 |
|
| |
|
Agriculture is one area, where the EU Enlargement can cause a lot of environmental and social damage. On the other hand, the New Member States (NMS) do have a chance to mitigate the negative impacts and make the accession a success. Extension of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and elimination of the remaining trade barriers may have the following negative impacts in the NMS: increased long-distance transport of food and animals, higher use of chemical pesticides and fertilisers in fields, more air, water and soil pollution, a huge loss of biodiversity, closing down of small food processing enterprises and a rise in rural unemployment. On the other hand, the EU will bring bans or restrictions on the use of certain hazardous pesticides and antibiotics, higher animal welfare standards, legislation and policies aimed at limitation and better management of pesticides and fertilisers and more money for environmentally friendly farming systems such as organic agriculture. In the end, it is up to the NMS to use the opportunities of accession and to tackle its adverse impacts. Agriculture in Central and Eastern EuropeThe communist regimes in all Central and East European (CEE) countries - with the partial exceptions of Poland and Yugoslavia - pursued an agri-industrial model of development based on large collective and state-owned farms. Intensification and construction of large livestock "farm factories" led to serious environmental pollution and a loss of biodiversity, which were rarely recognised as a problem. Nevertheless, farming landscapes in the NMS still include many areas with less intensive forms of production and characterised by rich wildlife and biodiversity.
Comparison of key features of agriculture in the EU-15 and 10 CEE countries (1)
Environmental impacts: more pesticides and fertilisers? Due to the sharp economic decline and cuts in farm subsidies in the early 1990s, use of agro-chemical inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides has rapidly dropped in CEE. So have the water pollution, soil contamination and emissions of ammonia and greenhouse gases from agriculture(8). Many farmland species have returned or increased their population. The use of chemical inputs is now much lower than in the EU-15 (see table above). However, the improvement was not caused by more environmental awareness but by the financial constraints. The CAP subsidies - together with market pressures, EU's cosmetic standards for food such as the minimum diameter of 55mm for apples, and eastward expansion of big supermarket chains - will lead farmers once again to buy more pesticides and fertilisers. Air, water and soil pollution is likely to rise and farm birds and other wildlife to be exterminated, unless the new member states make a big effort to avoid this scenario. The EU legislation and policies on pesticides, nitrates, water protection, soil and biodiversity can help the NMS mitigate these negative impacts - partly caused by the EU's biggest policy - CAP. The NMS can also use the EU agri-environmental programmes to support organic agriculture and other environmentally friendly farming systems which use little or no agro-chemicals. The NMS can learn from different models in the EU-15. Spain has intensified its production after its accession to the EU in 1986. Between 1990 and 1999, its agricultural production grew by 8%, while the consumption of fertilisers per hectare jumped up by 30%. Denmark, on the other hand, reduced its use of both pesticides and fertilisers by 50% over the 1990s, through application of ambitious action plans and pesticide taxes. Longer transport of food and animalsThe enlargement, trade liberalisation and supermarket expansion will cause a de-localisation of the food chain, unless active policies such as environmental tax reform are taken to shorten the distance between the producer and the consumer. Food will be transported at increasingly long distances across the whole continent with negative impacts on the environment and rural production and marketing systems. As recently boasted by the EU Commissioner for agriculture Franz Fischler, exports of pigmeat from the EU-15 to the accession countries have gone up by over 100,000 tonnes only since 1999. In the opposite direction, poultry exports from accession countries to the EU-15 have risen from 78,000 tonnes in 1994 to over 170,000 tonnes in 2003(9). Long-distance transport of live cattle, pigs, sheep, goats and horses is of great concern in particular, as it causes great suffering to the animals. The accession countries have already joined the business: for example, of the 133,000 live horses imported into the EU in 2001 for slaughter, 61,000 were from Romania and 40,000 from Poland. The Danish pork producers as well as the US pork company Smithfield have recently been investing into the construction of large factory farms in Central and Eastern Europe. The German poultry investor Pohlmann has built several huge poultry farms in the Domazlice area in the Czech Republic, taking advantage of lower animal welfare standards, despite the resentment by local population. On the other hand, the EU accession means an improvement of animal welfare standards in the NMS. The NMS can also contribute to localisation of the food chain by supporting farmers' markets and local economies with the help of EU funds for rural development. Social impacts: more unemployment and rural depopulation?Agriculture in Central and Eastern Europe employs many more people than in Western Europe but produces on average 30% lower yields (see table above). The danger is that the problem will be narrowed down to the question of increasing productivity, ignoring the environmental, health and social aspects of food production. A study contracted by the European Commission says: "To reach only