheep, goats and poultry); temporary measures to assist smallholder dairies by
arranging government purchase of their products and distributing them for food
donation; and through the delay of contractual commitments under the country's wine
sector programme. Italy announced measures for several sectors, including allocating
EUR 29.5 million for supply chain competitiveness funds for maize, legumes, soy and
wheat; EUR 40 million for durum wheat through the grains fund; EUR 7.5 million for
sheep meat and lambs; EUR 2 million for buffalo milk; and EUR 5 million for the
national pig fund. In Latvia, EUR 19 million of the national emergency fund was
specifically designated for the livestock sector. The Netherlands has announced a EUR
600 million compensation scheme for horticultural producers who have experienced
severe losses due to declining demand (particularly floriculture growers), with the state
compensating up to 70% of losses. An additional programme of EUR 50 million was
announced to compensate Dutch French fry potato growers experiencing cascading
demand effects from shuttered restaurant and food service businesses. In Portugal,
sector support was offered to the wine industry (including reimbursement for expenses
occurred for cancelled international promotional events) and the fruit and vegetable
sectors. Spain offered direct aid for the lamb and kid sectors of up to EUR 30 per animal.

14
Access to sufficient agricultural labour was a primary concern in many countries, and a
host of initiatives were introduced to that end. Regulations related to eligibility of
foreign workers (including extending seasonal work permits or temporary worker visa
eligibility days, or permitting temporary employment of foreigners without work
permits as seasonal workers in agriculture) were relaxed in Austria, Estonia, the Belgian
region of Flanders, Finland, Germany and Poland. Similarly, exceptions were granted
to border entry restrictions in Finland and Germany' to allow seasonal workers to enter
from abroad. Though not specifically oriented toward foreign workers, special
provisions were made to ensure that state border crossings of farmers and agricultural
employees, along with agricultural machinery, would continue to be permitted in the
Czech Republic and Poland in the face of general movement restriction. Other member
states mounted specific campaigns to recruit atypical workers (such as the recently laid-
off, students and refugees) as temporary agricultural labourers (Czech Republic, France,
Finland, Germany, and the United Kingdom). Web-based plafforms were established to
link agricultural producers and food processors in need of seasonal labour with available
workers in Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom.
Similarly, the Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (Teagasc), in
conjunction with Farm Relief Services and farming organisations, established a
Regional Farm Labour Database to link farming families with available relief workers
in the event that a farmer contracts COVID-19 and is unable to work. The government
of Estonia increased funding for farmers' back-up service support, to ensure that
affected farmers in both the livestock and plant production sectors would be able to
access replacement labour if the farmer contracts COVID-19. In France and Spain,
specific allowances were made to permit unemployed persons to engage in temporary
agricultural labour — in Spain, the unemployed can continue to receive their
unemployment benefits while also working as agricultural labourers. Italy and Spain
also specified certain safety measures for agricultural workers, with Spain announcing
provisions limiting the number of agricultural workers allowed to be transported per
vehicle, and also allowing tourism accommodations to be used to house agricultural
workers. Farmers in the Czech Republic and Poland were granted eligibility for a
specific daily allowance for self-employed workers who stay home and care for children
or disabled persons. In Italy, specific support was made available for agricultural
workers only—any agricultural worker who carried out at least 50 days of agrarian work
in 2019 is eligible for compensation of EUR 600 for the month of March.
4. Average tariffs applied by the European Union (EU) for agricultural imports
on Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN)
Average EU tariffs on agricultural imports under WTO terms 2019
As a member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the European Union applies
relatively high tariff rates on agricultural imports, if there is no existing trade deal with
the partner it is trading with. In such cases, WTO's Most Favored Nation (MFN) is used
when determining the rate of tariffs on goods. In 2019, the simple average tariff rate for

15
dairy products, for example, was 32.3 percent. Import rate imposed on cotton was at
zero.

