A report that tackled the issue of the integration of the new member states in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was discussed in the last plenary session of the European Parliament held in Brussels.
The question here is how membership and application of CAP will affect new member states and its general impact on European integration.
I believe the effects of CAP on the different agricultural sectors will be different in the new member states, where the economy is very dependent on agriculture and rural life in general. We have to acknowledge that the percentage of area used and the numbers of people working in the agricultural sector are much higher than the EU 15. In some cases, agriculture is the only resource the new member state has. Despite this, agricultural production levels in the new member states are below the EU 15 average and, thus, efficiency in this sphere is much lower.
We should also keep in mind that new member states are also facing problems because of this. Yes, lower production levels mean fewer environmental threats. However, what about the disadvantage as far as competitiveness goes?
In my opinion, agriculture in new member states should be looked at from a different angle. Not only are the economic and natural conditions different, there are also differences in production structures. New member states such as Malta are characterised by the Mediterranean mode of production whereas others are based on well-developed family farms. Generally speaking, the integration of the new member states in the agricultural market was a positive one. However, the low level of help that is given to them is leading to conditions that are not equal when it comes to being competitive. New member states have made considerable efforts to conform to administrative standards but expenses related to production have increased. I also suggest adequate solutions - solutions that, nevertheless, adhere to CAP implementation rules.
Needless to say it is an obvious factor in this debate that changes - and, by changes, I mean significant changes in the agriculture economy - are needed in the economy of new member states. Yes, agriculture has benefited from the membership and CAP application and, thanks to EU accession, the 10 new member states increased the number of European consumers by 20 per cent, agricultural area grew and the number of workers in agriculture went up significantly.
Also, "old" member states increased their market share in the new member states, especially with processed goods.
It was stated in the report that increased efficiency will only lead to a "decrease in employment" as it will inevitably result in farm concentration. However, I am sure we can arrive to a situation that is balanced and a win-win situation.
Regarding the application of CAP in new member states, national agricultural and rural development policies prior to membership did not prepare farmers for new challenges. Despite assistance from the EU, most of the allocations were used only after accession due to the delay of the SAPARD programme.
EU membership in the agriculture of member states led to one most visible change - that is the introduction of direct payments and this established a new support system. Most of the new member states would like to continue the single area payment scheme (SAPS) The uncertainty that is brought about by the Commission's delay in making a proposal on rules of the change from SAPS to SPS is forcing new member states to continue using the SAPS application.
New member states have expectations and the rural development scheme only partly fulfils these. The system as it is at present only contributes partly to the commonly agreed goals. What about sustainable development and other problems that are not necessarily directly linked to agriculture?
Rules in this sphere are complex and I must say that it is necessary that we facilitate these rules. Yes, with the help of direct payments and approved stated aid schemes, for example, new member states can create a better system for agricultural development.
We should consider postponing the application of the cross-compliance rules in new member states until the phasing-in of direct payments. However, the effects of CAP on the different agricultural sectors vary.
Why do I agree with this postponing? We cannot ignore the fact that there are different levels of standard of living, development and cost levels in the new member states. The original promise was that the discrimination in direct payments will be compensated for by the increased rural development allocations. Why is it then that figures are showing levels of compensation to be 29-33 per cent per farmer and 62-64 per cent per hectare when compared with the old member states for the period 2007-2013 according to the Financial Perspectives?
Why this imbalance?
It is predicted that after 2013 there won't be any difference in direct payments and rural development allocations. Yet, if we look at the aid per agricultural worker, the difference is still very big.
The bottom line is that it is through our experience as new member states that we know that further reform of CAP should occur. The 2004 enlargement meant we now have more diversity when it comes to European agriculture - and this is making it difficult to apply common rules. We need to be more flexible and continuously be on the look out for bettering the situation. With regard to state aid rules, we can have clear-cut exemptions that won't harm the competition rules. We should strengthen consumers' expectations and keep improving on rules that affect food safety and environmental welfare, to mention a few.
I shall end by saying that future reforms of CAP must always be based on the prospect of long-term sustainability and the changing needs of an enlarged EU and request that both the Commission and the Council understand and help new member states with regard to their specific and particular problems.
Mr Casa is a Nationalist member of the European Parliament.
david.casa@europarl.europa.eu
www.davidcasa.eu