- 1 -

The impact of agricultural liberalizationin the context of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership

FEMISE report November 2003

Samir Radwan, ERF, EgyptJean-Louis Reiffers, Institut de la Méditerranée, France

FEMISE coordinators

Report prepared by contributions from1:

Alejandro Lorca, Université autonome de Madrid,Jose Maria Alvarez, Université Polytechnique de Valence,Rafael de Arce, Université autonome de Madrid,L.R. Klein Institute,Gonzalo Escribano, Université Polytechnique de Valence,Jose Maria Jordan, Université Polytechnique de Valence,Ramon Mahia, Université autonome de Madrid,

Amer S. Jabarin, University of Amman – Jordan,Seyfeddin Muaz, Royal Scientific Society, Jordan,

Frederic Blanc, Institut de la Méditerranée,Nathalie Roux, Université de la Méditerranée, CEFILionel Urdy, Institut de la Méditerranée.

The agricultural issue was relatively deferred in Euro-Mediterranean partnership. It was included inbilateral negotiations for partnership agreements, with certain reciprocal concessions (in somecases, ad hoc negotiations could have permitted more access to strategic products markets –Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan – in other cases, negotiations permitted more progress becausestructures were less competitive – Algeria, Lebanon). But the outline and process enabling aprogressive and joint evolution by EU and Mediterranean countries were never discussed.

The Overall Problem

A key issue that concerned the expanded EU as well as the MP

Agriculture is vital for EU Mediterranean partners (MP), for a number of reasons that relatesto the size of the sector in the economies and its characteristics:

• Agriculture represents for most of the MP a share of 10 to 20% of GDP (as compared to3% in Europe).

• Agriculture accounts, in average, for more than 20% of employment, as compared to4.3% in Europe and it influences the well being of 40% of the population (a hectoliter ofolive oil, for example, corresponds to 8 working days and a harvest of 200,000 tonsequivalent to 4000 jobs/full time).

• Even in countries like Tunisia where they are high diversified, it was estimated that growthof agricultural production, which is very volatile (in 2002 year of drought, olive oilproduction stood at 30,000 tons and grains at 0.5 million tons, whereas under a normalrainfall, these two products respectively reached, 310,000 tons and 2.9 million tons),currently accounted for more than one third of GDP growth.

• Poverty is definitely higher in rural than in urban areas. The phenomenon tends to beaggravated in intensity as well as in depth.

• Rural exodus fosters the development of new forms of poverty in villages in the south –followed by legal and illegal emigration, to EU countries – and also increases tensions thatweigh on natural resources and the environment.

• The cost of labour is directly linked to the price of food supplies and self-subsistencecapacities. In the context where food is the first item in the consumption budgets ofhouseholds (nearly 45% in Morocco or in Egypt; nearly 35% in Tunisia or in Jordan),controlling wages depends on the adjustment of agricultural markets. Ensuring healthy

1 The authors thank the following for their valuable comments: Dr. Ali Saeed, Egypt, Dr. Adel Bishai, Professorat the American University in Cairo, Dr. Nabil Chaherti, The World Bank, Middle East and Africa region

- 2 -

food at low cost requires a competitive manpower and hence encourages the developmentof industrial sectors that are either directly or indirectly related to the agriculture.

Agriculture in MP offers immense opportunities, at the same time it is subject to major constraints.Opportunities are given through important comparative advantages in fruits, vegetables andfishing, activities where production and exportation reserves exist. Constraints stem from the factthat agriculture depends generally on the rain, that there is no supplementary irrigation capacities.They also depend on the size of farms, age of farmers (usually old and illiterate), on lack ofequipment and in general to inadequate technological skill (fertilizers, seeds, varieties, quality andsanitary control, etc). Such shortcomings render MP to be very dependent (these are theircomparative disadvantages) on grain production, meat and milk. These productions are vital forthese countries to the extent that they settle rural populations and allow significant self-consumption alimentation. Significant progress in productivity can be achieved though a bettermanagement of water resources and technologies.

In this context, constant agricultural policy of MP aims at subsidizing staple commodity prices, inparticular, grains, meat and milk, therefore products with comparative disadvantages. The effectwas twofold, namely to limit production capacities due to very low prices and to develop rural self-consumption. At the end of the 70’s, the IMF intervened to suppress these subsidies whichpromptly engendered an increase in prices accompanied by significant social reactions, particularlyin Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. Despite retreating to limit this reaction, subsidies were regularlyreduced and the liberalization of agricultural markets was initiated. Today, a policy to supportfarmers’ revenues is duly envisaged instead of supporting prices (cf. ARIP, a four-year programimplemented for agricultural reform in Turkey since 2001).

In European countries, agriculture has other functions (conservation of the environment, ruraldevelopment, alimentary hygiene, sustainable development..) which gives it a specific content andsocietal role. Since fifty years, the European structure demonstrated that behind agriculturalexchange, there is a way of life and a relationship with environment and nature that is presentedto the world through the exchange of goods.

Regarding exchange, EU countries:

• have comparative advantages, in the production of cereals, meat and milk, advantagesaccentuated by an interconnected subsidy plan (for production, prices and exportation).Production subsidies create surpluses of supply in European markets. These surpluses aremore important when domestic prices are maintained artificially high by the system ofprice intervention (short of financial compensations disbursed to producers). Newsubsidies for exporting these products are therefore necessary to enable the flow of thissurplus to international markets.

• were in a comparative disadvantaged situation in terms of fruits and vegetables, productsthat benefit from an inadequate level of support compared to that granted by CAP tocontinental production. Moreover, the production of fruits and vegetables that representedan average of 16% of agricultural production in the EU during these past years, onlyreceived 4.5% from Feoga-Garantie fund. There is no direct payment made by hectaresimilar to “continental” production. It is true that the CAP offers support throughcompensation paid for certain fruits and vegetables, but the prices are fixed sufficientlylow in order not to encourage producers to resort to them. On the contrary, the CAP forthe Mediterranean agriculture of the EU focus on granting support to producersassociations to what concerns marketing or ameliorating structures, as well as quality andpromotion of consumption.

The EU implemented a modification of CAP that pursued successive reforms carried out for nearlyfifteen years in order to move from a regime supporting products to one supporting producers.This reform will substantially change the situation in the cases where:

• It introduces a unique payment per farm, in proportion to production and whose totalamount will be based on the support received during the reference period (2000/2002).This unique payment will be subject to respecting the norms of environmental issues, foodsecurity, animal and plant health and well being of animals, as well as the demand formaintaining all agricultural lands in satisfactory agronomic and environmental conditions.This “Eco- conditionality” will ensure that European farmers will also be remunerated fortheir contribution to the well being of the community, the first real materialization of the“multi functional” approach of agriculture undertaken by the Union since nearly ten years.

- 3 -

• It strengthens a policy of rural development mainly characterized by new measures aimingat: (i) upgrading the environment, the quality and well being of animals, (ii) assistingfarmers in applying community production standards until 2005. This rural developmentpolicy will be endowed with enhanced financial means, obtained by a reduction in directpayments to large farms (“modulation”). This materialises the will to balance communityassistance according to type, even that of farms: nearly 25% of European farms receivednearly 80% aid.

• It modifies the logic of the CAP in initially seeking to reply to taxpaying consumers. Atwofold answer is given: (i) at the request of the European consumers for agricultural andalimentary products, the EU has placed a new prerequisite that aims to guarantee thequality of production processes, healthy food and well being of animals: (ii) at the requestof European taxpayers, the EU strictly respects the budget determined in Brussels from 25to the end of 2013. It explicitly attacks the subsidies system in force since 50 years, evenif it envisages maintaining limited accompanying elements to avoid any abandonment ofproduction.

This evolution should not conceal an important problem, namely substitution of regulatory normsfor tariffs. FEMISE deems that, in fact, price distortions should not be replaced by a system ofnorms and an established application under the aegis of the FAO and WHO, that by their particularprogressive and arbitrary character will stand as an obstacle in front of Mediterranean exportation.

An evolution of a little contestable interdependent agricultural system from an economicpoint of view

If only economic rationality was followed, the optimal solution would certainly be: agriculturalexchanges should be liberalized in the zone and translated by reciprocal flux (fruits and vegetablesincoming from MP against cereals, meat and milk from the EU or other sources). This liberalizationshould not be altered by all sorts of distortions, in particular by subsidies. These subsidies initiallyconcern EU countries and the USA that have distorted market prices in comparison to realproduction costs. But they also concern MP who must stop subsidizing basic commodities (whichwill develop their production capacities) and make producers pay for water at marginal cost.Consequences of this liberalization in time will certainly be a gain in terms of GDP, a lower cost forconsumers, a cost-cutting for public budgets and a significant contribution of the zone in thenegotiations within the WTO framework.

However, progress in this regard was slowed down due to social or societal reasons linked toadjustments implied by liberalization. Concerning MP, it threatens cereals, meat and milkproductions, and it causes multiple distortions. It is not certain however that the mise a niveauprograms and technological adjustment will make the MP more competitive in terms of thoseproductions (in the production of wheat, Egypt achieves today yields , irrigated, that are equal toEuropean average). As for the EU, adjustment will necessarily concern fruits and vegetables,hence Mediterranean production. But here again, and as indicated by the initial enlargement, thatthe increase in ranges, and the progress towards access to world markets and the efforts todiversify products will limit the adjustment.

In view of these elements, FEMISE recommends proceeding in this direction progressively,controlling adjustments in order to stabilize the rural world. This implies an effort to placesouthern agriculture at a level within the framework of a partnership conceived by the entire Euro-Med region.

Five key questions

Five key orientations will be examined here that should prompt an evolution of the system ofagricultural interdependence in the region; these are: (i) to identify and reach categories who willundergo the adjustment, (ii) to set up a transparent regulatory system easily accessible to MP,(iii) to rationalize the utilization of water in the whole zone, (iv) to control the spread of povertyand rural exodus, (v) to move upward through technology.

To identify and reach categories that will undergo the adjustment

According to European foreign policy, agricultural liberalization will be justified by its capacity toassist in the economic development of southern Mediterranean countries by means of raisingagricultural exportation and improving traditional agricultural sectors that are substituted byimportations due to the high level of tariff and non tariff protection. At the same time, this could

- 4 -

generate a virtuous circle that will transmit to the economy a rise in employment and revenue inthe agricultural sector.

Opening the EU markets to agricultural exportation of MP constitutes a true dilemma forMediterranean countries of Europe. On the one hand, for geo-economic reasons, these countrieswere the most fervent promoters of Euro-Mediterranean relations and were significantly engagedat the political level for the economic development of MP. On the other hand, there was a generalsentiment, particularly in Spain, that the cost of such an openness will be significant and willmainly affect Mediterranean agricultural exportation of the Union. According to CAPRI database,developed with the assistance of V European framework program, products affected byMediterranean agricultural liberalization (fruits, vegetables and olives) represented more than45% of the value added in 8 Italian regions, 8 Spanish regions, 8 Greek regions, 5 Dutch regions,4 regions in Belgium, 1 Portuguese region and 1 French region, 26 from 35 regions situated in thesouthern part of the Union, and the most affected countries were Spain, Greece and Italy. Thistends to exacerbate the feeling of discrimination among Mediterranean producers created by thedifferent levels of internal support granted to European agricultural policies. These producers fearbeing the only losers of a foreign policy decision, to which they do not contest a justification, andreclaim a more balanced solution.

For Mediterranean partner countries, the impact of liberalizing agricultural markets must beevaluated in the context of the strong duality of structures and South products.

• Small traditional farms in the protected sector (most numerous in the Mediterranean:farms less than one hectare represents nearly three out of four farms in Morocco but onlycovered 24% of arable agricultural surface), under equipped, hardly organized, underfinanced, sometimes very much in debt and mostly using family and/or informal workers(93% of agricultural wages came from family labour in Morocco), display the lowest levelsof productivity and will be the first to suffer from all forms of liberalization. Subsistence orsemi subsistence cereal producers will be first in the line and will provide essentialagricultural labour that should be adapted and redeployed for other activities, in the ruralor urban world.

• This action will follow and amplify the actions taken by MP since their commitment toreform their policies in the domestic agricultural markets, especially basic commodities.Even if cereals will continue to be protected, the tendency to reduce domestic support tothis sector, committed within the framework for acceding to WTO and/or participating inthe Barcelona process, generated significant reduction in surfaces cultivating grain,particularly those irrigated.

• On the contrary, large farms producing for exportation and assisted by modern means,generally adequately supplied with physical and human capital, will be winners fromagricultural liberalization (particularly in fruits and vegetables). These farms arecharacterized by a concentrated land ownership and capitalism in MP: these large farms,certainly a few, possess a considerable part of arable agricultural surface (in Tunisia, forexample, 2% of farms have more than 20 hectares, but hold more than 60% of arableagricultural land). Therefore, the latest agricultural census in Morocco indicated thatalthough the total number of farms was reduced between 1974 to 1996 (by nearly 22%),the number of large farms had increased by nearly 8% (cf. A. Ait El Mekki, G. Ghersi, R.Hamimaz, J-L. Rastoin, 2002).

• Finally, peasants and farmers producing for their own consumption, that do not trade theirproducts, should not be directly concerned. Nonetheless, they may be subjected to indirectconsequences due the decline of economic activity in rural zones where most of thosefarmers are working part time in other farms or other rural sectors.

The adaptation process of labour is more complex considering the reality of agricultural structuresin the South today. Many specific elements in the rural world should be taken into account (WorldBank, 2002):

• Geographic mobility is a central factor: bearing in mind the weak diversification of sourcesof revenues in the Mediterranean rural world, rural exodus is a considerable risk since themost productive agricultural farms will be in the forefront to absorb this supplementarymanpower in the labour market.

• Technological content and organization of production are determinants: farms that aremost likely to hire labour are those utilizing capital intensive technologies. This will raisethe problem of training farmers who will have to abandon a production sector to move toanother, that is more capitalistic and differently organized.

- 5 -

• Territorial disparities were crucial: in fact, agro climatic characteristics play a determinantrole. They could particularly: (i) limit capacities to change products (from those lesseffective to more competitive in markets) and (ii) provoke difficulties posed by reallocationof work (it is relatively harder for a farmer who worked all his life in an arid or semi aridarea to seek employment in an irrigated zone).

In total, the cost of an eventual change of employment stemming from agricultural activitiesseemed higher than the duality of productive agricultural structures in the Mediterranean. Geo-climatic constraints, the scope of mobility and training cause problems that are different fromthose in industrial sector, and diversification of revenues, in the rural area, seem to be the key forprogress in liberalizing agricultural exchanges at the Euro-Mediterranean and multilateral levels. Infact, social efforts should focus on these populations.

Urban households will equally be figured as winners from agricultural liberalization, since theyrepresent the major part of MP revenues and their purchasing power will be improved by thereduction in prices of cereals, milk and meat.

In total, the impact of agricultural liberalization at the heart of south-Mediterranean societies willbe diverse. But, one effect is evident: namely, rural exodus. This concerns Mediterraneanauthorities, since it means a reinforcement of a more rapid growth in ongoing urbanizationprocess, a growing tension between the rural and urban areas and a new step in exacerbatingregional tensions.

Implementation of a transparent and easily accessible regulatory system for MP

It was often noted that agriculture was the sector bearing the strongest protection. Here, howeveras in other sectors, an undeniable reduction in tariff protection could be observed. This reaction,recorded in GATT then in WTO negotiations had a pernicious effect. Countries found themselvescaught in a stranglehold caused on the one hand by social pressure refusing the free game ofinternational prices, whose only negative aspects are felt, and hoping for a form of protectionismestablished in the name of collective values. And on the other hand, the cost that becameprohibitive at the economic and political levels of unilaterally increasing tariff protection.Consequently, the significant development of other forms of barriers to trade could be observednotably based on norms and standards.

These norms and standards are necessary for the functioning of markets; they are equallyfundamental at the human level for guaranteeing the qualitative aspect of food security andconservation of the environment. But, they could rapidly be transformed into barriers, byrestricting de facto access to markets (essentially western), consequently there is a need tounderline: (i) that producers in south countries are technically less capable to answer to complexcriteria of this type of measures (tests, conformity measures, promote production process..), (ii)that these measures further increase the cost on exporters, which in the case of developingcountries, will eliminate comparative advantages linked to the cost of labour.

Number of notifications of technical measures

- 6 -

This question is essential for agriculture that is characterised by being one of the domains thatenjoy a high protection since it involves the essence of life, mainly arising from:

• Amelioration of food security by creating or strengthening institutional structures andregulatory frameworks. If they do not already exist, food security agencies will develop inmost of the EU countries. Furthermore, numerous countries modified their regulations inorder to improve food standards and verification procedures in this respect.

• Development of agro-environmental measures. This takes the form of: (i) paymentsaccorded to agricultural provided that they utilized certain techniques or certain inputs, (ii)incentive subsidies in favour of collective actions.

Bearing in mind this ongoing evolution, FEMISE considers that fruitful partnership in the Euro-Mediterranean region, will consist, on the one hand, of ensuring that standards and normsdeveloped in agriculture will continue to be a mechanism for protecting consumers and not aprotectionist device in the service of producers. On the other hand, to act so that Mediterraneanpartners may benefit from technical assistance that will enable them to accede to a transparentand stable mechanism suitable for the Euro-Mediterranean region.

To rationalize the utilization of water in all the zone

Water is in the heart of the Euro-Mediterranean agricultural exchange issue for three majorreasons: firstly, because exchange of agricultural products is an exchange of water in which tariffsystems in the South have an important impact; secondly, because profitability from water in theMediterranean is particularly weak and here a wide margins for improving exist; finally, becausethe access to water on different productions is not durable in the Mediterranean and could beredressed within the framework of agricultural liberalization.

To establish a tariff system for water that permit international exchange with real comparativecosts

Trade in agricultural products is a virtual trade in water (cf. Allan, 1999). The value of virtualwater in a food product could be defined as the amount of water per unit of a product, which is –or will be – consumed during its production process. Countries with rare water resources couldtherefore “economize” by importing food products cultivated in countries that are rich in thisresource.