5. Tariff Rate Quotas

5.1. Aim of Tariff Quotas
5.1.1. Tariff rate quotas
Tariff quotas approved on the basis of Article 31 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the
European Union (TFEU) constitute an exception to the normal state of affairs since they
permit, during the period of validity of the measure and for a limited quantity, the total

16
(total suspension) or partial waiver (partial suspension) of the normal duties applicable
to imported goods (antidumping duties are not affected by these suspensions).
Preferential
In the framework of several agreements that the European Union has concluded with
third countries/territories, as well as in the framework of autonomous preferential
arrangements for some beneficiary countries/territoiries, tariff concessions are provided
for a pre-determined volume of goods. These tariff concessions are called "preferential
tariff quotas".
Within these preferential tariff quotas, a predetermined volume of goods originating in
a specified country/territory can benefit at import into the Union from a more favourable
rate of duty than the normal third countries/territories duty mentioned in the combined
nomenclature
Entitlement to benefit from preferential tariff quotas is of course subject to presentation
of the necessary evidence of origin
Nevertheless, products originating in Western Sahara subject to controls by customs
authorities of the Kingdom of Morocco shall benefit from the same trade preferences as
those granted by the European Union to products covered by the Association
Agreement.
Autonomous
As stated already for suspensions, for some economic sectors, it is necessary to
stimulate competition by low tariffs, as we find in numerous industrial sectors.
Their role is to stimulate economic activity of Union industries, improving competitive
capacity, creating employment, modernising structures etc.
They are normally granted to raw materials, semi-finished goods or components not
available in the EU (suspensions) or which are available but in insufficient quantities
(tariff quotas), but no tariff quotas are granted for finished products.
A request to open an autonomous tariff quota may be presented as such or result from
the examination of a suspension request. In this connection, account will be taken,
where appropriate, of consequential damage to any new production and of any
manufacturing capacity, which could be made available in the Union or in a third
country/territory with preferential tariff arrangements.
When identical, equivalent or substitute products are manufactured in sufficient
quantities within the EU or by producers in a third country/territory with preferential
tariff arrangements, the granting of a quota is normally excluded. The same applies
where the measure could result in a distortion of competition in respect of the final
products.

17
Council Regulation 1388/2013 opening and providing for the management of
autonomous tariff quotas of the Union for certain agricultural and industrial products
(Official Journal L 354 of 28.12.2013, p.319) establishes the list of goods subject to
these measures. It is regularly amended (in January and July each year) to take into
consideration new requests presented by the Member States.
Information on the products currently examined by the Commission with the aid of the
Economic Tariff Question Group.
More information and forms can be found in the Commission Communication
concerning autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas (Official Journal C 363 of
13.12.2011, p.6).
Council Regulation (EU) 2015/2265 of 7 December 2015 opening and providing for the
management of autonomous Union tariff quotas for certain fishery products for the
period 2016-2018 (Official Journal L 322, 8.12.2015, p. 4), establishes the list of fishery
products subject to autonomous tariff quotas.
Management
Most tariff quotas are managed by the Commission's Directorate-General responsible
for Taxation and Customs Union on a 'first-come first-served' basis irrespective of
where the goods are imported into the EU. The legal provisions governing the
management of these tariff quotas are contained in Articles 49 to 54 of of Commission
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed
rules for implementing certain provisions of the UCC.
Information about the current balances of those tariff quotas which are managed on a
first-come first-served basis is available on-line
Agricultural
Some tariff quotas are managed by the Commission's Directorate-General responsible
for Agriculture and Rural Development through a system of import licences. Various
Council and Commission Regulations contain the specific provisions for the
management of these tariff quotas.
5.1.2. Aim of tariff rate quotas
Tariff rate quotas (TRQs) allow a pre-determined quantity of a product to be imported
at lower import duty rates (in-quota duty) than the duty rate normally applicable to that
product.
5.2. Agricultural tariff rate quotas
TRQs related to agricultural products are currently managed through two different
methods.