half of the average productivity of the EU-15 would already involve, with constant production, the destruction of 4 million agricultural jobs in the ten CEE countries", especially in Poland and Romania(10). Already now, there is 20% unemployment in Poland. More than half of overall food production in CEE-10 is accounted for by small, semi-subsistence farms, which function as a social safety net when the economy does not create enough job opportunities outside of agriculture(10). Semi-subsistence farmers produce a significant portion for their own consumption alongside production for the market, and have little prospects for becoming competitive on the EU market. The EU funds for rural development are intended to help semi-subsistence farms become fully commercial and to create more jobs in rural areas. However, application of EU hygiene standards, necessitated by its industrial model of food production, has led to the very opposite of rural development: closing down of many small, local food processing enterprises, such as slaughterhouses or cheese-making companies. According to a study contracted by the European Commission, 25% of dairy processing enterprises and 40% of meat processing companies in Poland are expected to close down because they are not able to comply to EU standards. In Latvia, more than 50% of milk processing enterprises and 90% of slaughterhouses are expected to close down for the same reason(2). The results are a rise in unemployment and a massive concentration of food processing, which equals to longer transport distances of food and animals mentioned above. Organic agriculture and other environmentally friendly farming systems are a good alternative to rural depopulation that would result from a narrow focus on productivity increases. Organic agriculture employs much more labour than intensive farming: both on the farm and outside the farm, in related activities such as processing and marketing(7). Thus environmentally friendly farming systems help solve the social and economic problems. They are also economically friendly as they do not incur the large hidden costs of intensive farming, that show in the prices of drinking water (that has to be cleaned of pesticides and fertilisers) and the costs of health care resulting from unsafe food. Organic agriculture is much less developed in CEE than in the EU-15 (see table above) but has a great potential given the low use of agro-chemical inputs and abundant labour force. SubsidiesIn the beginning, farmers in the NMS will receive only 25% of the direct payments - the biggest subsidies in CAP - while becoming fully exposed to a fierce level of competition on the EU single market. The direct payments will then gradually rise to reach the full level only in 2013. However, as the direct payments were calculated on the basis of recent production volumes rather than farmland area or employment, even the "full level" in 2013 will actually equal to approximately 60% of the average direct payments per hectare in the EU-15(11). There are also huge differences between different NMS: for example, Slovenia will receive seven times more money per hectare from the first pillar of CAP than Latvia(11). The unfair deal is a result of reluctance of some EU member states to spend more money on the enlarged EU. The European Commission also feared that immediate introduction of full subsidies - as in the previous waves of EU enlargement - would consolidate the semi-subsistence farms by ensuring their viability(12). Ultimately, both reasons are consequences of the EU's failure to carry out a fundamental reform of the CAP prior to the enlargement. On the other hand, the NMS will get a fair share of CAP money for rural development - the "second pillar" of CAP - which was calculated on the basis of criteria such as farmland area and employment. However, most of the NMS will use a part of the second pillar funds to top up the direct payments - to compensate farmers for the unfair deal. According to preliminary figures, only about 18% of all money for RDPs across the 10 NMS is planned to be spent on agri-environmental programmes, compared to 27% in the EU-15(12). Conclusion: the dilemma for the NMSThe European Commission insists that agriculture in CEE countries must undergo a deep "restructuring" and "modernisation". The question is what kind of modernisation. Will the NMS go through another period of damaging agricultural practices or will they shift directly to sustainable forms of agriculture? Will they focus on productivity increases at any costs or will they use the EU funds to boost organic farming and revitalise their countryside? Western Europe has reached the limits of intensive and industrial agriculture with a series of food scandals and is beginning to turn away from it. It is the EU agricultural model that needs to undergo a deep transformation in the first place. The NMS should not repeat the same old-style path but take a shortcut. The lower use of agro-chemicals in CEE countries gives them an advantage before many West European countries, which are now striving to reduce their dependence on chemicals. It is also wiser and cheaper to preserve the existing social and ecological wealth than to recover it at a high cost once it has been destroyed.
For more information, see our special website on agriculture and EU enlargement with publications, papers and outcomes of FoEE conference in Krakow, November 2003, and an NGO Declaration on EU accession and agriculture. See also an article on impacts of the CAP in Central and Eastern Europe by experts from the Polish Ecological Club (FoE Poland). (3) Figures from 2000. European Commission. 2001. EU and Enlargement. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
Home | About us | Members | Campaigns | Events | Media | Publications | Links | Contact | Internal |
|