Moreover, for example, in the year 2000, quantities of maize imported by Egypt permitted theeconomization of around 2.700 million m3 of water. However, water is not only an import ofMediterranean countries, they also export it. Moreover, certain analyses have showed that Jordanexported, through its fruit and vegetables, as much virtual water as it imported through wheat (cf.IPTRID, FAO, 2001).

Inadequate available resources (in twenty years, according to FAO, Turkey will be the only MP thatwill not face serious resource problems, cf. FAO, 2002), the fact that agriculture is by far the firstwater consumer (from 60% in Algeria to more than 90% in Syria) and the growing conflicts forthe utilization of the resource (domestic, agricultural, industrial and touristic) render any progressdifficult to achieve.

In this approach of “virtual water”, the choice of production or exchange logically depends oninitial grants from different countries and on the relative intensity of water in different products.

Reforming the policy of fixing water tariffs is a priority, not only for the choice of production orimportation, but also for selecting the cultivation of products. Tariffs practiced in theMediterranean are low compared to other developing regions: according to the World Bank,average tariff on agricultural water was below 5 cents in a dollar per m3.

Despite reforms undertaken in most countries since the mid 80s, the cost for acquiring watercontinues to be one of the principal subsidies granted by MP to their farmers and consumers.Reforming the policy on the price of water is a complex issue as it should integrate at least fourobjectives that could be contradictory: (i) to conserve a rare resource, (ii) to ensure efficiency inthe utilization of this resource, (iii) to maintain the revenue of farmers, (iv) to secure a sociallyviable pricing system for food products. However, this reform is urgent in the Mediterranean andthe progress achieved by certain countries (Jordanian reform in 1996, Tunisian policy

- 7 -

implemented in certain regions..) indicate that substantial progress is still possible (cf. Bazza M.,Ahmad M., 2002).

To ameliorate efficiency in the utilization of water in MP

In general, all MP (except Turkey, indeed Egypt) share the same heavy constraints that contributeto insufficient water productivity:

• Deterioration in the quality of water due to major withdrawal that leads to the intrusion ofsea water into the basins.

• Excessive utilization of fertilizers, pesticides and uncontrolled rejection of used water thatcause severe salinization of water and soil.

• Increasing salinization in shallow wells utilized for irrigation in countries that depend onunderground water.

• The small size of farms in the region that increase difficulties in the distribution of watercoming from shared springs or wells.

• Irrigation methods are obsolete and inefficient (especially irrigation by flooding, by openground canals, and other traditional methods) and lack of technical experience inoperating modern irrigation practices.

• Production of cultivated land necessitate more water relative to the value of harvests, asin the case of bananas.

• The low price of water that does not reflect its real cost, especially in Egypt, Jordan, Syriaand the territories under the Palestinian Authority.

• Absence of associations of water users that could serve as an interface for sensitizingusers and boosting cooperation between sectors for the use of a rare resource.

• Limited and inappropriate possibilities in re-collecting water.• Inherent institutional problems for the definition and management of property rights.

In order to improve the utilization of water, it was necessary to pursue irrigation policies basedon:

• diversification of utilized sources (surface water, reutilizing used water..);• development of economic technologies for water.

In Tunisia, irrigated surfaces (4% of total agricultural surface) allowed the production of nearly30% of GDP in national agriculture.

To optimize the allocation of water to different agricultural activities

Considering that water resources are rare, MP are interested in gearing their domestic productionto products that required little water and/or for which production techniques are developed foreconomizing water. Contrary to recognized general approach, cereals do not consume less waterthan certain Mediterranean productions, including tomatoes.

Thus, even if the relative rate in the cost of water for the production of a tomato is moreimportant than the total cost of the production of a cereal, the metric ton of wheat or barleyrequires a large quantity of water than one metric ton of tomatoes or olives. Therefore, a largepart of irrigation water utilized for continental production (meat, milk and eventually certaincereals) could be usefully diverted to the production of agricultural goods with higher added value,exportable to the community markets and which often respect natural Mediterranean constraints.

- 8 -

Water required by certain agricultural productsM3 of water per metric ton of product

0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000

Tomates

Olives

légumes

Maïs

Blé

Orge

Fruits

Bananes

Riz

Sucre

Lait

Coton

Huile végétale

Bœuf

Source: The World Bank, 2003

In this context, MP should clearly:

• progressively limit their domestic products that consume too much water, hence cereals –even if the initial choice to encourage their production relied on the will to ensure nationalalimentary balance – and to resort to the market for importing products whose domesticproduction will lead to sound utilization of water (milk, meat, sugar and rice in particular).On condition, however, to be sure that the market always responds to the quantity andthe quality of importation demands. Such adjustment could only be progressive andconsequently accompanied by a partnership with the EU;

• to concentrate on least water consuming productions, productions that otherwise have acomparative advantage already manifested in international markets (fruits and vegetablesin particular).

Controlling Poverty Development and the Rural Exodus

Agriculture is a sensitive issue to the EU but it is an essential issue to the MP in all its aspectsbecause it conditions the balance of Mediterranean societies.

Containing Rural Poverty, an unavoidable objective

To begin with, food consumption is the main entry of the households consumption budgets (at thenational level averages, nearly 35% in Morocco or Egypt in 2000; about 35% in Tunisia orJordan...). Openness should allow for a “natural” cut-down of the prices of food products (that is,without subsidies) and should act in favour of the poorest households whose food consumptionbudget is the most significant one. On the other hand, openness will have a reverse effect onagricultural employment: the population concerned amounts to up to 40% of the population,agricultural manpower is mostly a family one and the farms below 5 hectares amount to morethan 90% of the total number of farms.

Living conditions are particularly difficult for these farmers and this transpires through povertysurveys.

- 9 -

Impact of poverty in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco and Tunisia from 1981/1982 to 1998/1999

Urban Rural TotalSurveycountriesand years Pop. .% Poverty Index

%Pop. % Poverty Index

%Pop. % Poverty

Index %Egypt

1981/821990/19911995/1996

1997

18.220.322.522.5

3.54.34.95.6

16.128.523.324.3

3.14.54.36.4

17.225

22.923.5

n.a.n.a.n.a.6.7

Jordan1986/87

19921997

2.612.410

n.a.3.12.1

4.421.118.2

n.a.5.14

314.411.7

0.33.62.5

Morocco1884/851990/911998/99

17.37.612

n.a.1.52.5

32.618

27.2

n.a.5.14

2613.119

n.a.2.74.4

Tunisia198519901995

4.63.53.6

n.a.0.70.7

19.113.113.9

n.a.3.23.1

11.27.47.5

n.a.1.71.6

Source: Adams and Page, 2001, quoted in the Femise report 2003

This clearly shows that poverty is rural phenomena. In fact the average rates, which can beconsidered moderate in the Mediterranean in comparison with other regions, often conceal a deepdisparity between the urban and rural areas where the prevalence of poverty is twice as high.Similarly, the depth of the phenomenon, which measures the intensity of poverty wherever itexists, is more significant in the rural areas.

These farmers, whose properties are below the feasibility threshold (less than 3 dry hectares or 1irrigated hectare), are very poor and have no other possible survival strategy than seeking otherrevenues through temporary jobs. The situation is therefore rendered fragile by the very lowdiversification of jobs in the rural environment of the MP.

The Problem of Rural Exodus and Migration

The first movement of migration is from the rural to the urban areas. The rural exodus isbecoming another source of problems that has to be faced by rural populations: (i) by increasingthe social pressures affecting the cities of the South and, by legal or illegal migration to the NorthMediterranean ones, (ii) by increasing tensions over natural resources and the environment.

Nevertheless, agriculture is a sector in which is experiencing an avoidable decrease in the numberof jobs. In the Mediterranean as in the rest of the world, the absolute dwindling of agriculturalassets and the reduction of the relative weight of agriculture in national production are evidencedby the countries’ pace of development. Technological progress accounts for most of thismovement: in the long term, the growth rate of agricultural productivity is in fact higher than thegrowth rate of demand, which implies that constant adjustments are required at the global leveland such adjustments have a significant impact on agricultural jobs.

The tendency to liberalise agricultural trade is reinforced by the reduction of traditional activities inrural areas. Any progress, whether it be multilateral or bilateral, will increase the impetus ofadjustment. According to A. Fedjari (2000) there are apparently 180 000 rural migrants per yearin Morocco at present and 60 000 of these head for Casablanca every year.

A solution based on high technology

Introducing technology in the agriculture sector of the MPC constitutes the best way to limitadjustments and entails the following requirements: (i) focusing action on the critical points thatfavour an increase of comparative advantages, (ii) removing institutional and organisationalconstraints, (iii) modernising structures.

- 10 -

Focusing action on critical points in order to develop comparative advantages.

Technological adjustment can allow the EU and the MP to draw profit from the gains linked withliberalisation. Regardless of the degree of agricultural trade liberalisation finally agreed upon, suchtechnological adjustment can induce a deep modification of the determining elements ofcompetition between the countries of the area. However, in order to be efficient, this technologicaladjustment has to involve both the Mediterranean and the European farmers.

The situation in the Mediterranean countries is characterised by heavy constraints that equallyaffects the least profitable cereal products as well as the horticultural ones, which have thepossibility of being competitive in the markets of the community.

The comparative advantages of the horticultural products are mainly based on geo-climatic factorsand the cost of manpower. However, as in the case of small and medium cereal farms, they arefaced with institutional constraints but also with constraints related to production, marketing andexports.

Lifting the Constraints

• The main institutional constraints are the following: (i) the private sector’s reluctance toinvest in large scale projects, mainly due to the high risks related to this type of businessand to the lack of vertical integration between producers, industrialists and exporters, inaddition to high marketing risks; (ii) the low income of the producers is a result of thefailure to identify the opportunities provided by horticultural industries; (iii) the lowrecourse to high yield varieties and traditional crops by academic institutions, the privatesector and the public sector and (iv) the lack of research and development activities and ofcommon research projects.

• The major constraints related to marketing are the following: (i) the absence and/or weakapplication of regulations concerning classifications, standards and packaging on the localand exports markets; (ii) the insufficient and inadequate training services in the field ofmarketing; (iii) the lack of effective market studies and information systems in themarkets; (iv) the absence of any kind of organisation such as associations or cooperatives,so that the lobbying capacities that can reinforce the development of industries arelimited.

• As regards production, we need to highlight the following: (i) a lack of opportunities forthe development of products, because the access to new varieties and techniques islimited; (ii) a lack of competence in relation to production systems; (iii) the privatesector’s lack of initiative in the field of production; and (iv) the scarcity and inadequacy oftraining services in production (on the job training).

• Finally, the exports constraints are the following: (i) a limited knowledge of financialopportunities that exist in cultivating horticultural crops for exportation; (ii) a lack ofinformation concerning the demand for products, schedules, quality, shape,...; (iii)underestimating economies of scale due to the creation of large scale export firms that arewell established and specialised in horticultural products at the national and regionallevels; (iv) a lack of coordination between all the actors of the markets, at both thenational and regional levels; (v) an insufficient availability of information for the producersand the exporters on such matters as intellectual property, international agreements suchas CITIS or CBD and the bilateral trade agreements; and (vi) the lack of competence increating international trade enterprises, which limits the development of this industry.

Modernising Structures

The Mediterranean countries of the EU must equally modernise their agricultural structures,because of growing competition if agricultural trade is liberalised. Given the elements above, suchcompetition will first arise in the low cost and downmarket products. Furthermore, the strategyadopted by the European countries must be based on enhancing quality, diversifying, adapting tothe demand of specific markets, developing environment-friendly products and seekingcomplementarity with the South Mediterranean producers. This trend was observed during thepast years, but a more systematic and pro-active approach will be required to meet the challengeof free-trade in agricultural products.

Although the contents and priorities of technological adjustment will differ depending on whichside of the Mediterranean basin is looked at, this seems to be the key element if all the Euro-

- 11 -

Mediterranean societies are to profit from agricultural liberalisation Far from being automatic, sucha technological change requires the combined efforts of public sector and private sector actors: todevelop a relationship between basic research and to disseminate the results of such research toall the actors. The public and private costs are considerable, but given the considerable returns oninvestment, FEMISE recommends that this should be taken into consideration.

PRESENT STATE OF THE EURO-MEDITERRANEAN INTERDEPENDENCE SYSTEM2

An asymmetry manifested in a high dependence of the MP vis-à-vis agricultural trade

In 2001, the EU exported agricultural products for 270 billion dollars. This amounts to 10% of totalexports, a decreasing share in comparison with 1990 (12%). Food products amount to thegreatest part of such trade (83%), a part that has increased during the last decade (81% in1990).

Vis-à-vis the world, the agricultural balance of the EU is still showing a slight deficit (coverage rate92.5% in 2001 and 95.2% in 2002). However, this coverage rate has very clearly improved since1990 when it only reached 82.5%. In 2001, the total imports of the EU reached 292 billion dollars,191 billion dollars of which were obtained from intra-Union trade (65.6%).

Trade with the MP only amounts to a small fraction of EU agricultural trade. This is the firstmarked asymmetry in Euro-Mediterranean relations from the agricultural point of view.

The European countries exports to the Mediterranean countries amount to 6.3 billion dollars that is2.3% of total exports. On their part, the MP export 9.5 billion dollars worth of agricultural productsto the whole world (that is, 8% of total MP exports), 4.3 billion dollars of which go to the EU. Thismeans that the EU absorbed 45.7% of the MP’s agricultural exports, in 2001. Such exports onlyamount to 2% of the EU countries’ imports (5.8% of the EU extra-community imports). This sharehas been stable since 1990 and it reflects the Partnership’s disregard of the agricultural problem.

The MP import 17.8 billion dollars worth of agricultural products from the world. European importsamount to 32.5% of such agricultural imports.

The agricultural balance regularly reflected a deficit over the last decade with both the world andthe EU, the latter being the cause of the 17.5% deficit of 2001.

-12 000 000

-10 000 000

-8 000 000

-6 000 000

-4 000 000

-2 000 000

0

1990

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

Solde Monde Solde UE

The accessing countries (excluding Cyprus and Malta, that are still included among the MP in thissurvey. From this point onwards, these countries will be designated as AC8) exported 11.2 billiondollars worth of agricultural products, 5.71 billion of which went to the EU, that is 51.0%. Theyimported 11.9 billion dollars worth in all, 5.67 dollars of which from the EU (47.6%). Theiragricultural balance, which shows a slight deficit in its trade with the world, has a small surpluswith the EU.

2 All the data below were obtained from the Comtrade database and completed in 2002 by the comextdatabase (Eurostat Medstat). The extractions and calculations were realized by the Institut de la Méditerranée.For the per-product analysis, the calculations were carried out at the 4 digits level. The nomenclature contains245 agricultural products and food industries.

- 12 -

AC8 - MP relations are very weak. On the one hand, the MP exports are worth 151 million dollarsto the AC8, which corresponds to 1.6 % of their total imports. On the other hand, they import 317million dollars worth of agricultural products from the AC8, that is, 1.70% of their total exports. Tothe AC8, the MP therefore amount to 2.5% of their total exports and 1.5% of their imports.

A structure of trade concentrated and specialised for each market but has undergonemodifications since the nineties

An interdependent system that is loosing dynamism

In the light of the recent evolution, the market shares of the EU in the MP have lost 5 points since95 (from 38% to 33%), while the market share of the MP in the EU market has remained stable atabout 2%.

Added to this is a significant modification of the type of trade exercised by the MP with Europe, onthe one hand, and with the rest of the world, on the other. In fact, we have observed adevelopment of intra-branch agricultural trade that is much more significant with the world thanwith the EU, especially after 1995. In 1995 the agricultural intra-branch indicator of trade with theEU was slightly higher than that of intra-branch trade with the “rest of the world” (18.3% against18.1%) and after 6 years the gap became significantly in favour of the “rest of the world” (21.2%for the EU, versus 25.4%). This indicates that the content of MP trade with the EU is lessdifferentiated than with the rest of the world, which can be interpreted as a loss of dynamism onthe part of the agricultural Euro-Mediterranean interdependence system.

Cereals and milk against fruits and fishing products

The content of Euro-Mediterranean trade is focused on certain products at the present day. Basedon the nomenclature that distinguishes 245 posts, it is possible to resume most of the trade intosome fifteen products, including both exports and imports: the first fifteen posts imported by theentire MP amount in fact to 60.6% of all imports while the first fifteen export posts amount to64.1% of the total amount.

EU Exports to the MP MP Exports to the EUCTCI 4dg Code and

nomenclature $ 000’s Post %Cumulate

d %CTCI 4dg Code and

nomenclature $ 000’s Post %Cumulate

d %

1 0412 Oth wheat meslin unmlled 785 81711,62

% 11,62% 0577 Edible nuts fresh dried 400 408 9,03% 9,03%

2 0612 Other beet cane sugar 723 96110,70

% 22,32% 0579 Fruit fresh dried nes 279 888 6,31% 15,34%

3 0222 Milk concentd sweetened 516 911 7,64% 29,97% 0363 Molluscs 247 702 5,59% 20,93%

4 2482 Wood conifer sawn 396 410 5,86% 35,83% 4214 Olive oil etc 211 295 4,77% 25,70%

5 0989 Food preparations nes 371 261 5,49% 41,32% 0589 Fruit nuts prsvd ppd nes 200 938 4,53% 30,23%

6 2631 Cotton not carded combed 172 054 2,54% 43,86% 0545 Oth frsh chll vegetables 190 698 4,30% 34,53%

7 1124 Spirits 171 120 2,53% 46,39% 0571 Oranges etc 185 749 4,19% 38,72%

8 1222 Cigarettes contg tobacco 152 707 2,26% 48,65% 0567 Veg prepared presrvd nes 177 842 4,01% 42,73%

9 0430 Barley unmilled 137 983 2,04% 50,69% 0575 Grapes fresh or dried 171 958 3,88% 46,61%

10 4211 Soya bean oil fractions 131 543 1,94% 52,63% 2631 Cotton not carded combed 150 481 3,39% 50,00%

11 0819 Food waste animal feeds 124 504 1,84% 54,47% 2927 Cut flowers and foliage 137 433 3,10% 53,10%

12 0230 Butter other fat of milk 120 401 1,78% 56,25% 0371 Fish prepard presrvd nes 135 182 3,05% 56,15%

13 0541 Potatoes fresh chilled 102 916 1,52% 57,78% 0341 Fish fresh chilled whole 126 902 2,86% 59,02%

14 0011 Bovine animals live 95 106 1,41% 59,18% 0541 Potatoes fresh chilled 118 599 2,68% 61,69%

15 2116 Sheep skin excpt furskin 94 677 1,40% 60,58% 0544 Tomatoes fresh chilled 105 758 2,39% 64,08%

A system that is more complementary than competitive

A regional outlook

Two points must be underlined herein. The first is that these two lists of products are notduplicated. Only two posts are included in both (potatoes and non carded and non combed

- 13 -

cotton). The second is that the two exports structures (MP, EU) appear to be equally concentratedon some fifteen products (in CTCI 4 numbers). In fact, considering each Mediterranean countryalone, the concentration is clearly higher (5 products amount to 90% of the exports). This meansthat the whole South Mediterranean has an agricultural exports concentration that is almost equalto the EU’s, but within a highly complementary internal context.