18
"First-come, first-served" method
These TRQs are managed by the European Commission's department for taxation and
customs union.
Current balances and further information on TRQ allocations are held in the tariff quota
consultation database.
Issuing of import or export licences
These TRQs are managed by the Commission's department for agriculture and rural
development.
Tariff rate quota allocations are calculated based on the quantities available within the
tariff rate quota and the quantities applied for, as notified to the Commission by the
competent national authorities.
Once the allocation coefficients for import and export tariff rate quotas are calculated
and made public by the Commission, EU countries must issue import or export licences
for the quantities applied for within the respective tariff rate quotas.
Information is also available on licenses that have been suspended, withdrawn or
reinstated.
6. Trade and quotas
Agricultural products provide an important positive contribution to the EU trade
balance. Under the Customs Union, Member States report on all goods imported into,
and exported from, the European Union. Some products are subject to quotas, which
means that reduced tariff rates apply up to a fixed amount of goods imported. Depending
on the product quota may be allocated proportionally, or on a first-come-first-served
basis.

19
6.1. Tariff Rate Quota Allocation from 2011-2020
Sector Beef & Milk and Fruit and
Cereals Olive oil Poultry Rice
Quota Period Veal Dairy Prod Vegetable
Initial Volume 513.971 73.625.970 1.292.379 623.700 1.350.646 389.730 3.294.207
2020
Allocated Quantity 12.331 26.935.830 50.748 623.700 1.220.726 28.024 1.668.097
Initial Volume 429.931 72.820.627 1.270.005 623.700 966.603 389.730 2.879.693
2019
Allocated Quantity 6.672 33.417.509 124.752 623.700 703.998 21.165 1.556.695
Initial Volume 345.891 71.865.970 1.196.767 623.700 828.883 389.730 2.754.057
2018
Allocated Quantity 4.961 46.502.749 82.962 623.700 686.274 12.024 1.611.648
Initial Volume 168.120 59.148.353 1.158.223 623.700 790.680 389.730 2.677.586
2017
Allocated Quantity 658 29.554.891 51.733 615.932 571.083 56.103 1.647.643
Initial Volume 132.051 58.268.353 1.142.823 1.008.700 752.147 382.580 2.683.956
2016
Allocated Quantity 1 26.117.706 39.482 737.570 572.281 53.757 1.693.450
Initial Volume 132.051 58.268.353 1.159.323 623.700 752.147 373.780 2.676.332
2015
Allocated Quantity 1 27.960.347 31.649 623.700 525.744 76.596 1.612.448
Initial Volume 132.051 58.268.353 1.159.323 814.000 752.147 373.780 2.794.859
2014
Allocated Quantity 0 19.802.353 349.367 277.428 440.027 83.706 1.587.396
Initial Volume 51 40.668.353 917.323 623.700 356.147 424.599 3.139.922
2013
Allocated Quantity 0 16.452.501 173.689 580.580 330.005 117.578 1.692.700
Initial Volume 51 40.668.353 895.103 720.504 356.147 373.780 3.067.137
2012
Allocated Quantity 0 37.975.852 305.001 595.913 328.560 303.384 1.803.044
Initial Volume 51 38.912.819 838.123 623.700 356.147 373.780 3.050.782
2011
Allocated Quantity 15 34.728.244 303.851 195.379 289.286 320.708 1.924.693

6.2. BREXIT TRQs Apportionment as from 1st January 2021

The Commission has published a table covering the apportionment of tariff rate quotas
for certain agricultural products included in the WTO schedule of the Union, following
the end of the transition period concerning the United Kingdom’s relationship with the
Union. The table concerns the apportionment of TRQs whose quota period is ongoing
on 1 January 2021 in accordance with Article 1(3) of Regulation (EU) 2019/386 as
amended by Regulation (EU) 2020/2099 of 15 December 2020. The table published
follows the methodology laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EU) 2019/216 of the
European Parliament and of the Council providing that the said tariff rate quotas
included in the Union's schedule of concessions and commitments annexed to the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 are to be apportioned between the Union
and the United Kingdom based on the EU-27 share in the quota usage set out in the
Annex to that Regulation.

