Guarded safeguards

Malta must be the only EU member to start talking about reintroducing (temporary) import protection literally within days of joining the single market, a basic element of membership intended to bring about economic integration, with all that implies. Hard on May 1, rumour was fanned from within the government itself that importers had better watch out - quotas, levies or both could be in again.

The rumour rode on the back of a surge in demand for import substitutes, like milk and pasta, and the arrival of water and sugar melons, depressing the usually seasonally high price for the local 'early' fruit. Responding to complaints by farmers the prime minister observed that there was a safeguard clause in the EU accession agreement which could be triggered for their protection, if need be.

The PM added that one must not be hasty and had to monitor developments. He reiterated that this weekend, following renewed angry protests by the farmers' lobby.

Monitoring requires clear benchmarks as a starting point. Fuller details should also be given of assistance provided to enable the sensitive agro-industry sector to prepare to withstand, to the extent that it can do so, competition from within the EU. It could well be that competition will prove to be too strong. That was always going to be one of the likely costs of membership. But the position has to be seen in the round.

The consumer, though hardly the king s/he is made out to be, has to be in the equation. For instance, with the price of beef set to rise, both because the temporary subsidy is not enough relative to past imports, and due to strong external market conditions, it is nonsensical to suggest that lower-priced alternatives like imported chicken will be curtailed, and their price raised.

True to Malta's peculiar character, the issue is already burning, the first month of membership barely over. Allegations fuel it that the government misled local growers in the membership debate. Official voices, not always as cautious as the premier, counter that safeguards would be swiftly introduced, should that be justified, as if that depended on the government alone.

There has been scant recourse to the accession documents. They make for neither easy nor popular reading, but it is what they say that really counts. The issue is of general interest, as it impacts on everyone's pocket. Central to it are a number of agricultural products - like milk, meat, chicken eggs, wine products, tomatoes and tomato products, and fruit and vegetables.

In the accession negotiations these were covered by the Special Market Policy Programme for Maltese Agriculture, in relation to the general economic safeguard clause set out in the Treaty of Accession. The technical reference is to Article 37, which is to be applicable for Malta up to five years from May 1, 2004. The article lays down the following:

1. If, until the end of a period of up to three years after accession, difficulties arise which are serious and liable to persist in any sector of the economy or which could bring about serious deterioration in the economic situation of a given area, a new Member State may apply for authorisation to take protective measures in order to rectify the situation and adjust the sector concerned to the economy of the common market.

In the same circumstances, any present Member State may apply for authorisation to take protective measures with regard to one or more of the new Member States.

2. Upon request by the State concerned, the Commission shall, by emergency procedure, determine the protective measures that it considers necessary, specifying the conditions and modalities in which they are to be put into effect. In the event of serious economic difficulties and at the express request of the Member State concerned, the Commission shall act within five working days of the receipt of the request accompanied by the relevant background information. The measures thus decided on shall be applicable forthwith, shall take account of the interests of all parties concerned and shall not entail frontier controls.

3. The measures authorised under paragraph 2 may involve derogations from the rules of the EC Treaty and from this Act to such an extent and for such periods as are strictly necessary in order to attain the objectives referred to in paragraph 1. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of the common market.

Crystal clear? Hardly. The government could do worse than provide fuller, easily understandable information. For instance, once 'frontier controls' cannot be part of any protective measures that could be introduced if the government seeks and gets Commission approval to trigger the safeguard clause, what protective measures could be designed?

Better remove misconceptions. Better, too, to be absolutely frank about the realities of membership.