Exports of the MP to the EU MP $ 000’s% export

MP

IncludedMP

CumulationCTCI 4dg Code andnomenclature

0577 Edible nuts fresh dried Turkey396509 99%

0579 Fruit fresh dried nes Turkey109168 39%

Israel 65 542 23%Tunisia 55 342 20% 82%

0363 Molluscs Morocco223122 90%

4214 Olive oil etc Tunisia121579 58%

Turkey 88 972 42% 100%

0589 Fruit nuts prsvd ppd nes Turkey174338 87%

0545 Oth frsh chll vegetables Israel 72 542 38%Morocco 40 421 21%Turkey 33 459 18%Egypt 31 114 16% 93%

0571 Oranges etc Morocco108122 58%

Israel 33 002 18%Tunisia 8 359 5% 80%

0567 Veg prepared presrvd nes Turkey105943 60%

Morocco 59 426 33% 93%

0575 Grapes fresh or dried Turkey147224 86%

Egypt 8 643 5% 91%2631 Cotton not carded combed Syria 58 244 39%

Egypt 49 686 33%Israel 18 217 12% 84%

2927 Cut flowers and foliage Israel121031 88%

0371 Fish prepard presrvd nes Morocco128709 95%

0341 Fish fresh chilled whole Morocco 74 493 59%Tunisia 17 807 14% 73%

0541 Potatoes fresh chilled Egypt 44 379 37%Israel 30 287 26%Cyprus 24 127 20% 83%

0544 Tomatoes fresh chilled Morocco 71 972 68%

Israel 24 635 23% 91%

As evidenced in the table above, almost all the exports of each post only concern 2 or 3 MP atmost.

This concentration is largely confirmed by the analysis of the main exported posts at the 4 digitlevel of the nomenclature. Despite the fact that the list of surveyed products comprises 245positions, the first 15 positions are enough to describe nearly all the exports of each of the MP tothe EU.

- 14 -

% share of the X firstproducts

MP Main exported products share 5 first 10 first 15 firstAlgeria 0579 Fruit fresh dried nes 28% 79% 93% 98%Cyprus 0541 Potatoes fresh chilled 29% 68% 86% 92%Egypt 2631 Cotton not carded combed 20% 63% 80% 89%Israel 2927 Cut flowers and foliage 17% 48% 67% 80%Jordan 0545 Oth frsh chll vegetables 54% 89% 97% 100%Lebanon 1211 Non lopped Tobacco 36% 76% 88% 92%Malta 0341 Fish fresh chilled whole 29% 81% 93% 96%Morocco 0363 Molluscs 22% 59% 78% 86%Syria 2631 Cotton not carded combed 55% 82% 90% 94%Tunisia 4214 Olive oil etc 37% 75% 88% 93%Turkey 0577 Edible nuts fresh dried 22% 51% 67% 75%

The MP are therefore experiencing all the problems inherent to a concentrated structure ofproduction or trade: they are extremely exposed to external events such as global rates, climatichazards and the emergence of new competitors.

For the MP, this is even more accentuated within the framework of their partnership with the EU:

• because blocking the access of the European market to a small number of sectors isequivalent for some countries to a complete blocking of their agricultural trade;

• because the different MP have extremely different situations, so that they have difficultiesmanaging the negotiation in a regional context, which also accounts for the initial choice ofa bilateral EU/MP negotiation in agricultural matters.

• because any other bilateral or regional agreement that the EU might sign outside theregion in which agricultural advances are concluded, can strongly destabilise some of theMP. In fact, the progress achieved within the framework of the WTO, the discussionsraised and the different free-trade proposals emanating from the United States clearlyindicate that agriculture can no longer be ignored or set aside in the next accords.

A national outlook which reveals the low risk of a general competition over agricultural productsbetween most of the European Countries and the MP

The question of a competition over agricultural products between, on the one hand, the EUcountries and, on the other hand, the MP, is essentially limited to a competition between Spain,which is the country most concerned, Greece and to a lesser extent Italy. The calculations carriedout for each country on the basis of a competition indicator (see annex N° 1) show in fact thatSpain is twice as concerned as Sweden or Germany by agricultural competition with the MP. Wemust note, however, that the export structures of some accession Countries (AC) like Hungary andPoland, for example, are as competitive with Spain as those of Morocco or Tunis. These remarks,which could be further developed, significantly demonstrate that the risks run by Europeanproducers if the European markets are opened to Mediterranean agricultural exports are indeed arelative one.

Products are less sensitive than they seem to be

Fourteen groups of products have been identified as being “sensitive”, because they areconsidered a potential source of strong competition between the countries of the EU (15) and theMP: tomatoes (0544), onions (0545), olive oil (4214), nuts (0577), oranges (0571), small citrusfruits (0572), lemons (0572), table grapes (0575), melons (0579), strawberries (0583), flowers(2927), potatoes (0541), rice (0421 to 0423) and wine (1121) – the figures in brackets indicatethe CTCI n° retained.

An analysis of trade between the EU and the MP in all these products led to the followingobservations:

i. Due to technical evolution, it is increasingly difficult to speak in terms of Mediterraneanproducts. It is fair to talk about a Mediterranean type of products: Holland alone exportsmore than twice as much as the 11 MP in the 14 products indicated.

- 15 -

ii. MP exports to the world in these 14 products only amounted to 8% of the total exports ofthe EU in 2001. But we must add that without Turkey the ratio drops to 4.5% and even to3.3% if Israel is not included.

iii. MP exports to the EU in these 14 products reached 60.8% of the total exports of the MP.At the same time, they only reached 4.6% of the total imports of the so-called sensitiveproducts of the EU.

iv. the enlargement will have an impact from the point of view of the sensitive products. Thefirst impact is from the competitiveness of those products in the global market (especiallydue to the support enjoyed by the CC8). CC8 exports to the world in the chosen productsamounts to about 21% of the MP’s exports. The risk of competition between the MP andthe AC8 is not negligible, especially for the MP, excluding Turkey (the ratio in this casewould be about 37%). This would lead to significant consequences in the Europeanmarket. CC8 exports to Europe today are from 25 to 44% (excluding Turkey) of MPexports to the same market. A substitution is largely foreseeable and will be twice asprejudicial. For the countries and regions of South Europe for which these products weredefined as sensitive, there will be an even greater competition within the new EU.However, the MP will have to face a double negative impact: the competition of the CC8and a growing distrust from the countries of South Europe. The second effect is the growthof the European market which can be measured on the basis of the sensitive productsimported by the CC8. This amounted to 1.4 billion dollars in 2001 prices, that is, 3.3% ofEU15 imports. More than two thirds already originate from the countries of the EU, butonly 5.8% from the MP.

It is in fact clear that the sensitivity of the mentioned products is asymmetrical. For the EU as agroup, the weight of the MP is largely insufficient for any effect to occur that cannot be correctedby the European agricultural budgets. But the stakes are higher for the MP. Firstly, the volumesconcerned can be considerable for some countries, given the concentration that characterises theexports of the different MP. Secondly, with the arrival of the accession countries to the Europeanmarket, an increase of intra-European competition will weigh on future negotiations with the EU atthe agricultural level.

A Competition also concentrated in time, which diminishes its intensity

Another important fact shows greater complementarity than competition within the region. Formany MP, the fresh horticultural products represent an important part of their local production andexports to the EU. The countries of the EU import large amounts of fresh fruits and vegetables,especially during the “out of season” periods. The European market represents about 379 millionconsumers endowed with a strong purchasing capacity, who are ready to pay high prices for highquality fresh products during the winter. In fact, the tendency in Europe to consume high qualityfruits and vegetables during the months in which European production cannot supply them hasincreased. In addition, new varieties are being consumed due to the significant immigration ofpopulations that are interested in finding these products.

MP exporters can find seasonal market “windows” during which they can sell their products at highprices, when European production is low. In other terms, these exporters can place themselves inthe windows provided by the European market with regard to products and to schedules. In somecases, like grapes between May and July, competition on the markets can be low depending on thesize of markets.

However, the fruits exported from the MP to Europe are generally concentrated in certain months.For example, in Jordan, 77% of the total exports of fruits take place between June and July.

Opportunities for the MP are then derived from the analysis of the European markets in terms of“profitable demands” based on the size and depth of the window in the market. It seems that forcertain products (such as the Egyptian strawberries), the different calendars of production showimportant areas of complimentarity.

- 16 -

An low competition between the MP which should facilitate liberalisation at the regional level andSouth-South integration

The MP might consider the liberalisation of their own market as a problematic step vis-à-vis theirneighbours. However it seems that, on the level of agricultural exports, the different specialisationand differentiation that we have noted seriously minimise this potential competition, which the MPmust bear in mind as they become committed to an Arab free-trade-area. The AFTA (Arab FreeTrade Area) was initiated by the Economic and Social Council resolution N° 1317, dated February19. The objective of this agreement was the creation of a Greater-Arab Free-Trade-Area within 10years (beginning 1st January 1998), respecting both the needs and the priorities of all the ArabStates and the WTO regulations. By developing the relations of these countries with the world butalso with each other, this would be the first step towards the constitution of an Arab economicblock possessing a certain weight in economic relations. The GAFTA must lead to the elimination ofall import taxes and other barriers to trade in Arab production. If the deadline is respected thiswould lead, in 2008, to a circulation of Arab products free from any restriction or customs duties,within the region extending from West to East from Morocco to Oman and spreading down to theSouth towards Yemen.

Many economists believe that the European Partnership Agreements can help to set up the GAFTA,inasmuch as the Arab countries of the Mediterranean would mutually provide an access to theirmarkets for each other without any discrimination and would grant the same treatment to theEuropeans. From this point of view a support will be derived from the recognition of cumulatingthe rules of origin for the products manufactured by any member of the GAFTA, which wouldcontribute to a strong increase of intra-branch Arab trade (Hoekman, 1995).

In 1999, intra-Arab trade in agricultural products amounted to 5.3 billion dollars. The maincountry taking part in such trade was Saudi Arabia (20%), followed by Sudan (14%) and theUnited Arab Emirates (13%). The main products traded by the Arab countries were fruits andvegetables, livestock, vegetal oils and cereals.

Such an integrated area would be attractive to the EU in case of liberalisation and might beconsidered by the Mediterranean producers of the EU as a source of growth for their markets thatwould be apt to moderate the effects of competition and to develop economies of scale and intra-branches trade.

The Scenarios

The key issues emerging from the agricultural file showed that the status quo carries a sufficientcost to justify an examination of the various possible developments.

In a context characterised by:(i) large subsidies granted by the developed countries to their producers (the total

support for agriculture in the OECD rose to 347 billion euros in 2001, and threequarters of this amount is intended to support the producers, the remaining quarterrepresenting more than 90% of the total of the world domestic support for theagriculture)

(ii) Mediterranean countries that protect their own agricultural markets in order topreserve their traditional sectors and to reduce the deficits due to agricultural trade,and that are obliged to still subsidize the price of basic food products,

Three types of movements can be considered:• A unilateral liberalisation by the European Union• a reciprocal bilateral liberalisation EU-PM (with or without opening the agricultural file in

the multilateral negotiations),• an asymmetrical bilateral liberalisation (the EU liberalise, the MP do not liberalise on all the

specified products and not at the same rate) accompanied by a program tackling theproblems of adjustment and structure in the areas that were particularly affected, withinthe framework of a global vision of agriculture in the region.

- 17 -

a) Scenario 1: A unilateral liberalisation from the EU

Summarized, this scenario relies on a unilateral initiative in agriculture from the EU. This poses acertain number of difficulties: (i) the gains for MP are modest in general, but could be substantialin certain sectors; (ii) an openness of the European markets will be necessary for the growth oftrade with the MP, but this is not a sufficient condition since the structural difficulties mentionedearlier are not entirely dependent on this issue; (iii) the cost of this openness will be moderate forEuropean countries of the Mediterranean at the aggregate level, but could be large in certainsectors and in certain regions; (iv) more generally, there is a strong intra-European asymmetry inthe distribution of the cost of the openness. Within the MP, those who will benefit the most fromthis unilateral liberalisation are the exporting farmers, large farms and large landowners. Andthose who will lose the most, for detailed reasons to be given below, are consumers, thetraditional agriculture sector, and other sectors that compete for water. In the EU, consumers willgain, profiting from the low prices of products. However, the losers will be concentrated on theMediterranean producers. For this scenario to be viable, two different accompanying measureswould be necessary: (i) measures supporting the restructuring of the agricultural sector of theMediterranean countries of the Union and/or to financially compensate the European producers ofthe Mediterranean; and (ii) measures that modernize the agricultural sector of the MP.

The rest of this section analyzes in detail the implications of a unilateral liberalisation of thecommon agricultural markets of Moroccan, Tunisian, Egyptian and Turkish products on agriculturalexports.

Direct effects on the PM

For the four countries, the simulations2 showed positive effects on the production (measured asthe share of VA in GDP), exports and employment. In five years, the magnitude of the effects onproduction will increase in the four countries from 0.5% to 4.4% of GDP, which will generate morethan 222,000 supplementary employment opportunities.

Impact of the Unilateral Liberalisation of the EU on Selected MP countriesAgricultural Exports

variationin GDP % in GDP % in Agricultural VA %

Morocco 1,40 1,48 8,27Turkey 2,30 4,40 27,50Egypt 3,26 3,90 22,00Tunisia 0,40 0,50 9,70

Value Added Variation

Source : Femise (UAM), 2003

These results show a possibly direct and substantial effect in countries where agriculture is highlydeveloped. They bring out the importance of tariff protection as an efficient measure of the EU tocontrol exports, particularly in sensitive or fishing products. The net growth of exports followingunilateral liberalisation of the EU represents 11% of the actual intra-community revenues in thefive years of the simulation, i.e. 2.1% per year.

It is important to underline that the Mediterranean countries of the EU will be more affected bynew competition. In the case of comestible fruits, the Mediterranean countries of the EU produce,in fact, more than 63% of the intra-community trade. This is one type of product that will bemostly affected, with an annual growth of 3.42% of exports from the MP to the Union. Thisrepresents 5.4% of what Spain, France, Greece, Italy and the Portugal export today to othermembers. The high competition in fish products is also considered: an annual growth of 6.36%that will equal 6.4% of actual exports of South Europe to other members. For vegetables, thesupplementary exports of the MP will reach 4% of what the members of the union import from theSouth of the Union.

2 Cf. Alejandro Lorca, José Maria Alvarez, Rafael de Arce , Gonzalo Escribano, Jose Maria Jordan,Ramon Mahia, « pillars for a euro-mediterranean agricultural pact: liberalization, modernization, cooperation,rural development and internal solidarity », oct. 2003, specific contribution to this report.

- 18 -

A unilateral liberalisation that will not change the structural problems faced by the MP agriculturesector

This scenario appears as second best, a necessary but not a sufficient condition, in the case of:• The results obtained concerning welfare and employment; despite being positive, these

remain inferior to those obtained in the framework of a multilateral liberalisation.• Without external competition on the MP domestic markets, this scenario does not solve the

problem of the modernization of agriculture in the Mediterranean and the incentives to puttogether a major structural reform - with its necessary financing - are not sufficient.

• Only exportable products (essentially fruits and vegetables) gain from this scenario. But,for more modest farmers and traditional agriculture, not only does the situation notchange, but can even get worse: (i) competition between sectors on the use of water islikely to increase whereas no incentive on the rationalization of its usage will be advancedby the Union; (ii) it can even be rational from the point of view of the national authoritiesin the South to support fringe gains following liberalisation. Also, non-exporters and thetraditional agriculture sector will suffer since in the absence of other changes, they willundergo internal competition that will exceed the gains from getting resources andsubsidies.

There is a third category who will not enjoy favourable direct changes: the consumers. Prices inthe Mediterranean markets will not change, which implies that the income of the poorest willcontinue to be severely pressured by food necessities. Depending on the magnitude of theincrease in MP exports, employment creation may be important. A revenue effect may be createddue to employment, which will improve the situation with regards to poverty. But, it should alsobe kept in mind that wage rates and costs of other inputs are among the main factors thatdetermine the competitiveness of prices in the MP, and these do not change in this scenario.

An unequal impact between the countries of the EU

On the European side, the aggregate cost will be low, for the EU as a whole, given the lowaggregate degree of competition and the limited share of the MP in European imports. The maindifficulty will be the strong intra-EU asymmetry in cost sharing. First, the Mediterranean countriesof Europe will bear most of this cost, especially Spain and Greece. At the aggregate level, this costwill be easily sustainable. But the main difficulty is that when looking at the micro level, there is astrong concentration, from a sectoral and a geographical point of view, of the “losers”. Forinstance, the cost of free entry of strawberries in the EU will be mainly undergone by Spain (whichalready will have to support a new intra-union competition with Poland and the Czech) where theproduction is important and is concentrated at 95% in the province of Huelva in Andalusia.