20
* TRQ Appointment:

21
22
23
24
25
 Chapter 3: 2025 Orientation
At the time of preparation of this outlook, the agricultural and food sector has
demonstrated high resilience in face of the global COVID-19 pandemic compared to
other sectors of the economy.
Despite considerable uncertainty, there are four actions that can be taken now:
First, boost confidence in trade and global markets by improving transparency
A strong, shared, transparent information base is critical in underpinning sound national
policy responses and the international co-operation to keep trade flowing.
Building on annual Monitoring and Evaluation of Agricultural Policies we are tracking
and assessing the impact of country measures in relation to agri-food production and
trade in response to COVID-19.
Second, keep global supply chains going, especially for essentials
An important priority is keeping the key supply chains for essential goods for the crisis
– including medical supplies, food products and ICT goods and services – open and
functioning.
Third, avoid making things worse
There are many unavoidable costs in the current pandemic; all the more reason to avoid
actions that add to costs for traders and consumers. Chief among these is the need to
avoid export restrictions on essential goods, such as medical equipment and, especially,
food products. Currently, more than 60 countries3 have restricted exports of essential
goods and increasingly agriculture and food products.
Fourth, look beyond the immediate: Policy actions now could have a long life
While countries are necessarily focused on ensuring the health and economic security
of their people today, the OECD can play a particularly important role in looking ahead
and, in light of past and current experiences, contribute to helping governments ensure
a recovery that is robust, widespread, and sustainable.

26
 Conclusion
Trade is important to the European economy. France agri-food imports are highly
concentrated on a more limited number of product types: agricultural commodities for
further processing, (protein products for the animal feeding, vegetable oils and
unroasted coffee) and primary products for human consumption (fruits and nuts of
tropical origin or imported in counter season).
In this study:
Chapter I provides the hypothesis about import tariff, including definition, form and
functions.
Chapter II presents agricultural products importing situation in France. Also, it does not
only deliver import tax and tariff quotas on certain sectors but also bring and compare
France’s trade policy between 2011 and 2020.
Finally, Chapter III gives an outlook and recommendations for France’s 2025
agricultural products importing.

27
 References
Statista Research Department (Nov 4, 2021), Total value of agri-food exports from
France 2000-2020, by region. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1142909/exports-
value-france-by-destination-marker/
Nils-Gerrit Wunsch (Jun 9, 2020), Average EU tariffs on agricultural imports under
WTO terms 2019. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123350/average-eu-tariffs-for-
agricultural-imports-wto-most-favoured-nation/
OECD (2011), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2011: OECD Countries
and Emerging Economies. https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_pol-2011-en
OECD (2020), Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2020: OECD
Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/928181a8-en
European Commission, QUOTA (Tariff quotas and ceilings).
https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/calculation-customs-duties/customs-
tariff/quota-tariff-quotas-and-ceilings_en
European Commission, Tariff Rate Quotas. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-
fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/market-
measures/trqs_en?fbclid=IwAR23VgNzIuZ8L0W9UtSBYC8aemxuiCV2cvllgUgrsW
S9AAW3xZCMGvLDrNM#legalbasis
EU 27 - TRQ - Available quantities for allocation on 1 January 2021.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/default/files/food-farming-
fisheries/key_policies/documents/trq-apportionment_en.pdf
European Commission, AGRI - Tariff Rate Quota Allocation (2011-2020).
https://agridata.ec.europa.eu/extensions/TRQ_Pivot_product/TRQ_Pivot_product.htm
l
Saima Hamid and Mohammad Yaseen Mir (12 July 2021), Global Agri-Food Sector:
Challenges and Opportunities in COVID-19 Pandemic.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2021.647337

28