EU Decision to Resolve Agricultural Crisis Jeopardises Kyiv

On the evening of May 2, the European Commission announced a decision to ban importing four agricultural products from Ukraine temporarily: wheat, corn, rapeseed, and sunflower. The ban will only apply to deliveries to five EU countries: Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia. This production can still be sold to the rest of the EU, including mentioned "big five" countries, which are expected to allow the transit of Ukrainian agricultural products across their territories.

The central positive aspect is that now Ukraine will negotiate with the European Commission, which is much easier than negotiating simultaneously with the governments of individual countries. However, negotiations ahead will be challenging: Kyiv will have to prove the illegality of such restrictions and demand, if not their cancellation, then guarantees that their validity will not be extended.

Read about this reality and the arguments available to Kyiv in the article by Yuriy Panchenko, editor of European Pravda, titled "Little Agrarian Blockade: Explaining the Consequences of the EU's Decision That Softened Poland's Ban."

It is no secret that the Polish government created the current crisis surrounding Ukrainian agricultural products, which was its main "driver." Poland was the first to impose a ban, which created a domino effect, prompting other capitals to limit the import and transit of goods from Ukraine.

Polish and other national decisions undermine the powers of Brussels, which determines the trade policy of the European Union. Individual states do not have such a right. That is why the position of the European Commission from the outset was quite critical of the actions of Warsaw and other capitals.

Later, this turned into a confrontation between the European Commission and the "coalition" of the five Eastern European states that introduced restrictions – Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria.

On April 28, after a week of negotiations (in which Poland was the least flexible), the parties reached an agreement. The five countries mentioned above promised to lift their restrictions.

The European Commission is reporting a joint victory.

"Today's measures are part of a package that confirms our strong commitment to Ukraine while at the same time addressing logistics and trade issues in neighboring EU countries... We continue to adhere to the EU's unified approach, rather than unilateral measures that threaten the normal functioning of our single market," stated European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis.

However, Kyiv's official position is quite the opposite.

Ukraine still insists that the EU is acting against the rules. The logic of official Kyiv is simple: the Association Agreement (AA), which still regulates trade relations between Ukraine and the EU, does not provide for an unjustified deterioration of trade conditions, which was introduced arbitrarily without consultation with Ukraine and without jointly seeking alternative solutions.

Unofficially, the government says that the European Commission's decision considers Ukraine's interests to the maximum extent possible under current circumstances.

First of all, the restrictions apply only to four product groups, while some "fifth" countries demanded a ban on a broader range of Ukrainian goods. The end date of these restrictions, June 5, is also clearly defined.

In Brussels, despite optimistic statements, it is understood that they are acting contrary to international law and EU legislation.

The European Commission's decision does not explain why the restrictions apply only to these four product groups and only to the markets of five EU countries. Moreover, this ban completely contradicts the principles of the functioning of the European Union, which considers all member states as a common market. And the decision, designed to overcome the "grain crisis," actually destroys this market.

Now the main task and challenge for Kyiv is to prove that extending restrictions is possible only based on trade investigations with clear justifications.