Indispensable elements

Such a scenario will not be viable from the Euro-Mediterranean economic point of view, unless it isaccompanied by specific measures that would mitigate the weight on the "losers."

A first set of policies will aim at the modernisation of the MP agriculture sector in order to: (i)decrease the duality of the sector; (ii) improve the use of water to avoid crisis in the next 20years; (iii) ensure the safety of Mediterranean production; i.e. respecting European standards inorder to build a Euro-Mediterranean bioethical model in agriculture. As the MP commitments inthis scenario are supposed to be low, it is clear that financing these accompanying policies willrequire a large budget that should be provided by the EU.

A second set of policies will aim at compensating the EU Mediterranean producers and to helpthem modernize their sector. The CAP reform has created the necessary tools to do so, with theopportunity given to a country to use its financial resources independently of its production. Butthe CAP budget will be restrained in the coming years in absolute terms and due to the fact thatthe enlargement will increase the number of producers. The budget of countries will be determinedaccording to the ex-ante CAP reform situation, which gives a non contestable bias against theMediterranean products.

In fact, agricultural trade liberalisation in Mediterranean products is not the panacea for MPCs. EUMediterranean producers benefit from the advantages of higher technological levels, higher qualitystandards, a better marketing and logistic structure, better infrastructures, etc. So, trade

- 19 -

liberalisation of the European markets is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for MPCs(García Alvarez-Coque, 2002).

b) scenario 2: complete bilateral liberalisation with no other measures

As will be detailed further, the major problem with this scenario is the resulting decrease in theprices of certain products following tariff dismantling undertaking by the MP. When thesedecreases reach 30-40%, sustainability is questionable. In the MP, the winners here will be theexporters, modern agricultural sector, urban consumers and the industrial sector. Thedevelopment could be catastrophic for the traditional agricultural sector and consumers of therural areas. The effect will depend on the multilateral negotiations. In the EU, large continentalproducers will make large gains from this liberalisation. Small and medium continental producersare in a less straightforward situation. They could endure some costs in case of multilateralnegotiations. The Mediterranean producers will bear the overall cost in the short term without themultilateral negotiations, and will distribute the cost with certain continental producers otherwise.The consumers will gain in terms of prices. But without negotiations at the WTO, the aid that theEU will have to give to the MP to maintain cohesion will weigh on the taxpayers. Otheraccompanying measures will be necessary in all cases, notably towards the modernization of theagricultural sector and the development of rural areas of the MP and also to financiallycompensate Mediterranean European producers. In case of negotiations for a multilateralliberalisation, it will be necessary to undertake modernization measures from a number of EUmembers and to help the administrations of the MP in efficiently handling the liberalisation processso as to exploit all possible gains.

Despite the failure of the negotiations in Cancun, the multilateral negotiations should not beforgotten. They illustrate a basic tendency: the fall of tariff protection and in the subsidies ofagricultural trade. The simulation of the effects of the reduction of protection on the price ofcertain products carries valuable lessons on the possible developments of the EU-Med partnershipin the agricultural sector.

The reduction of aid granted by the industrialized countries will raise prices

The European Commission presented a proposal for the negotiations of WTO on the agriculturalfront, calling for a larger multilateral liberalisation and a reduction in the supporting measures thatare distorting trade conditions. The key elements of this proposal are a decrease of 36% inimports; a reduction in export subsidies of 45%; and a reduction of the internal subsidies affectingthe exchanges of 55%. A few months earlier, the US had elaborated a proposal in the framework ofthe WTO aiming at harmonizing the domestic support in all countries (the "blue box" and the"amber box") to a level that is lower than that of today. It is summarised in the formula: reduce in5 years the protection affecting trade to 5% of the total value of the domestic production.

Several articles have analysed the question of international price modifications that will follow aneventual multilateral liberalisation. The possibility is most frequently evoked is that of an increasein the international prices. This increase could be compensated with the decrease of import tariffsin the domestic markets. The net effect will be the outcome of opposite effects. This section willpresent an estimation of this effect in the framework of a bilateral liberalisation process of theagricultural sector between the EU and the MP. The simulation will focus on the products thatrepresent the major part of the European exports towards the five MP that are included in thesimulation: Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey.

For the first effect, the results obtained following the two hypothesis (proposition of the EU at theWTO and the proposition of the USA) are similar (see following table) and indicate thatinternational prices will increase with the decrease of the subsides. Among the products that areconsidered, it is important to note that the effect is mostly substantial on cereals, whereas for theothers, the registered variations are the same as those actually observed between two consecutiveyears and due to other reasons. These markets will not encounter major changes when decreasingthe European Domestic Support (EDS).

- 20 -

Fall in international prices of certain products following a reduction in domestic support as per theCommission proposition and the American proposition.

Source Femise (UAM), 2003

With the registered variations on cereals (from 7.5% to 22.2%), the stability of the MP can besubstantially affected. As long as the increases are modest, the impact would be not negative,permitting local producers to re-enter the domestic market where they have been replaced byoccidental imported products with substantially lower prices. There are several examples ofsectors, where local producers were pushed out by lower priced imported products (chicken fromthe Senegal) and where an inverse effect could be accomplished. But when the magnitude of thevariation is large, the negative effects could be intolerable in countries that are substantiallyaffected by poverty and where food constitutes an important part of household expenditures.

Tariffs dismantling of the MP induce a more important decrease in prices.

The second stop of the simulation features the effect of the tariff dismantling of the MP on prices,while putting in consideration the previous increase (see following table) .

Fall of domestic prices of certain products in the MP following a reduction of the European Domesticsupport (or that of the US) and the tariff dismantling of the MP.

Source: Femise (UAM), 2003

The net effect of the two inverse forces will be discussed. It should be mentioned that the resultsobtained here are substantially different from those obtained by the World Bank in a similarexercise. It is to be noted that the two simulations do not include the same countries 5 countries inthis study, and the MENA region in the World Bank study (including Gulf countries, and other largenet importers of food such as Iran). This largely explains the differences.

For all products under consideration, we noticed a decrease in prices, which indicate that tariffdismantling has a larger decreasing effect on prices than the increasing effect resulting from theEuropean and American proposals. The magnitude of this decrease varies according to the

- 21 -

products: from less than -1% (corn) to -31.5% (butter and other greases derived from milk), even-40,1% for processed food preparations containing fruits. For those significant decreases, it isimportant to underline that in the absence of a reduction in European domestic support, the fall inprices would have been sharper, implying adjustment costs that are even higher.

Given the magnitude of these sharp decreases in certain prices, it is probable that the negativeeffect experienced by the producers will overtake the positive effects on consumers. It seemsnecessary that the liberalisation should be reciprocal but gradual: the movement of tariffdismantling of the MP following the movement of reduction in the European domestic support ofthe EU (or the US).

The overall negative impact on the MP, especially on categories that were already suffering

In this second scenario, the net effects will equally depend on the evolution of discussions at theWTO. If there are no further developments in December 2003 on the negotiations front, thequestion of the advisability of such a scenario arises. Despite the ongoing CAP reform and theenlargement, which implies distributing the same amount of subsides on a larger number ofproducers, European support of continental agriculture will decrease de facto, the latter will remainhigh to overcome the possibility that the MP become capable of competing in all markets, Europeanand local. Moreover, the fall in prices on local markets due to MP tariff dismantling could becatastrophic for local producers. These will have to face heavy competition which will reduce theirmarket share at the same time they will have to increase their investment to modernise theirproduction.

The first level of adjustment will be on employment, particularly in traditional agriculture. Thepositive impact on the reduction of prices for the consumers could be overcome by the negativeimpact on the reduction of revenues due to the loss of jobs and the decrease in diversification ofactivities in rural areas. In terms of winners/losers in MP, this will generate a strong asymmetry.Actual agricultural exporters (the more efficient producers), urban consumers (with a supposedlyhigh living standard) and the industrial sectors (assuming a more efficient allocation of resources)will enjoy most of the gains. The development could also be positive in terms of water usage,assuming that MP producers will adjust their "specialisation" from continental to Mediterraneanproduction. The losers will mainly be among traditional producers and in rural areas, or both withinconsumers and producers. It should be noted that gains are thus made at the expense of thepopulation which is already suffering.

A strong asymmetry within the EU in the distribution of the cost of openness to the detriment ofthe Mediterranean members

From the European side, the spirit of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership implies that thedevelopment of the South translates into EU aid flows. It would be necessary to substantiallyincrease these flows in order to support the MP in their transition, targeting the rural population.

However, the most negative aspect would be the strong asymmetry in the distribution of the gainsof openness within the EU. It is clear that the winners will be the EU continental producers. Theeffect on consumers is not clear, but should be negative as (i) no price effect is expected on thecontinental product in European markets, (ii) taxpayers will have to indirectly finance the increasein aid flows so as to prevent any dramatic deterioration on the southern shores.

From their side, the EU Mediterranean producers will be the losers in this openness, having to facealone the new competition in the short term, considering the time needed by MP producers tobecome competitive in continental products in the European markets.

The multilateral negotiations could improve the results of the reciprocal liberalisation

Overall development can be more positive in the event of better progress in the multilateralnegotiations. The more the progress in terms of decreasing the subsidies provided by the industrialcounties to their exporters, the smaller would be the net effect on the domestic prices in the MP.This will not modify the distribution of gains for the MP, but the impact on their rural areas could beminimized. Therefore, (i) adjustment costs will be supported, (ii) being reactive and supported bystructural aid in their modernization, the traditional producers can remain competitive in their ownmarkets, which could imply a certain diversification of rural areas activities; (iii) the prospect toMediterranean producers of becoming competitive in the European markets in the medium termcould be achieved.

- 22 -

The decrease in the aid flows required to sustain conditions, can help the EU to better focus onpriority areas. Defining an adequate asymmetric calendar for this reciprocal liberalisation, willpermit an adjustment that could be auto financed, conditional on an improvement in theadministrative capacities and transparency in MP. In relation to the previous situation, theEuropean consumers will gain on two fronts, one in terms of prices (the progress in multilateralnegotiations will have an impact on the European prices), and in terms of deductions to taxpayers(since the aid flows will be largely decreasing). Mediterranean European producers will always bearpart of the cost of this liberalisation, but another part will be carried by small and mediumcontinental producers. The CAP offers new possibilities in terms of “découplage” to help EuropeanMediterranean producers to reach an agreement between members to produce modifications in thedistribution of budgets.

c) Scenario 3: A Euro-Mediterranean agricultural pact: reciprocal liberalisation, temporalasymmetry and a structural tool of a Feoga Orientation

To summarize, this scenario of reciprocal asymmetrical liberalisation raises two large problems, theappearance of "revenue-seeking" behaviour among MP farmers in the presence of a financial toolmeant to solve structural problems of agricultural modernization and rural development: and theadministrative capacity of MP to manage the tool in a transparent and effective way. In the case ofsuccess in the implementation of such a program, rural areas will be able to bear the cost ofliberalisation which will be beneficial, as a start, to the modern agricultural sector and to theadministration. From EU side, the losers will naturally be the taxpayers, but also the Mediterraneanproducers, unless they can benefit from such a tool. It will also be necessary to put together themeasures needed to improve the administrative capacities of the MP.

In the second scenario and without the European liberalisation, the liberalisation of the MP will notbe supported: the prices will fall dramatically, with catastrophic impact on the agricultural sector.Even with the reduction of European support to the producers, the fall in prices remains high, from-30% to -40% in certain products, leaving few possibilities of adjustments for the MP. In the caseof cereals, the fall is definitely important, but the survival of Mediterranean production is envisagedif the producers manage to keep the level of their operations and to improve on the level ofproductivity. This kind of modernization is the challenge that could improve the traditionalagricultural sector.

Agricultural liberalisation is an objective of the partnership.

Such a scenario differs from the previous ones in its philosophy as it considers agricultural tradeliberalisation not as an end in itself, but as an essential instrument of the Euro-MediterraneanPartnership that would make the EU-Med region a zone of peace and prosperity. In line withprevious considerations, the main axes to make agricultural liberalisation such an instrument wouldbe that:

• the liberalisation process is reciprocal, which means that the two shores eliminate someconstraints. In particular, the MP should bear in mind the impact of their own measures atthe national level. It will be also essential that they revise the laws on agricultural landownership and the FDI framework so as to authorise the foreign ownership of agriculturallands, in order to attract foreign investment to the sector.

• the liberalisation has to be gradual and incremental, since the capacity to bear thesemajors changes is not the same among countries of region.

• the liberalisation has to be asymmetrical, where the EU would accept a slower rate andless discernible progress from the MP.

- 23 -

The importance of tools that target the structural difficulties of the rural zones.

As previous sections showed, the main difficulties do not originate directly from agriculturalliberalisation. That is why progress has to be accompanied by structural instruments. The generalprinciples of such instruments would be:

• Rural development• Upgrading of infrastructures in the social fields, as well as transport and energy• Development of rural industries with an appropriate technology• Development of the agro-food processing sector• Regional development of hinterland agriculture, that tends to be discriminated against,

relative to coastal agriculture• Regional planning, trying to stimulate medium size cities and their economic relations with

rural areas, so as not to concentrate all economic activity in larger cities.

A special focus should be given to problems of poverty and rural migration. The rural areas, whichhave the households experiencing the most difficulties, should be targeted.

The main idea here is to set up a structural program following the example of "Feoga Orientation".The main objectives of this program is, along with reciprocal liberalisation, the modernization ofthe MP agricultural sector and the development of MP rural areas. The key points to theimplementation include: (i) the absence of price support, (ii) support to agricultural modernisation,(iii) upgrade of infrastructure and institutions, (iv) support of the diversification of rural activities.

Since it is important that the EU concentrate aid towards modernization and rural development, itappears necessary to encourage a new production arrangement based on the consolidation of smallfarmers in groups, often called “satellite farming systems”. These new production systems arealready supported in some countries of the region by the World Bank and other donors in thecontext of WTO. Satellite farming systems, also called “outgrowers farming system”, aim atimproving horticultural exports of non-traditional products through grouping small farmers in orderto achieve “bulk volumes” required by target markets, to improve the income of those smallfarmers and to build necessary technological capacity to satisfy the quality requirement of targetmarkets.

A better distribution of gains and costs of liberalisation

In the context of such an asymmetrical and reciprocal trade liberalisation supported by a structuralinstrument, the main difficulties will be to avoid the development of “rent-seeking” behaviouramong MP farmers and to ensure that the support will accrue to the targeted sectors/categories,especially in rural areas. A credible and accountable mechanism will have to be implemented inorder to prevent such a regressive outcome. MP agricultural institutions should be reinforced andaid may be made conditional on accountability and transparency, as put forward by the newneighbourhood policies. It is of great importance that the aid to rural development andmodernization do not become a direct subsidy to MP, not only for the sake of financial efficiency,but because it is considered as a key element in the development of the MP.

Depending on the success of the implementation, an asymmetric and reciprocal liberalisationcombined with a structural tool may greatly reduce (if not eliminate) the list of losers in the South,even if an adjustment will take place. For the European side, consumers will enjoy gains from thisscenario, despite their financial support as taxpayers. The largest continental producers will alsohave access to increased market share. For smaller continental producers, the final outcomedepends on their capacities to modernize. This will also be the case for the EuropeanMediterranean producers, but it is clear that they will have to support first the cost of theliberalisation.

Sce

nario

s: Syn

thetic ta

ble

Sce

nario

sV

iab

ility/

Op

po

rtun

ityP

rob

lem

sW

inn

ers a

nd

Lo

sers o

f the

MP

Win

ners a

nd

Lo

sers o

f the

MP

Acco

mp

an

yin

g P

olicie

s

I. Un

ilate

ral

libera

lisatio

n o

fth

e E

U

Yes/G

radual

1. T

he g

ains fo

r the M

P are modest relative to

the

glo

bal eco

nom

y, but are su

bstan

tial in certain

sectors.

2. O

pen

ness o

f the E

uro

pean

markets is

necessary fo

r the g

row

th o

f trade w

ith M

P, but

not a su

fficient co

nditio

n.

3. T

he co

sts of th

is open

ness are m

odest fo

rEuro

pean

countries o

f the M

editerran

ean at th

eag

greg

ate level, but co

uld

be larg

e in certain

sectors an

d in

certain reg

ions.

4. th

ere is a strong in

tra-Euro

pean

asymm

etry inth

e distrib

utio

n o

f the co

sts of th

e open

ness.

Win

ners:

Exp

orters, larg

e farmers,

large lan

dow

ners.

Losers:

Consu

mers, trad

itional

agricu

ltural, o

ther secto

rs inco

mpetitio

n o

ver water

Win

ners:

Consu

mers

Losers:

Med

iterranean

pro

ducers

1.

Restru

cturin

g o

f the ag

ricultu

ral sectors in

the M

editerran

ean co

untries o

f the E

Uan

d/o

r finan

cial com

pen

sation fo

r the

Euro

pean

pro

ducers in

the M

editerran

ean.

2.

Measu

res of m

odern

ization o

f the

agricu

ltural secto

r in M

P.

II.1.B

ilate

ral

libera

lisatio

n E

U-

MP

with

ou

tm

ultila

tera

llib

era

lisatio

n

Yes/N

o1. W

ith n

o red

uctio

n in

Euro

pean

support to

pro

ductio

n, th

e fall in p

rices faced b

y the M

Ppro

ducers co

uld

be sig

nifican

t and th

e costs o

fad

justm

ent are sig

nifican

t.

Win

ners:

Exp

orters, u

rban

consu

mers,

industry

Losers:

Trad

itional ag

ricultu

re,co

nsu

mers o

f the ru

ral areas.

Win

ners:

Contin

ental

agricu

ltural

sector o

f the E

U

Losers:

Consu

mers,

taxpayers,

Med

iterranean

pro

ducers o

f EU

1.

an im

portan

t amount o

f aid fro

m th

e EU

to allo

w th

e MP to

undertake th

ead

justm

ent

2.

Rural d

evelopm

ent p

rogram

s and

modern

ization o

f the ag

ricultu

ral sector

in th

e MP

3.

Finan

cial com

pen

sation fo

r the

Euro

pean

pro

ducers o

f the

Med

iterranean

II.2.B

ilate

ral

Lib

era

lisatio

n E

U-

MP

an

d p

rog

ress

in m

ultila

tera

llib

era

lisatio

n

Yes/G

radual

1.

the n

et effect on p

rices for certain

pro

ducts is

importan

t: tariff dism

antlin

g in

the M

P causes

the p

rices to d

ecrease more th

an th

ein

crease caused

by th

e reductio

n in

Euro

pean

support

2.

substan

tial decrease in

prices o

f pro

cessedfru

its and b

utter

3.

the d

ecrease is moderate fo

r cereals and m

ilk

Win

ners:

Exp

orts an

d m

odern

agricu

lture. U

rban

consu

mers, in

dustry

Losers:

Trad

itional ag

ricultu

re, rural

consu

mers

Win

ners:

consu

mers an

dtaxp

ayers

Losers:

small an

dm

ediu

mco

ntin

ental

pro

ducers

1.

Rural d

evelopm

ent p

rogram

and

modern

ization o

f the ag

ricultu

ral sector

in th

e countries o

f the E

U2.

Rural d

evelopm

ent p

rogram

and

modern

ization o

f the ag

ricultu

ral sector

in th

e MP

3.

impro

vemen

t in th

e transp

arency an

defficien

cy of th

e adm

inistratio

n o

f the

MP

III. Eu

ro-

Med

iterra

nean

Ag

ricultu

ral P

act:

recip

roca

llib

era

lisatio

n,

tem

po

ral

asy

mm

etry

an

d a

structu

ral to

ol o

f aFeo

ga O

rien

tatio

n

Yes/Y

es1.

this w

ill gen

erate "rent-seeker' b

ehavio

ur

among th

e farmers o

f the M

P.2.

The lim

ited cap

acity of th

e Mp in

stitutio

ns in

adm

inistratin

g su

ch p

rogram

s in a

transp

arent an

d efficien

t way.

Win

ners:

Modern

agricu

lture,

adm

inistratio

n o

f the M

P

Losers:

Med

iterranean

EU

pro

ducers,

taxpayers

1. Im

pro

vemen

t of th

e transp

arency an

d th

eefficien

cy of th

e adm

inistratio

n o

f the M

P

- 25 -

Bibliography:

Ait El Mekki A., G. Ghersi, R. Hamimaz, J-L. Rastoin, 2002, « Prospective agroalimentaire Maroc2010 », Fondation ONA, novembre.

Akesbi, N. and García Alvarez-Coque, J. M. (2001): “La Méditerranée dans les NegotiationsMultilatérales Agricoles”, in CIHEAM Développement et Politiques Agroalimentaires dans laRégion Méditerranéen, Rapporta Annuel CIHEAM, Paris.

Allan, J.A., 1999, « Water stress and global mitigation: water, food and trade », ALN n°45,spring/summer

Bazza M., Ahmad M., 2002, « A comparative assessment of links between irrigation water pricingand irrigation performance in the Near East », FAO, Paper presented during the Conferenceon Irrigation Water Policies organized by the World Bank, Agadir, 15-17 june 2002.

Baffes John, Harry De Gorter, 2003, « Decoupling Support to Agriculture. An economic Analysis ofrecent experience », World Bank, May

Brenton, Paul et Miriam Manchin, 2002, « Making EU trade agreements work: the role of rules oforigin », Center for European Policy Studies Discussion Paper 183, March

De Arce, R., G. Escribano y R. Mahía (2003): “Global Effect on International Prices of EU-Mediterranean Partner Countries Bilateral Agricultural Liberalization”, paper presented at ERC/ METU International Conference oin Economics, Ankara 6th September 2003

De Arce, Rafael y Gonzalo Escribano (2001): “Los efectos de la liberalización agrícola en elMediterráneo”, Boletín de Información Comercial Española, nº 2706. Madrid.

Escribano, G. and Lorca (1999) “Vers un Pacte Agricole Méditerranéen?”, Annuaire de laMéditerranée 1999. Paris, Publisud; Rabat, GERM.

European Commission, 2003, « Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. A long term perspectivefor sustainable agriculture. Impact analysis », March.

European Commission, 2003, « CAP Reform Summary », July

FAO, 2003, « Unlocking the water potential of agriculture », FAO, Rome

FAO, 2002, « La situation mondiale de l’alimentation et l’agriculture 2002 », FAO, Rome

Fischler Franz, 2003, « WTO and Agriculture », Geneva, March.

Gallezot Jacques, 2002, « L’accès effectif au marché agricole de l’UE », Institut National pour laRecherche Agricole, juillet. Rapport réalisé pour la Commission Européenne.

García Alvarez-Coque, J. M. (2002): “Agricultural Trade and the Barcelona Process: is FullLiberalization Possible?”, European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 29, nº 3.

Grethe, H. and Tangermann, S. (2000): “EU Trade Preferences for Agricultural Exports from theMediterranean Basin: Evolution and Outlook”, paper presented at the Seminar MediterraneanAgriculture within the Context of European Expansion, organised by EUROSTAT and theSpanish Ministry of Agriculture, Valencia, 8-10 November.

Hoekman Bernard, Francis Ng, Marcelo Olarreaga, 2003, « Reducing Agricultural Tariffs versusDomestic Support. What is more important for Developing countries? », World Bank PolicyResearch Working Paper n°2918 revised, March.

Institut français des relations internationales, 2003, « Le commerce mondial au 21ème siècle »,IFRI, janvier.

IPTRID Secretariat, FAO, 2001, « Case Studies On Water Conservation In The MediterraneanRegion », FAO, Rome

Lorca, A., J. Vicens, R. de Arce et G. Escribano (2000): L´impact de la libéralisation commercialeEuro-mediterraneenne dans les échanges agricoles et le role des ressources hydriquescomme facteur d'augmentation de la productivité. FEMISE research projet available inwww.uam.es/medina and www.femise.org.

Messerlin Patrick, 2003, « Agriculture in the Doha Agenda », World Bank P.R.W.P. n°3009, April.

OCDE, 2001, “Market Effects of Crop Support Measures”. (Paris)

- 26 -

Plan Bleu, 2004, « Rapport Environnement et Développement en Méditerranée », versionprovisoire, à paraître.

Poonyth, D , Westhoff, P and Womack, A. Adams, G. (2000): “Impacts of WTO restrictions onsubsidized EU sugar exports”. Agricultural Economics 22 (2000) 233–245.

Regnault, H. (1997): «Les échanges agricoles: une exception dans les relationseuroméditerranéennes », Monde Arabe Maghreb Machrek, hors série, décembre.

Sedjari, A., 2000, « Enjeux et dynamiques des réformes politiques et institutionnelles au Maroc. Leprocessus d’une gouvernance inachevée », Communication présentée au troisième ForumMéditerranéen sur le Développement (MDF3), Le Caire, 03 2000.

Tangermann, S. (1997): “Access to EU Markets for Agricultural Products after the Uruguay Roundand Export Interests of the Mediterranean Countries”, UNCTAD International Trade Division.

Watkins Kevin, 2003, « Northern agricultural policies and world poverty: will the Doha‘development round’ make a difference? », Paper presented during the ABCDE, May, OXFAM.

World Bank, 2003, « Trade, Investment and the Development in the Middle East and North Africa –Engaging with the World », The World Bank

WTO, 2003, « World Trade Report 2003 », WTO

Annexe 1: Competition Index

The analysis of the competition in agricultural exports between the MP and the EUcountries relies on an index which measures the sectoral proximity of two distributions. Itcomes from Walter Isard (Cf. W. ISARD, « Méthodes d'analyse régionale », tome 1,« Équilibre économique », Dunod, 1972, p. 144). Here, the calculations evaluate thesectoral proximity between the world agricultural exports by sectors of the MP, theEuropean Countries and the new members countries. The hypothesis is that the moreclose are the sectoral structures, the more in competition are the countries. This index iscalculated as follow:

r is the indice of a MP, n the indice of another country, I the indice of a given product inthe used nomenclature. E are the Agricultural Export to all countries in the World, so thatEi are the total export of the agricultural product I; the index is:

CS =12

Eir

Er

-Ein

EniÂ

The index ranges from 0 (perfect proximity of the sectoral breakdown of exports betweenthe two countries) to 1 (no coincidence between the two distributions).

The used nomenclature is the SITC 4 digits, where only the agricultural and food-processing products are taken into account: thus there are 245 different products.

Calculations for the 11 MP, the 15 European Countries and 8 acceding countries can befound in the following page.

Competition Index: the values ranges from

0 to 1. The lesser the index is, the greater the competition is.

V=EXP // ->EXP

Algeria

ChyprusEgypt

IsraelJordan

LebanonM

altaM

oroccoSyria

TunisiaTurkey

MP 11

Germany

Austria

BelgiumDenm

arkSpain

FinlandFrance

GreeceN

etherl.Ireland

ItalyLuxem

burgPortugal

Uni. Kin.Sw

edenUE15

Algeria

X0,822

0,8

52

0,7900,830

0,8

81

0,9

63

0,8

54

0,8470,726

0,8

85

0,8250

,91

90

,91

80

,90

00

,92

50,677

0,9

73

0,8150,838

0,8

58

0,9

23

0,7790

,91

80,790

0,8

99

0,9

51

0,830Chyprus

0,822X

0,7370,732

0,8320,712

0,7570,822

0,8500,811

0,8000,723

0,7020,755

0,7830,768

0,6540

,89

70,725

0,6770,662

0,7870,712

0,6450,793

0,7690

,88

20,666

Egypt0

,85

20,737

X0

,60

00,789

0,7150,844

0,8010

,54

80,839

0,7640

,61

20,802

0,8450,780

0,8490,683

0,9

38

0,8040,682

0,7500,832

0,7610

,87

90

,86

40,829

0,8

98

0,754Israel

0,7900,732

0,6

00

X0,748

0,7200,797

0,7840,699

0,7910,725

0,5

67

0,7740,825

0,7410,812

0,5

85

0,9

18

0,7880,709

0,6

36

0,7660,699

0,8

61

0,8420,823

0,8

89

0,700Jordan

0,8300,832

0,7890,748

X0,812

0,9

16

0,8

51

0,7520

,86

00,832

0,7420,835

0,8310,777

0,8

86

0,6850

,92

70,809

0,8330,744

0,8

63

0,7900,829

0,8

85

0,8400

,90

70,775

Lebanon0

,88

10,712

0,7150,720

0,812X

0,8

73

0,7910,773

0,7640

,59

80

,60

20,709

0,7350,697

0,8460

,64

00

,89

70,715

0,6

29

0,7360,830

0,6

26

0,8260,751

0,7640

,85

30,649

Malta

0,9

63

0,7570,844

0,7970

,91

60

,87

3X

0,8

96

0,9

76

0,8380

,90

30

,85

90,809

0,8

88

0,8

76

0,7960

,88

20

,95

70

,87

40,841

0,8050,700

0,8

89

0,7610

,87

00,772

0,8

86

0,831M

orocco0

,85

40,822

0,8010,784

0,8

51

0,7910

,89

6X

0,8040,733

0,7860

,61

90

,86

40

,89

30,828

0,8070

,62

60

,95

10

,85

20,722

0,8140

,89

10,790

0,9

18

0,7700

,86

70

,89

30,785

Syria0,847

0,8500

,54

80,699

0,7520,773

0,9

76

0,804X

0,8230,689

0,5

97

0,8

82

0,8

93

0,8310

,93

00,700

0,9

51

0,8

59

0,6730,804

0,9

29

0,7720

,91

70

,87

00

,91

10

,94

50,810

Tunisia0,726

0,8110,839

0,7910

,86

00,764

0,8380,733

0,823X

0,7370

,62

60,739

0,8220,780

0,7940

,63

60

,90

20,752

0,6

07

0,7500,820

0,6710,807

0,7350,710

0,8340,695

Turkey0

,88

50,800

0,7640,725

0,8320

,59

80

,90

30,786

0,6890,737

X0

,33

70,719

0,7540,703

0,8340

,61

40

,90

50,720

0,5

00

0,7470,849

0,6

31

0,7810,726

0,7610,840

0,658M

P 110,825

0,7230

,61

20

,56

70,742

0,6

02

0,8

59

0,6

19

0,5

97

0,6

26

0,3

37

X0,665

0,7420,646

0,7400

,46

50

,88

90,675

0,4

72

0,6

30

0,7910

,56

20,765

0,6550,701

0,8120

,57

4Germ

any0

,91

90,702

0,8020,774

0,8350,709

0,8090

,86

40

,88

20,739

0,7190,665

X0

,44

70

,37

20

,53

50

,60

50,746

0,4

11

0,7030

,40

10

,52

20

,56

40

,54

70

,60

10

,44

30,682

0,3

00

Austria

0,9

18

0,7550,845

0,8250,831

0,7350

,88

80

,89

30

,89

30,822

0,7540,742

0,4

47

X0

,51

60,670

0,6550

,60

30

,54

50,761

0,5

93

0,6560

,62

70,643

0,6930,657

0,5

64

0,4

46

Belgium0

,90

00,783

0,7800,741

0,7770,697

0,8

76

0,8280,831

0,7800,703

0,6460

,37

20

,51

6X

0,5

66

0,5

57

0,7660

,44

20,727

0,4

06

0,5

90

0,5

54

0,6460

,61

80

,51

80,721

0,3

13

Denmark

0,9

25

0,7680,849

0,8120

,88

60,846

0,7960,807

0,9

30

0,7940,834

0,7400

,53

50,670

0,5

66

X0,685

0,7880

,60

90,778

0,5

30

0,5

92

0,6870,676

0,7240

,62

40,734

0,5

04

Spain0,677

0,6540,683

0,5

85

0,6850

,64

00

,88

20

,62

60,700

0,6

36

0,6

14

0,4

65

0,6

05

0,6550

,55

70,685

X0,837

0,5

64

0,5

45

0,5

54

0,7000

,47

80,728

0,5

45

0,6730,774

0,4

34

Finland0

,97

30

,89

70

,93

80

,91

80

,92

70

,89

70

,95

70

,95

10

,95

10

,90

20

,90

50

,88

90,746

0,6

03

0,7660,788

0,837X

0,7880

,87

90,804

0,8040,839

0,8450,708

0,8130

,28

40,734

France0,815

0,7250,804

0,7880,809

0,7150

,87

40

,85

20

,85

90,752

0,7200,675

0,4

11

0,5

45

0,4

42

0,6

09

0,5

64

0,788X

0,7140

,49

90

,57

60

,44

80

,62

40

,55

10

,52

50,705

0,3

21

Greece0,838

0,6770,682

0,7090,833

0,6

29

0,8410,722

0,6730

,60

70

,50

00

,47

20,703

0,7610,727

0,7780

,54

50

,87

90,714

X0,685

0,7950

,54

00,731

0,7120,750

0,8250

,62

1N

etherland0

,85

80,662

0,7500

,63

60,744

0,7360,805

0,8140,804

0,7500,747

0,6

30

0,4

01

0,5

93

0,4

06

0,5

30

0,5

54

0,8040

,49

90,685

X0

,57

70

,58

40

,60

70,669

0,5

50

0,7740

,34

1Ireland

0,9

23

0,7870,832

0,7660

,86

30,830

0,7000

,89

10

,92

90,820

0,8490,791

0,5

22

0,6560

,59

00

,59

20,700

0,8040

,57

60,795

0,5

77

X0,704

0,6980,768

0,5

44

0,7310

,51

8Italy

0,7790,712

0,7610,699

0,7900

,62

60

,88

90,790

0,7720,671

0,6

31

0,5

62

0,5

64

0,6

27

0,5

54

0,6870

,47

80,839

0,4

48

0,5

40

0,5

84

0,704X

0,6920

,55

40,662

0,7860

,43

7Luxem

burg0

,91

80,645

0,8

79

0,8

61

0,8290,826

0,7610

,91

80

,91

70,807

0,7810,765

0,5

47

0,6430,646

0,6760,728

0,8450

,62

40,731

0,6

07

0,6980,692

X0,711

0,6610,823

0,5

77

Portugal0,790

0,7930

,86

40,842

0,8

85

0,7510

,87

00,770

0,8

70

0,7350,726

0,6550

,60

10,693

0,6

18

0,7240

,54

50,708

0,5

51

0,7120,669

0,7680

,55

40,711

X0,677

0,6

26

0,5

27

United Kingdom0

,89

90,769

0,8290,823

0,8400,764

0,7720

,86

70

,91

10,710

0,7610,701

0,4

43

0,6570

,51

80

,62

40,673

0,8130

,52

50,750

0,5

50

0,5

44

0,6620,661

0,677X

0,6710

,44

4Sw

eden0

,95

10

,88

20

,89

80

,88

90

,90

70

,85

30

,88

60

,89

30

,94

50,834

0,8400,812

0,6820

,56

40,721

0,7340,774

0,2

84

0,7050,825

0,7740,731

0,7860,823

0,6

26

0,671X

0,6

33

EU 150,830

0,6660,754

0,7000,775

0,6490,831

0,7850,810

0,6950,658

0,5

74

0,3

00

0,4

46

0,3

13

0,5

04

0,4

34

0,7340

,32

10

,62

10

,34

10

,51

80

,43

70

,57

70

,52

70

,44

40

,63

3X

Estonia (2000)0

,94

40

,89

80

,89

90

,90

30

,92

40

,88

10

,91

70

,88

90

,91

90

,89

60

,89

70,822

0,6950

,60

50,726

0,7220,784

0,6

34

0,7540,850

0,7410,767

0,8260,790

0,7600,765

0,6

30

0,699Hungary

0,8

90

0,7780,812

0,7950,806

0,7280

,94

70,824

0,8420,776

0,7230,706

0,6

02

0,6

16

0,5

84

0,6870

,63

50

,85

10

,51

50,720

0,6

33

0,7590

,64

00,760

0,7260,732

0,8290

,55

8Latvia

0,9

51

0,8

90

0,9

31

0,9

28

0,9

36

0,8

85

0,9

02

0,8

80

0,9

57

0,8

99

0,8

91

0,8

52

0,7620,641

0,8440,825

0,8500

,50

90,822

0,8

66

0,8220

,86

70

,86

70,839

0,8050,824

0,5

48

0,770Lituania

0,9

21

0,7510

,86

20

,87

40,835

0,8210

,88

80

,85

10

,90

10,841

0,8050,764

0,5

40

0,6

09

0,6750,704

0,7590,730

0,6

24

0,7780,641

0,7120,762

0,6940,715

0,7020,708

0,5

92

Poland0

,89

90,794

0,7680,785

0,8370,697

0,8

68

0,8200,825

0,7890,718

0,6490

,47

10

,57

20

,46

50

,63

60,645

0,7820

,53

50,744

0,5

58

0,6490

,62

10,709

0,6820

,61

10,735

0,4

67

MP Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 15% 17% 11% 11%

EU 14% 14% 9% 9%

World 80% 80% 80% 83%

EU 85% 77% 78% 78%

World 58% 48% 48% 53%

EU 72% 62% 67% 75%

World 13% 14% 8% 9%

EU 13% 14% 8% 8%

World 17% 18% 13% 13%

EU 15% 13% 9% 9%

World 7 232 9 985 8 993 9 511

EU 3 204 4 839 4 329 4 346

World 12 540 20 792 18 609 17 781

EU 4 472 7 816 6 426 5 786

World -5 308 -10 807 -9 616 -8 270

EU -1 268 -2 978 -2 097 -1 440

World -3 768 -7 525 -7 082 -6 039

EU -1 246 -1 792 -1 267 -614

To EU 44% 48% 48% 46%

To Med EU 29% 24% 24% 23%

To MP 5% 8% 10% 10%

To the RoW 56% 43% 42% 44%

To the AC10 2% 3% 4% 4%

From EU 36% 38% 35% 33%

From Med EU 22% 16% 15% 14%

From the MP 3% 4% 4% 6%

From the RoW 64% 58% 61% 62%

From the AC10 3% 3% 5% 4%

World 23,30 26,95 30,53 32,04

Rest of World (RoW) 19,02 18,09 21,67 25,36

EU 17,89 18,26 21,36 21,20

Med EU 17,01 20,50 24,55 24,18

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Maghreb Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 14% 20% 13% 13%

EU 12% 15% 10% 9%

World 84% 85% 87% 87%

EU 90% 82% 85% 83%

World 50% 33% 41% 38%

EU 73% 45% 57% 56%

World 9% 12% 7% 7%

EU 10% 11% 6% 6%

World 19% 26% 20% 20%

EU 15% 19% 15% 13%

World 1 936 2 329 2 340 2 210

EU 1 318 1 418 1 508 1 385

World 3 840 7 050 5 724 5 837

EU 1 809 3 156 2 639 2 476

World -1 904 -4 721 -3 384 -3 626

EU -491 -1 739 -1 131 -1 091

World -1 271 -3 708 -2 728 -2 930

EU -378 -1 155 -771 -686

To EU 68% 61% 64% 63%

To Med EU 61% 48% 54% 51%

To MP 2% 5% 3% 4%

To the RoW 32% 35% 33% 33%

To the AC10 0% 1% 1% 1%

From EU 47% 45% 46% 42%

From Med EU 35% 28% 27% 22%

From the MP 3% 4% 4% 4%

From the RoW 53% 51% 50% 54%

From the AC10 1% 2% 3% 4%

World 11,14 12,46 10,29 11,52

Rest of World (RoW) 6,69 6,70 7,29 6,87

EU 13,04 16,19 9,96 9,91

Med EU 12,71 17,05 9,13 9,63

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Mashrek Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 21% 26% 20% 19%

EU 17% 18% 12% 10%

World 80% 81% 84% 86%

EU 87% 71% 78% 79%

World 15% 25% 25% 27%

EU 18% 22% 22% 28%

World 9% 20% 14% 14%

EU 7% 12% 6% 6%

World 26% 28% 22% 21%

EU 23% 20% 14% 13%

World 669 1 757 1 642 1 760

EU 252 482 385 412

World 4 329 6 942 6 463 6 478

EU 1 379 2 178 1 765 1 496

World -3 661 -5 184 -4 821 -4 718

EU -1 127 -1 696 -1 380 -1 084

World -3 372 -4 702 -4 647 -4 467

EU -1 206 -1 504 -1 355 -1 067

To EU 38% 27% 23% 23%

To Med EU 26% 17% 12% 11%

To MP 11% 21% 24% 23%

To the RoW 62% 52% 53% 53%

To the AC10 4% 2% 3% 4%

From EU 32% 31% 27% 23%

From Med EU 18% 9% 9% 10%

From the MP 4% 6% 6% 9%

From the RoW 68% 63% 67% 68%

From the AC10 3% 4% 7% 6%

World 15,37 18,21 16,41 20,99

Rest of World (RoW) 19,40 16,39 11,11 13,65

EU 7,04 13,18 11,64 13,69

Med EU 7,47 7,37 13,65 11,90

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

ALGERIA Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 10% 18% 9% 10%

EU 9% 12% 8% 8%

World 87% 90% 91% 91%

EU 96% 84% 86% 85%

World 2% 3% 2% 1%

EU 3% 2% 3% 2%

World 0% 1% 0% 0%

EU 0% 1% 0% 0%

World 26% 33% 31% 29%

EU 22% 24% 27% 24%

World 40 116 47 39

EU 30 34 40 33

World 2 253 3 518 2 815 2 834

EU 1 171 1 521 1 421 1 398

World -2 213 -3 403 -2 768 -2 795

EU -1 140 -1 487 -1 381 -1 364

World -1 923 -3 065 -2 542 -2 571

EU -1 097 -1 239 -1 201 -1 172

To EU 77% 29% 84% 86%

To Med EU 72% 27% 71% 79%

To MP 1% 8% 5% 9%

To the RoW 23% 62% 10% 5%

To the AC10 0% 0% 0% 0%

From EU 52% 43% 50% 49%

From Med EU 40% 31% 29% 27%

From the MP 4% 4% 2% 2%

From the RoW 48% 53% 47% 49%

From the AC10 0% 1% 3% 5%

World 3,25 4,13 3,51 5,09Rest of World (RoW) 3,90 3,07 19,88 7,90

EU 5,27 16,36 6,06 8,27Med EU 6,28 16,53 4,46 9,83

Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

EGYPT Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 20% 31% 20% 20%

EU 13% 23% 11% 10%

World 76% 78% 84% 86%

EU 90% 67% 75% 75%

World 13% 13% 21% 21%

EU 19% 17% 27% 42%

World 8% 16% 13% 15%

EU 5% 13% 8% 9%

World 26% 35% 22% 22%

EU 18% 27% 12% 10%

World 337 552 753 692

EU 134 212 231 255

World 2 671 4 160 3 634 3 353

EU 704 1 225 845 603

World -2 334 -3 608 -2 881 -2 660

EU -570 -1 012 -614 -348

World -1 978 -2 991 -2 703 -2 476

EU -567 -689 -554 -305

To EU 40% 38% 31% 37%

To Med EU 21% 19% 16% 17%

To MP 5% 17% 24% 22%

To the RoW 60% 44% 45% 41%

To the AC10 4% 3% 4% 6%

From EU 26% 29% 23% 18%

From Med EU 14% 7% 6% 6%

From the MP 1% 2% 3% 4%

From the RoW 74% 69% 74% 78%

From the AC10 1% 2% 5% 4%

World 21,65 7,49 10,68 9,20

Rest of World (RoW) 29,23 5,35 4,29 3,52

EU 13,74 27,38 14,11 12,28

Med EU 22,54 5,57 20,94 12,65

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

ISRAEL Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 11% 8% 5% 6%

EU 14% 9% 7% 8%

World 77% 79% 79% 83%

EU 80% 76% 75% 78%

World 85% 59% 52% 50%

EU 155% 81% 86% 78%

World 11% 7% 4% 5%

EU 23% 14% 9% 10%

World 10% 8% 7% 7%

EU 9% 7% 6% 7%

World 1 327 1 358 1 182 1 192

EU 813 886 763 711

World 1 565 2 307 2 288 2 388

EU 524 1 087 890 907

World -237 -949 -1 106 -1 196

EU 289 -202 -126 -196

World -175 -844 -1 099 -1 153

EU 199 -217 -175 -231

To EU 61% 65% 65% 60%

To Med EU 22% 19% 17% 15%

To MP 1% 1% 4% 2%

To the RoW 39% 33% 31% 39%

To the AC10 1% 2% 5% 3%

From EU 33% 47% 39% 38%

From Med EU 7% 9% 9% 10%

From the MP 1% 2% 0% 4%

From the RoW 67% 51% 61% 59%

From the AC10 1% 1% 3% 1%

World 16,71 25,15 27,26 34,05

Rest of World (RoW) 17,94 27,41 33,87 37,38

EU 15,29 19,16 19,80 23,03

Med EU 14,56 20,34 23,53 18,31

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

JORDAN Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 23% 24% 23% 18%

EU 30% 17% 17% 13%

World 95% 91% 91% 92%

EU 94% 83% 87% 86%

World 14% 46% 17% 30%

EU 1% 9% 2% 2%

World 11% 27% 16% 15%

EU 9% 20% 8% 4%

World 27% 23% 24% 20%

EU 31% 17% 17% 13%

World 102 387 157 288

EU 3 18 4 3

World 709 839 942 954

EU 187 207 237 183

World -608 -452 -785 -666

EU -184 -190 -233 -180

World -574 -402 -698 -574

EU -173 -163 -203 -155

To EU 3% 5% 3% 1%

To Med EU 0% 3% 1% 0%

To MP 16% 12% 15% 11%

To the RoW 97% 84% 83% 88%

To the AC10 0% 0% 1% 0%

From EU 26% 25% 25% 19%

From Med EU 11% 7% 9% 8%

From the MP 6% 13% 8% 12%

From the RoW 74% 63% 67% 69%

From the AC10 4% 3% 5% 6%

World 20,56 18,50 17,49 26,46

Rest of World (RoW) 27,60 17,16 21,37 26,61

EU 0,38 5,24 3,41 4,82

Med EU 1,24 8,97 4,66 22,57

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

LEBANON Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 25% 23% 23% 23%

EU 25% 15% 19% 19%

World 87% 92% 91% 89%

EU 86% 92% 93% 88%

World 18% 12% 12% 15%

EU 15% 5% 5% 10%

World 26% 25% 20% 24%

EU 27% 19% 16% 28%

World 24% 22% 23% 22%

EU 24% 15% 20% 18%

World 73 146 144 211

EU 29 25 23 47

World 398 1 176 1 210 1 362

EU 200 479 467 496

World -325 -1 029 -1 066 -1 151

EU -171 -454 -444 -448

World -331 -964 -975 -1 076

EU -187 -440 -420 -430

To EU 40% 17% 16% 22%

To Med EU 36% 8% 5% 9%

To MP 14% 20% 15% 14%

To the RoW 60% 63% 69% 63%

To the AC10 13% 4% 2% 1%

From EU 50% 41% 39% 36%

From Med EU 26% 16% 17% 18%

From the MP 10% 9% 11% 16%

From the RoW 50% 50% 50% 48%

From the AC10 8% 9% 9% 8%

World 13,94 15,78 14,48 17,18

Rest of World (RoW) 16,13 8,71 14,31 15,10

EU 7,32 10,63 7,51 18,62

Med EU 15,06 13,10 10,29 13,43

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

MOROCCO Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001

World 21% 29% 19% 19%

EU 18% 26% 16% 15%

World 83% 82% 86% 87%

EU 84% 82% 86% 86%

World 193% 74% 90% 83%

EU 295% 99% 144% 152%

World 30% 35% 23% 22%

EU 27% 19% 16% 28%

World 13% 26% 17% 18%

EU 9% 21% 12% 11%

World 1 478 1 643 1 745 1 603

EU 976 982 1 132 1 023

World 768 2 210 1 941 1 938

EU 331 991 789 673

World 710 -567 -196 -335

EU 645 -9 343 350

World 849 -186 10 -86

EU 681 162 406 441

To EU 66% 60% 65% 64%

To Med EU 57% 44% 52% 49%

To MP 1% 4% 3% 4%

To the RoW 34% 36% 32% 32%

To the AC10 0% 1% 1% 1%

From EU 43% 45% 41% 35%

From Med EU 30% 26% 25% 17%

From the MP 1% 4% 2% 3%

From the RoW 57% 52% 57% 62%

From the AC10 3% 4% 2% 1%

World 6,7 10,1 6,9 9,5

Rest of World (RoW) 11,6 4,8 2,6 2,8EU 7,2 17,3 7,4 11,2

Med EU 5,55 10,96 5,23 7,73Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

SYRIA Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 19% 21% 16% 14%

EU 22% 12% 7% 6%

World 76% 72% 69% 77%

EU 76% 56% 62% 67%

World 29% 88% 87% 70%

EU 30% 85% 59% 50%

World 8% 21% 13% 11%

EU 9% 10% 4% 3%

World 30% 20% 20% 19%

EU 36% 15% 14% 12%

World 157 673 588 569

EU 86 227 127 107

World 552 767 677 809

EU 288 267 218 214

World -394 -95 -90 -240

EU -202 -40 -90 -108

World -198 -456 -196 -272

EU 38 -78 24 46

To EU 54% 34% 22% 19%

To Med EU 51% 24% 11% 11%

To MP 19% 28% 28% 34%

To the RoW 46% 38% 50% 47%

To the AC10 0% 1% 2% 3%

From EU 52% 35% 32% 27%

From Med EU 37% 9% 12% 13%

From the MP 10% 14% 10% 17%

From the RoW 48% 51% 58% 57%

From the AC10 4% 9% 15% 11%

World 9,83 25,16 11,50 12,30

Rest of World (RoW) 9,03 41,25 11,04 7,19

EU 9,23 6,77 12,35 13,38

Med EU 7,36 10,81 11,05 12,72

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

TUNISIA Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 14% 14% 11% 11%

EU 12% 10% 7% 6%

World 78% 81% 80% 80%

EU 89% 80% 78% 74%

World 51% 43% 57% 53%

EU 101% 62% 78% 81%

World 12% 10% 10% 9%

EU 14% 9% 7% 6%

World 15% 17% 12% 12%

EU 10% 11% 8% 6%

World 418 570 548 568

EU 311 401 337 328

World 819 1 322 968 1 065

EU 307 644 429 405

World -402 -752 -419 -496

EU 4 -243 -93 -77

World -198 -456 -196 -272

EU 38 -78 24 46

To EU 74% 70% 61% 58%

To Med EU 72% 66% 57% 53%

To MP 4% 5% 2% 3%

To the RoW 26% 25% 36% 39%

To the AC10 0% 0% 0% 0%

From EU 37% 49% 44% 38%

From Med EU 28% 27% 24% 18%

From the MP 3% 8% 12% 8%

From the RoW 63% 43% 44% 54%

From the AC10 2% 2% 5% 6%

World 17,40 18,12 20,64 20,91

Rest of World (RoW) 19,89 30,04 25,88 22,11

EU 16,18 10,99 10,74 13,21

Med EU 15,99 14,47 16,40 11,27Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

TURKEY Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade1990 1995 2000 2001

World 17% 16% 10% 10%

EU 16% 12% 7% 8%

World 78% 74% 71% 74%

EU 76% 77% 71% 72%

World 118% 101% 93% 141%

EU 108% 147% 148% 203%

World 25% 21% 14% 14%

EU 21% 19% 12% 11%

World 13% 13% 8% 7%

EU 13% 8% 4% 5%

World 3 300 4 541 3 828 4 349

EU 822 2 053 1 673 1 839

World 2 806 4 493 4 133 3 079

EU 761 1 395 1 132 907

World 494 48 -305 1 270

EU 61 658 541 932

World 1 050 1 729 1 393 2 510

EU 137 1 084 1 034 1 369

To EU 25% 45% 44% 42%

To Med EU 14% 15% 13% 15%

To MP 7% 7% 10% 10%

To the RoW 75% 48% 46% 47%

To the AC10 4% 4% 5% 5%

From EU 27% 31% 27% 29%

From Med EU 19% 12% 13% 13%

From the MP 2% 3% 5% 4%

From the RoW 73% 66% 68% 67%

From the AC10 6% 4% 4% 3%

World 18,97 11,37 18,15 15,94

Rest of World (RoW) 20,37 10,70 15,84 14,11

EU 14,12 8,83 12,81 12,21

Med EU 20,63 12,10 15,95 17,44

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Sources : Comtrade and Eurostat/Medstat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

EU Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 17,5% 9,8% 6,4% 6,2% 5,9%

EU 14,0% 13,5% 11,1% 11,4% 11,8%

World 12,9% 12,5% 9,8% 9,9% 10,3%

10 MP 12,6% 12,3% 8,2% 8,3% 8,4%

AC10 84,7% 68,7% 66,3% 69,4% 71,2%

EU 85,9% 82,9% 83,1% 85,1% 85,6%

World 81,3% 80,8% 80,9% 82,8% 83,9%

10 MP 85,4% 79,3% 79,7% 81,0% 79,6%

AC10 48,8% 109,9% 103,9% 104,1% 124,0%

EU 97,6% 102,3% 103,5% 102,6% 103,5%

World 82,5% 90,8% 93,1% 92,5% 95,2%

10 MP 118,3% 129,6% 124,9% 107,1% 115,3%

AC10 11% 9% 6% 6% 6%

EU 14% 13% 11% 11% 12%

World 12% 12% 9% 9% 10%

10 MP 12% 11% 8% 8% 8%

AC10 24% 10% 7% 6% 6%

EU 14% 14% 11% 12% 12%

World 14% 13% 10% 10% 11%

10 MP 13% 14% 9% 9% 9%

AC10 858 3 604 6 886 7 576 7 310

World 101 184 139 688 256 433 270 375 247 312

10 MP 3 022 4 058 6 821 6 296 5 995

AC10 1 759 3 279 6 626 7 275 5 893

World 122 601 153 861 275 357 292 290 259 827

10 MP 2 555 3 131 5 462 5 880 5 201

AC10 -900 325 260 301 1 417

World -21 417 -14 172 -18 924 -21 914 -12 515

10 MP 467 927 1 359 416 793

AC10 -730 936 1 734 1 567 1 973

World -7 552 -4 706 -4 907 -8 994 -6 074

10 MP 535 519 809 -97 124

To the AC10 0,8% 2,6% 2,7% 2,8% 3,0%

To the EU 70,6% 73,0% 73,1% 72,7% 72,7%

To the PM 3,0% 2,9% 2,7% 2,3% 2,4%

From the AC10 1,4% 2,1% 2,4% 2,5% 2,3%

From the EU 59,7% 64,8% 65,8% 65,5% 66,8%

From the MP 2,1% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0% 2,0%

AC10 21,9 33,9 36,1 38,1 38,4

EU 96,6 95,4 95,0 94,5 94,7

World 73,9 77,3 79,3 80,1 80,1

10 MP 14,2 18,2 20,8 20,9 22,1Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Products inTotal Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (en millions de dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

GERMANY Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 15,1% 7,5% 4,7% 4,5% 4,1%

EU 10,7% 10,4% 8,8% 9,1% 8,6%

World 9,3% 9,1% 7,1% 7,1% 6,7%

10 MP 8,2% 7,9% 6,0% 6,5% 5,6%

AC10 82% 70% 73% 76% 77%

EU 85% 82% 84% 86% 87%

World 78% 80% 82% 84% 84%

10 MP 78% 83% 87% 88% 86%

AC10 51% 87% 87% 89% 99%

EU 56% 58% 69% 71% 68%

World 51% 56% 65% 68% 67%

10 MP 62% 72% 88% 71% 78%

AC10 10% 7% 4% 4% 4%

EU 7% 7% 7% 7% 6%

World 6% 6% 5% 5% 5%

10 MP 5% 6% 5% 5% 4%

AC10 20% 8% 5% 5% 4%

EU 15% 14% 11% 11% 11%

World 13% 12% 9% 9% 9%

10 MP 12% 11% 7% 8% 7%

AC10 344 1 125 2 063 2 284 2 142

EU 9 505 13 005 24 734 27 436 21 906

World 14 302 18 872 34 318 37 442 30 972

10 MP 320 455 874 782 652

AC10 676 1 294 2 381 2 558 2 157

EU 17 074 22 612 35 834 38 436 32 123

World 28 043 33 680 52 781 55 383 46 552

10 MP 520 635 992 1 100 841

AC10 -333 -169 -318 -274 -15

EU -7 570 -9 607 -11 100 -11 000 -10 217

World -13 741 -14 808 -18 462 -17 941 -15 580

10 MP -200 -181 -118 -318 -189

AC10 -262 -41 -83 -136 86

EU -6 509 -7 773 -8 224 -8 064 -7 575

World -9 662 -10 969 -12 796 -12 701 -11 255

10 MP -197 -189 -69 -288 -172

To the AC10 2% 6% 6% 6% 7%

To the EU 66% 69% 72% 73% 71%

To the MP 2% 2% 3% 2% 2%

From The AC10 2% 4% 5% 5% 5%

From The EU 61% 67% 68% 69% 69%

From The PM 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

AC10 14,5 28,0 33,0 34,3 36,2

EU 49,0 50,0 57,9 57,7 57,4

World 46,5 47,2 54,9 56,1 56,6

10 MP 7,3 8,3 12,2 12,2 14,1Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Total exports (million of dollars)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

AUSTRIA Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 15,5% 10,9% 6,5% 6,6% 5,8%

EU 6,5% 8,6% 8,8% 8,8% 9,2%

World 7,6% 8,7% 7,9% 8,0% 8,1%

10 MP 10,0% 13,6% 13,2% 15,5% 14,5%

AC10 72% 54% 56% 60% 67%

EU 53% 60% 70% 73% 76%

World 57% 59% 66% 69% 73%

10 MP 71% 66% 73% 79% 73%

AC10 22,1% 150,2% 158,4% 174,4% 220,9%

EU 100,7% 115,6% 125,0% 123,2% 120,9%

World 85,1% 99,1% 104,2% 105,4% 104,2%

10 MP 202,7% 473,6% 174,5% 165,3% 138,1%

AC10 10% 9% 5% 5% 5%

EU 7% 8% 9% 9% 9%

World 7% 8% 8% 8% 8%

10 MP 6% 10% 8% 10% 9%

AC10 21% 14% 8% 8% 6%

EU 6% 9% 9% 9% 9%

World 8% 9% 8% 8% 8%

10 MP 13% 18% 19% 21% 20%

AC10 87 315 463 551 495

EU 1 110 1 848 4 392 4 774 4 415

World 1 742 2 766 6 031 6 827 6 374

10 MP 22 40 79 103 90

AC10 159 325 754 850 594

EU 1 312 2 613 5 081 5 577 5 038

World 2 476 3 529 6 910 7 537 6 520

10 MP 66 59 178 230 199

AC10 -72 -10 -291 -299 -99

EU -202 -765 -689 -803 -623

World -735 -764 -880 -711 -147

10 MP -44 -19 -99 -126 -109

AC10 -45 73 -17 -27 -18

EU -453 -935 -887 -1 023 -974

World -747 -876 -818 -765 -682

10 MP -48 -39 -148 -183 -164

To the AC10 5% 11% 8% 8% 8%

To the EU 64% 67% 73% 70% 69%

To the MP 1% 1% 1% 2% 1%

From The AC10 6% 9% 11% 11% 9%

From The EU 53% 74% 74% 74% 77%

From The PM 3% 2% 3% 3% 3%

AC10 28,0 33,1 34,0 33,8 41,2

EU 29,4 38,9 46,8 49,2 49,5

World 35,9 45,6 50,3 51,8 52,5

10 MP 6,6 12,7 7,9 5,3 9,3Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

BELGIUM-LUXEMBURG Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 17,7% 10,5% 6,0% 5,8% 6,6%

EU 12,6% 13,8% 11,3% 11,3% 11,2%

World 11,7% 13,2% 10,4% 10,3% 10,1%

10 MP 6,7% 8,8% 5,8% 6,3% 5,4%

AC10 86,6% 78,4% 69,4% 76,5% 79,2%

EU 86,1% 87,5% 86,6% 88,3% 88,8%

World 82,7% 85,8% 84,0% 86,3% 87,1%

10 MP 86,7% 91,0% 85,9% 86,6% 83,2%

AC10 22,1% 150,2% 158,4% 174,4% 220,9%

EU 100,7% 115,6% 125,0% 123,2% 120,9%

World 85,1% 99,1% 104,2% 105,4% 104,2%

10 MP 202,7% 473,6% 174,5% 165,3% 138,1%

AC10 7% 11% 7% 7% 8%

EU 13% 14% 12% 12% 12%

World 11% 13% 10% 10% 10%

10 MP 7% 11% 6% 7% 6%

AC10 28% 10% 5% 4% 5%

EU 13% 14% 11% 11% 11%

World 12% 14% 10% 10% 10%

10 MP 6% 4% 5% 6% 5%

AC10 20 156 323 401 429

EU 6 915 10 603 20 568 22 166 19 731

World 8 069 12 670 23 907 25 706 22 917

10 MP 152 363 513 487 386

AC10 88 104 204 230 194

EU 6 865 9 174 16 453 17 992 16 317

World 9 478 12 782 22 934 24 381 21 998

10 MP 75 77 294 295 279

AC10 -69 52 119 171 235

EU 50 1 429 4 114 4 174 3 414

World -1 408 -111 973 1 325 919

10 MP 77 287 219 193 106

AC10 -61 56 126 167 227

EU 109 1 382 3 500 3 722 2 950

World -729 383 1 625 1 943 1 238

10 MP 68 263 249 204 113

To the AC10 0% 1% 1% 2% 2%

To the EU 86% 84% 86% 86% 86%

To the MP 2% 3% 2% 2% 2%

From The AC10 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

From The EU 72% 72% 70% 72% 73%

From The PM 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

AC10 13,0 22,7 21,4 27,0 29,4

EU 57,0 60,0 62,9 63,1 63,0

World 53,9 65,7 67,8 67,4 66,0

10 MP 8,7 7,4 13,5 20,3 13,7Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

DENMARK Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 20,0% 17,9% 14,0% 13,1% 12,7%

EU 24,5% 20,8% 18,0% 18,8% 18,8%

World 23,0% 22,0% 19,1% 19,5% 19,6%

10 MP 27,6% 24,4% 16,3% 17,6% 13,7%

AC10 82,0% 80,2% 79,0% 77,2% 71,8%

EU 89,2% 83,7% 85,1% 86,9% 87,2%

World 85,4% 85,2% 85,3% 86,4% 86,8%

10 MP 96,2% 88,3% 86,1% 85,9% 84,8%

AC10 46,9% 152,6% 167,5% 143,8% 177,6%

EU 306,9% 217,4% 201,7% 205,1% 195,8%

World 218,4% 194,5% 176,1% 178,6% 172,8%

10 MP 495,8% 374,3% 249,6% 254,9% 228,5%

AC10 14% 21% 18% 17% 17%

EU 36% 28% 23% 24% 24%

World 30% 28% 23% 23% 23%

10 MP 33% 28% 19% 22% 17%

AC10 25% 15% 10% 10% 9%

EU 12% 13% 13% 13% 13%

World 15% 16% 15% 15% 16%

10 MP 15% 16% 12% 12% 10%

AC10 30 152 335 346 320

EU 4 096 5 558 9 229 10 197 9 468

World 6 609 8 241 13 846 15 085 13 790

10 MP 99 95 116 135 108

AC10 63 100 200 241 180

EU 1 335 2 557 4 575 4 971 4 835

World 3 025 4 238 7 862 8 445 7 982

10 MP 20 25 46 53 47

AC10 -34 52 135 105 140

EU 2 761 3 001 4 655 5 225 4 633

World 3 583 4 003 5 983 6 640 5 807

10 MP 79 70 69 82 61

AC10 -20 71 174 148 174

EU 2 533 2 902 4 623 5 220 4 609

World 3 514 3 791 5 579 6 304 5 597

10 MP 76 80 77 99 78

To the AC10 0% 2% 2% 2% 2%

To the EU 62% 67% 67% 68% 69%

To the MP 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

From The AC10 2% 2% 3% 3% 2%

From The EU 44% 60% 58% 59% 61%

From The PM 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

AC10 13,3 11,8 26,4 19,8 22,7

EU 25,0 35,1 39,3 38,2 39,6

World 34,7 40,5 46,2 45,0 46,9

10 MP 2,6 11,1 10,7 10,3 9,2Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

SPAIN Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 25,1% 14,0% 10,7% 9,4% 9,4%

EU 13,6% 15,4% 12,6% 13,6% 14,0%

World 15,3% 16,7% 12,8% 13,6% 14,1%

10 MP 17,0% 19,3% 8,0% 9,1% 10,3%

AC10 89,4% 90,6% 87,2% 88,6% 90,8%

EU 83,7% 86,0% 87,7% 89,4% 90,7%

World 82,2% 85,4% 86,8% 88,3% 89,7%

10 MP 80,1% 80,5% 84,6% 84,0% 83,6%

AC10 84,9% 513,6% 373,5% 520,1% 381,8%

EU 125,0% 115,8% 138,6% 139,4% 140,4%

World 84,0% 88,9% 101,9% 102,7% 101,0%

10 MP 144,7% 123,1% 72,1% 77,8% 85,8%

AC10 25% 20% 14% 13% 12%

EU 17% 18% 17% 18% 18%

World 17% 17% 15% 16% 16%

10 MP 19% 19% 7% 9% 11%

AC10 25% 5% 6% 4% 5%

EU 11% 13% 9% 10% 11%

World 14% 16% 11% 12% 12%

10 MP 15% 20% 9% 9% 10%

AC10 29 165 472 522 503

EU 4 089 6 969 15 827 18 145 15 756

World 6 168 9 734 20 475 23 057 20 187

10 MP 252 427 448 549 588

AC10 35 32 126 100 132

EU 3 272 6 020 11 419 13 013 11 221

World 7 347 10 946 20 089 22 457 19 991

10 MP 174 347 621 706 685

AC10 -5 133 346 422 371

EU 817 949 4 409 5 132 4 535

World -1 179 -1 212 386 600 196

10 MP 78 80 -173 -157 -97

AC10 146 383 451 400

EU 999 1 249 4 619 5 450 4 759

World -174 -262 1 958 2 233 1 365

10 MP 45 24 -184 -212 -173

To the AC10 0% 2% 2% 2% 2%

To the EU 66% 72% 77% 79% 78%

To the MP 4% 4% 2% 2% 3%

From The AC10 0% 0% 1% 0% 1%

From The EU 45% 55% 57% 58% 56%

From The PM 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

AC10 8,3 6,3 7,5 7,9 9,7

EU 30,9 38,0 41,4 40,6 39,2

World 33,0 40,1 43,6 43,1 40,6

10 MP 18,2 18,5 25,3 22,1 22,2Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

FINLAND Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 10,9% 8,4% 5,3% 6,3% 6,5%

EU 10,6% 10,3% 8,5% 8,2% 9,8%

World 9,5% 10,1% 7,8% 8,0% 8,8%

10 MP 43,6% 43,4% 22,4% 27,0% 26,1%

AC10 74,1% 57,8% 44,3% 41,9% 45,9%

EU 24,3% 35,7% 42,4% 46,8% 47,9%

World 38,3% 37,7% 40,8% 43,1% 46,2%

10 MP 30,6% 15,3% 12,5% 15,1% 13,1%

AC10 74,5% 109,2% 103,4% 99,6% 154,2%

EU 250,4% 187,1% 146,6% 122,0% 119,0%

World 164,5% 156,4% 141,5% 125,6% 151,6%

10 MP 326,0% 1017,1% 1509,6% 1394,3% 1714,9%

AC10 14% 6% 4% 5% 6%

EU 15% 12% 9% 9% 11%

World 12% 11% 8% 8% 10%

10 MP 43% 45% 23% 31% 31%

AC10 9% 13% 8% 8% 7%

EU 6% 8% 8% 8% 9%

World 7% 9% 8% 8% 8%

10 MP 46% 32% 13% 10% 7%

AC10 16 81 160 188 196

EU 1 159 1 657 2 768 415 2 330

World 1 978 2 515 4 299 4 179 4 007

10 MP 127 186 344 308 273

AC10 22 75 154 188 127

EU 463 886 1 888 340 1 958

World 1 202 1 608 3 039 3 327 2 643

10 MP 39 18 23 22 16

AC10 -6 7 5 -1 69

EU 696 771 880 75 372

World 775 907 1 260 852 1 364

10 MP 88 168 321 286 257

AC10 -9 47 54 55 54

EU -234 -459 -1 154 -211 -1 237

World -413 -428 -1 178 -1 188 -1 116

10 MP -24 -3 2 7 7

To the AC10 1% 3% 4% 4% 5%

To the EU 59% 66% 64% 10% 58%

To the MP 6% 7% 8% 7% 7%

From The AC10 2% 5% 5% 6% 5%

From The EU 39% 55% 62% 10% 74%

From The PM 3% 1% 1% 1% 1%

AC10 41,7 16,9 18,2 20,0 21,7

EU 9,3 17,3 18,8 19,7 19,9

World 16,0 25,0 23,1 23,9 25,2

10 MP 4,7 12,5 1,4 9,8 24,2Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

FRANCE Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 15,9% 8,0% 4,3% 4,2% 4,5%

EU 15,2% 15,0% 11,4% 11,3% 12,2%

World 14,2% 13,7% 10,1% 9,9% 10,8%

10 MP 15,2% 12,8% 9,0% 8,6% 9,4%

AC10 88,4% 77,4% 69,8% 71,1% 73,3%

EU 87,5% 87,7% 87,5% 88,7% 90,1%

World 84,9% 85,9% 85,8% 87,2% 88,8%

10 MP 92,3% 89,3% 91,7% 91,4% 91,1%

AC10 49,8% 151,6% 139,7% 149,2% 189,4%

EU 145,8% 130,7% 118,9% 115,5% 117,8%

World 128,1% 126,0% 122,5% 118,1% 122,6%

10 MP 154,1% 170,3% 168,2% 149,6% 162,3%

AC10 11% 9% 4% 4% 5%

EU 19% 17% 13% 13% 13%

World 17% 15% 11% 11% 12%

10 MP 16% 13% 9% 9% 10%

AC10 21% 7% 5% 4% 4%

EU 12% 13% 10% 10% 11%

World 12% 12% 9% 9% 10%

10 MP 15% 12% 8% 8% 8%

AC10 75 251 439 500 538

EU 16 568 19 310 30 767 30 988 28 828

World 22 927 26 421 43 302 43 238 40 664

10 MP 1 003 1 035 1 703 1 641 1 657

AC10 150 166 314 335 284

EU 11 360 14 769 25 874 26 827 24 479

World 17 902 20 973 35 335 36 597 33 176

10 MP 651 608 1 013 1 097 1 021

AC10 -76 86 125 165 254

EU 5 208 4 540 4 893 4 161 4 349

World 5 025 5 449 7 967 6 641 7 488

10 MP 352 427 691 544 636

AC10 -69 106 160 182 252

EU 4 891 4 740 5 609 4 655 5 401

World 6 390 6 956 10 510 8 761 9 577

10 MP 323 375 642 478 553

To the AC10 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

To the EU 72% 73% 71% 72% 71%

To the MP 4% 4% 4% 4% 4%

From The AC10 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

From The EU 63% 70% 73% 73% 74%

From The PM 4% 3% 3% 3% 3%

AC10 12,3 24,4 28,4 37,2 34,4

EU 45,9 53,2 55,5 55,9 56,1

World 41,4 48,3 49,5 50,0 49,9

10 MP 10,1 11,6 10,3 12,9 15,7Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

GREECE Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 23,8% 20,9% 16,7% 16,9% 22,1%

EU 23,9% 25,0% 19,3% 20,8% 22,4%

World 22,6% 22,9% 16,0% 16,7% 18,3%

10 MP 25,2% 18,0% 18,5% 18,2% 23,0%

AC10 83,9% 66,8% 81,8% 85,9% 86,0%

EU 93,3% 90,7% 92,5% 93,6% 92,9%

World 85,8% 86,8% 87,6% 88,5% 89,3%

10 MP 63,6% 62,7% 53,9% 55,4% 62,2%

AC10 146,4% 210,9% 340,2% 392,4% 294,5%

EU 70,3% 65,0% 51,9% 51,3% 43,0%

World 69,5% 77,5% 70,1% 73,6% 61,4%

10 MP 110,5% 182,6% 366,1% 296,1% 203,5%

AC10 23% 22% 22% 21% 29%

EU 35% 37% 31% 33% 31%

World 32% 33% 25% 27% 29%

10 MP 27% 24% 26% 29% 39%

AC10 25% 19% 9% 9% 13%

EU 20% 21% 16% 18% 20%

World 19% 18% 13% 13% 15%

10 MP 23% 12% 9% 9% 13%

AC10 42 86 226 264 252

EU 1 086 1 425 2 003 1 703 1 506

World 1 595 2 159 3 382 3 380 3 023

10 MP 63 105 371 293 276

AC10 29 41 67 67 86

EU 1 545 2 192 3 861 3 322 3 504

World 2 296 2 787 4 828 4 596 4 921

10 MP 57 58 101 99 136

AC10 13 45 160 196 166

EU -460 -767 -1 858 -1 618 -1 998

World -701 -628 -1 445 -1 215 -1 898

10 MP 6 48 270 194 140

AC10 10 56 174 208 188

EU -389 -718 -1 730 -1 531 -1 817

World -404 -536 -1 307 -1 115 -1 652

10 MP 8 5 80 38 13

To the AC10 3% 4% 7% 8% 8%

To the EU 68% 66% 59% 50% 50%

To the MP 4% 5% 11% 9% 9%

From The AC10 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%

From The EU 67% 79% 80% 72% 71%

From The PM 2% 2% 2% 2% 3%

AC10 24,2 9,7 9,3 7,6 8,5

EU 16,4 15,1 18,7 19,8 21,3

World 21,7 25,7 27,8 28,4 28,0

10 MP 41,0 23,9 10,1 12,3 15,0Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

NETHERLAND Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 29,3% 20,8% 12,2% 12,9% 12,3%

EU 20,1% 20,4% 16,6% 17,2% 19,0%

World 19,7% 19,8% 15,1% 15,8% 17,5%

10 MP 24,6% 19,2% 14,3% 13,8% 14,1%

AC10 85,4% 79,5% 70,6% 72,4% 70,2%

EU 85,0% 84,6% 78,8% 80,5% 80,6%

World 83,7% 84,1% 79,2% 80,8% 80,2%

10 MP 89,6% 83,4% 78,8% 78,1% 80,1%

AC10 77,7% 327,5% 238,8% 197,4% 238,3%

EU 209,7% 219,3% 219,1% 217,3% 221,5%

World 156,3% 161,0% 159,4% 155,4% 163,3%

10 MP 248,0% 144,5% 118,0% 110,8% 124,6%

AC10 25% 29% 16% 15% 15%

EU 24% 24% 18% 19% 22%

World 24% 23% 18% 18% 21%

10 MP 37% 22% 15% 16% 16%

AC10 34% 11% 8% 10% 9%

EU 15% 16% 14% 15% 15%

World 15% 16% 12% 13% 14%

10 MP 13% 16% 13% 12% 13%

AC10 125 572 932 995 1 000

EU 15 498 19 618 39 514 42 456 40 269

World 20 125 24 891 49 247 52 543 50 778

10 MP 519 406 689 636 661

AC10 160 175 390 504 420

EU 7 389 8 946 18 036 19 537 18 180

World 12 875 15 461 30 905 33 814 31 103

10 MP 209 281 584 574 530

AC10 -36 398 541 491 580

EU 8 109 10 672 21 477 22 919 22 089

World 7 250 9 431 18 342 18 729 19 675

10 MP 310 125 105 62 130

AC10 -35 338 391 316 395

EU 6 237 8 484 16 501 17 684 16 823

World 5 725 7 526 13 926 14 007 14 587

10 MP 338 162 195 156 189

To the AC10 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%

To the EU 77% 79% 80% 81% 79%

To the MP 3% 2% 1% 1% 1%

From The AC10 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

From The EU 57% 58% 58% 58% 58%

From The PM 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

AC10 24,7 19,9 22,7 21,3 22,7

EU 39,6 41,9 49,4 51,1 49,5

World 45,9 49,8 57,8 58,7 57,8

10 MP 6,7 11,4 17,7 18,7 16,7Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

IRELAND Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 18,7% 20,7% 6,1% 6,3% 8,5%

EU 19,5% 18,0% 9,8% 9,4% 11,2%

World 18,6% 16,1% 8,1% 7,8% 9,4%

10 MP 40,2% 45,7% 17,1% 10,7% 14,9%

AC10 89,8% 87,4% 72,0% 64,9% 68,5%

EU 91,8% 92,9% 92,2% 92,9% 93,6%

World 90,7% 92,6% 91,9% 92,6% 93,0%

10 MP 97,2% 93,3% 97,3% 95,7% 86,8%

AC10 175,1% 385,6% 235,7% 127,2% 114,0%

EU 217,6% 265,4% 165,0% 146,0% 148,4%

World 223,0% 282,3% 183,8% 163,0% 164,6%

10 MP 504,8% 955,3% 1530,0% 842,7% 947,8%

AC10 27% 22% 6% 6% 7%

EU 24% 21% 10% 9% 11%

World 24% 20% 9% 8% 10%

10 MP 48% 54% 22% 14% 18%

AC10 12% 16% 5% 7% 10%

EU 14% 13% 9% 10% 12%

World 12% 10% 7% 8% 9%

10 MP 22% 18% 4% 4% 6%

AC10 13 55 81 62 60

EU 2 671 4 122 5 754 5 948 5 424

World 3 517 5 356 7 940 8 022 7 141

10 MP 58 176 300 156 155

AC10 8 14 35 49 53

EU 1 227 1 553 3 487 4 075 3 656

World 1 577 1 897 4 321 4 921 4 338

10 MP 12 18 20 18 16

AC10 6 41 47 13 7

EU 1 444 2 569 2 267 1 873 1 768

World 1 940 3 459 3 619 3 101 2 803

10 MP 47 158 280 137 139

AC10 7 48 67 36 35

EU 1 318 2 451 2 241 1 843 1 786

World 1 929 3 406 3 760 3 224 2 926

10 MP 45 154 276 134 119

To the AC10 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

To the EU 76% 77% 72% 74% 76%

To the MP 2% 3% 4% 2% 2%

From The AC10 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%

From The EU 78% 82% 81% 83% 84%

From The PM 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%

AC10 5,8 5,3 3,7 29,4 11,3

EU 30,4 30,8 42,0 44,7 42,0

World 25,9 25,8 36,4 38,7 37,2

10 MP 3,0 4,8 2,9 7,8 8,4Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

ITALY Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 18,9% 9,4% 7,0% 6,9% 6,2%

EU 13,4% 13,1% 11,2% 11,2% 11,7%

World 12,4% 11,8% 9,7% 9,6% 9,9%

10 MP 9,0% 9,1% 5,9% 5,6% 6,0%

AC10 85,1% 67,2% 63,9% 69,4% 70,3%

EU 84,9% 81,7% 82,6% 84,2% 86,9%

World 74,6% 74,7% 75,6% 77,9% 82,0%

10 MP 80,9% 76,6% 73,7% 75,1% 73,1%

AC10 22,7% 68,6% 90,7% 97,1% 126,6%

EU 40,4% 50,5% 54,5% 57,9% 61,7%

World 37,6% 48,1% 54,7% 58,1% 63,8%

10 MP 67,9% 49,6% 50,2% 43,0% 49,4%

AC10 6% 6% 5% 5% 6%

EU 8% 9% 8% 8% 9%

World 7% 7% 7% 7% 8%

10 MP 7% 5% 3% 3% 3%

AC10 36% 15% 10% 9% 7%

EU 19% 18% 14% 14% 14%

World 17% 17% 13% 12% 12%

10 MP 10% 17% 10% 9% 9%

AC10 89 338 725 870 784

EU 4 829 6 665 12 414 13 598 12 665

World 7 355 9 868 19 175 21 111 19 805

10 MP 327 293 455 419 406

AC10 395 493 800 896 619

EU 11 956 13 206 22 759 23 497 20 518

World 19 538 20 536 35 056 36 316 31 055

10 MP 481 590 908 975 822

AC10 -305 -155 -75 -26 165

EU -7 127 -6 540 -10 345 -9 900 -7 853

World -12 183 -10 668 -15 881 -15 205 -11 249

10 MP -154 -297 -452 -556 -416

AC10 -247 18 163 181 251

EU -5 495 -4 017 -6 422 -6 209 -5 386

World -6 861 -4 795 -6 559 -6 462 -5 524

10 MP -42 -185 -324 -425 -323

To the AC10 1% 3% 4% 4% 4%

To the EU 66% 68% 65% 64% 64%

To the MP 4% 3% 2% 2% 2%

From The AC10 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

From The EU 61% 64% 65% 65% 66%

From The PM 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

AC10 7,0 15,4 17,9 18,5 18,3

EU 26,2 31,3 36,3 35,6 36,6

World 26,0 31,1 36,2 35,2 37,1

10 MP 11,5 13,8 14,4 14,7 14,5Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

PORTUGAL Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 18,5% 7,6% 4,2% 2,7% 2,7%

EU 11,4% 12,4% 11,2% 11,5% 12,0%

World 14,6% 14,9% 12,5% 12,6% 13,4%

10 MP 8,5% 20,9% 14,3% 10,0% 9,9%

AC10 68,2% 60,5% 38,5% 52,9% 51,4%

EU 64,5% 74,5% 78,5% 81,4% 82,9%

World 66,8% 72,7% 76,7% 80,2% 82,6%

10 MP 34,2% 53,3% 36,2% 50,5% 50,7%

AC10 102,3% 81,6% 107,3% 128,2% 121,1%

EU 96,9% 61,5% 53,7% 47,6% 51,8%

World 57,8% 48,0% 45,6% 41,3% 45,6%

10 MP 104,5% 122,1% 68,2% 73,8% 116,7%

AC10 14% 8% 6% 4% 4%

EU 14% 11% 10% 9% 10%

World 13% 12% 10% 10% 10%

10 MP 20% 26% 15% 12% 16%

AC10 26% 7% 3% 2% 2%

EU 10% 13% 12% 13% 13%

World 15% 17% 14% 14% 15%

10 MP 5% 17% 14% 9% 7%

AC10 3 6 20 17 16

EU 1 002 1 165 2 283 2 259 2 107

World 1 352 1 567 2 946 2 912 2 744

10 MP 21 60 68 54 56

AC10 3 8 19 13 13

EU 1 034 1 894 4 251 4 742 4 065

World 2 338 3 266 6 459 7 052 6 021

10 MP 20 49 99 73 48

AC10 ,07 -1 1 4 3

EU -32 -729 -1 969 -2 483 -1 958

World -986 -1 698 -3 513 -4 139 -3 277

10 MP 1 11 -32 -19 8

AC10 -2 -3 -8 -5 -7

EU -364 -979 -2 221 -2 582 -2 067

World -1 040 -1 630 -3 304 -3 781 -3 079

10 MP -5 -3 -6 11 26

To the AC10 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%

To the EU 74% 74% 77% 78% 77%

To the MP 2% 4% 2% 2% 2%

From The AC10 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

From The EU 44% 58% 66% 67% 68%

From The PM 1% 2% 2% 1% 1%

AC10 21,1 17,0 6,5 13,2 14,7

EU 20,8 27,8 35,5 34,1 35,3

World 19,8 26,4 32,1 33,2 34,1

10 MP 8,4 4,5 12,9 13,5 15,4Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

UNITED KINGDOM Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 16,2% 10,2% 8,5% 7,6% 8,0%

EU 11,9% 11,0% 9,1% 9,0% 9,6%

World 10,9% 10,0% 7,9% 8,0% 8,5%

10 MP 14,3% 11,3% 7,3% 7,5% 7,2%

AC10 88,8% 64,3% 51,4% 53,0% 50,6%

EU 87,3% 85,4% 86,7% 87,2% 87,4%

World 81,1% 82,8% 85,0% 86,2% 86,2%

10 MP 85,9% 79,1% 85,3% 86,7% 81,7%

AC10 58,7% 71,5% 60,9% 48,1% 42,1%

EU 51,3% 63,0% 50,9% 46,3% 45,9%

World 50,4% 56,3% 52,5% 48,1% 47,9%

10 MP 61,9% 84,1% 117,7% 85,1% 91,4%

AC10 12% 8% 6% 5% 5%

EU 9% 9% 6% 6% 6%

World 8% 8% 6% 6% 6%

10 MP 10% 9% 7% 7% 8%

AC10 21% 14% 11% 10% 11%

EU 14% 13% 12% 12% 12%

World 13% 12% 9% 10% 10%

10 MP 20% 15% 7% 8% 7%

AC10 89 181 427 374 337

EU 5 224 7 093 11 961 11 516 10 693

World 9 165 10 663 20 009 19 492 17 779

10 MP 208 269 617 491 463

AC10 152 254 701 777 799

EU 10 191 11 265 23 498 24 861 23 301

World 18 183 18 926 38 147 40 492 37 081

10 MP 335 320 524 577 506

AC10 -63 -72 -274 -403 -463

EU -4 967 -4 172 -11 537 -13 345 -12 607

World -9 017 -8 263 -18 137 -21 000 -19 302

10 MP -128 -51 93 -86 -43

AC10 -51 19 150 19 -52

EU -4 527 -3 202 -9 361 -11 086 -10 213

World -6 241 -5 881 -13 740 -16 766 -15 417

10 MP -124 -91 28 -134 -128

To the AC10 1% 2% 2% 2% 2%

To the EU 57% 67% 60% 59% 60%

To the MP 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

From The AC10 1% 1% 2% 2% 2%

From The EU 56% 60% 62% 61% 63%

From The PM 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%

AC10 12,2 10,4 13,9 15,0 17,0

EU 38,1 41,7 41,0 41,0 38,3

World 34,9 40,0 39,9 38,7 37,1

10 MP 9,8 17,3 16,2 15,0 17,1Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

SWEDEN Main Indicators of Agricultural Trade

1990 1995 2000 2001 2002

AC10 18% 14% 9% 9% 7%

EU 10% 9% 8% 9% 10%

World 9% 8% 8% 8% 9%

10 MP 32% 21% 9% 14% 15%

AC10 63,4% 33,9% 31,3% 35,4% 49,1%

EU 35,7% 43,6% 52,4% 57,7% 61,0%

World 46,7% 47,8% 53,7% 58,4% 61,8%

10 MP 45,0% 24,9% 34,9% 45,2% 33,3%

AC10 21,6% 59,2% 45,5% 43,5% 101,6%

EU 167,2% 149,6% 128,3% 112,8% 104,2%

World 122,5% 122,6% 112,9% 105,9% 110,6%

10 MP 254,1% 331,8% 410,8% 396,3% 410,4%

AC10 7% 9% 5% 5% 7%

EU 13% 10% 9% 10% 11%

World 9% 8% 7% 8% 9%

10 MP 32% 20% 9% 15% 17%

AC10 26% 20% 14% 14% 7%

EU 7% 7% 7% 9% 10%

World 8% 9% 8% 9% 9%

10 MP 34% 24% 10% 10% 11%

AC10 20 118 219 202 238

EU 2 245 2 900 5 228 4 965 4 631

World 3 335 3 965 7 555 7 382 7 131

10 MP 162 146 245 243 225

AC10 91 199 481 465 234

EU 1 343 1 939 4 073 4 401 4 445

World 2 723 3 233 6 692 6 973 6 446

10 MP 64 44 60 61 55

AC10 -71 -81 -262 -263 4

EU 902 961 1 155 564 187

World 612 731 863 409 685

10 MP 98 102 185 181 170

AC10 -60 3 2 -26 -12

EU -735 -935 -1 906 -2 133 -2 196

World -1 298 -1 390 -2 562 -2 687 -2 639

10 MP -15 -35 -8 18 -15

To the AC10 1% 3% 3% 3% 3%

To the EU 67% 73% 69% 67% 65%

To the MP 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%

From The AC10 3% 6% 7% 7% 4%

From The EU 49% 60% 61% 63% 69%

From The PM 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%

AC10 20,4 14,5 13,3 13,1 20,9

EU 13,8 21,4 24,3 25,6 28,1

World 24,2 27,6 31,5 33,2 35,5

10 MP 4,8 9,3 7,6 5,5 12,9Sources : Eurostat - Calculations by the Institut de la Méditerranée

(Agricultural X+M/Total X+M)

Share of Food Agricultural Productsin Total Agricultural Trade (X+M)

Coverage rate (X/M)

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total exports

Share of Agricultural Products in thecountry's total Imports

Total exports (million of dollars)

Total imports (millions of dollars)

Balance in million of dollars - totalAgricultural products

Balance in million of dollars - FoodAgricultural Products

Geographical Orientation of Exports

Geographical Orientation of Imports

Intrasectoral Trade Indice