|
8
Agro-Environmental Regulations of the EU
8.1
Agro-Environmental Measures
At the end of
1980s,
establishments of agro-environmental enforcements were
introduced to the EU’s agricultural policy, as a measure of
support for specific agricultural practices that contribute to
the protection of the environment and the sustaining of the
countryside. With the CAP Reform in
1992,
the adoption of agro-environmental programs became obligatory
for member states, in the framework of agricultural development
programs. The CAP Reform of
2003
sustains the obligatory character of agro-environmental programs
for the member states, while remaining optional for farmers.
Additionally, the maximum amount of co-financing from the EU was
increased from
60%
up to
85%
in some districts.
Farmers commit themselves at least for five years, to adopt
environment friendly practices that exceed the customary
agricultural practices, taking into account the additional loss
of income which derives from the modification of agricultural
practices.
Examples of commitments covered by national/district regimes of
agro-environmental reinforcement are the following:
-
Environment friendly expansion of cultivations
-
Management of low strain pasture systems
-
Full management of agricultural cultivations and organic
agriculture
http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/qual/organic/index_el.htm
-
Conservation of landscapes and historical features, like
woods,
ditches, fences etc
-
Sustaining of high value habitats and the biodiversity
accompanies them
More than one third of the communal contribution to the
development of EAFDG (European Agricultural Fund of Direction
and Guarantees) was given to the application of
agro-environmental measures (average term for the period
2000-2002).
In the whole of EU, the percentage of agricultural lands where
agro-environmental measures are applied increased from
15%
in
1998,
to
27%
in
2001.
Data of
2001
include the new agreements that were signed in
2000
and
2001
when rule no.1257/1999
was in force, and cover
16
million hectares and the commitments existing based on the
previous regulation (ΕΚ)2078/92,
that represent
18
million hectares. Additionally in
2001
there were
8422
agro-environmental pacts signed for the support of certain
animal species that are doomed to extinction, numbering to
60,568
animals.
The EU’s demand towards member states for the application of the
directive according to which a fast growth in initiatives and
measures that would otherwise take too long a time to achieve,
is to be endorsed. Results from the application of programs are
positive and indicate that environmental advantages
substantially increase due to the application of
agro-environmental projects.
In particular:
Many of the projects for restraining the inflows in agriculture,
resulted in the reduction of nitrogenic fertilizers as well as
the adoption of better cultivation methods. Projects relevant to
sustaining and improving the landscape have had positive
results. Furthermore, there is an increase in certain cases in
the income of the disadvantaged territories’ farmers. Despite of
that, income results in the areas of intensive cultivation are
relatively unimportant.
The application of agro-environmental measures resulted in the
change of farmers’ attitudes, as well as in public awareness. EU
reports regarding the appraisal of applied measures also
indicate that the application cost is relatively small in
relation to the environmental benefits. Data from areas with
extensive agricultural practices demonstrate a substantial drop
in production, while in disadvantaged areas production was
sustained. Finally, an important success deriving from the
application of agro-environmental measures is the establishment
of an appraisal system, through which programs are monitored,
appraised and justified in order to control the gap between
tasks and results.
8.2
Action Program
2000
– Cross Compliance
The principle according to which farmers must conform to the
demands for the protection of the environment, as a prerequisite
to have an advantage from the market support, was incorporated
in the reform under the Action Plan
2000.
The
2003
CAP Reform placed a stronger emphasis on cross compliance that
became obligatory.
The CAP Reform with the
2000
Action Plan demanded that member states apply environmental
measures that they regard necessary, taking into consideration
the condition of the land used, or the relative production.
Member states had three possible choices, so as to fulfill that
obligation:
-
The grant of agro-environmental commitments,
-
The definition of general obligatory environmental demands
(based on the legislation about the environment) and
-
The definition of special environmental prototypes.
Starting from
2005,
all farmers that will take additional enforcements will have to
comply to an obligatory cross compliance (regulation no.1782/2003
of the Council and rule no796/2004
of the Committee). So,
19
legislative acts, that directly apply to the level of
agricultural cultivation, to the environment, to public health,
to animal and plant health and to the well-being of animals and
farmers will be liable to penalties in the case of
non-conformity (partial, or general reduction of direct
support). People entitled to direct support will be obliged to
sustain land in good agricultural and environmental condition.
This situation is defined by member states and has to include
prototypes regarding soil protection, preservation of organic
substances and soil structure, as well as sustainability of
natural habitats and the scenery, including the protection of
permanent land pastures.
8.3
Agriculture and Biodiversity
The Action Plan on Biodiversity in Agriculture was approved in
2001
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/#genres).
The priorities of the action plan are the following:
-
The advancement and support of environment-friendly practices
and systems that directly, or indirectly favor biodiversity
-
The support of sustainable agricultural activities with rich
biodiversity
-
Restructuring and support of infrastructure
-
Promotion of actions for sustaining local endangered plant, or
animal species.
All those priorities are supported by acts of research and
training. Sustaining biodiversity depends largely from
sufficient data-based application of CAP measures, especially of
refunds regarding disadvantageous areas and agro-environmental
measures.
In April
2004
a new communal program began regarding the advancement of
measures for the sustainability of genetic resources in
agriculture (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/biodiv/162-el.pdf).
8.4 Genetic
Resources and Agriculture
In the Action
Plan regarding biodiversity, the Commission suggested the
application of a new communal program for the sustainability and
collection of genetic resources in the collection and usage of
genetic resources in agriculture. (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/biodiv/162-el.pdf).
This new communal program covers the period between 2004-2006,
and was established from the Council on April 24, 2004 (rule no.
(ΕΚ) αριθ. 870/2004)
This new program promotes genetic diversity and the exchange of
information, including the close coordination between member
states, including the EU, for the sustainability of genetic
resources in agriculture. It also involves the coordination on a
level of international obligations, regarding genetic resources.
The new program’s aim is:
To promote the activities for sustainability of genetic
resources “in situ” that will constitute a way to promote and
sustain genetic material of species and tribes, as well as the
characterization and the usage of these varieties and tribes in
agriculture. These activities will take place between states,
bearing in mind, where necessary, bio-geographical district
features.
To promote the information exchange, in close coordination
between member states and those of the Commission as far as
conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources in
agriculture are concerned, according to the demands and needs of
the CAP
To facilitate the coordination in the field of genetic resources
in agriculture, especially the ones taken over in the framework
of the pact on Biological Diversity (http://www.biodiv.org/welcome.aspx),
of the International convention regarding Vegetative Genetic
Resources for Food and Agriculture (http://www.fao.org/ag/cgrfa/itpgr.htm)
and the World Action Plan of FAO for the Sustainable Usage of
Vegetative Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (http://www.fao.org/waicent/search/5_dett_FAO).
8.5
Agriculture and Genetically Modified Organisms
EU legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMO) goes back
to the beginnings of the
90’s
and this regulatory frame has expanded and improved. Special
laws are put together to protect the citizens’ health and the
environment, thus creating at the same time a common market for
biotechnology. An important part of the EU legislation on GMOs
covers the emission of genetically modified organisms to the
environment. In
2002,
a new approval procedure regarding the emission on the
environment, or the availability in the market of GMOs or of a
product that contains, or is made of GMOs was enacted. According
to the legislation regarding the regulatory frame on GMO
products, it is imperative that:
-
There exists an evaluation of the “danger effect” regarding
the environment and human health, in relation to the
cultivation and the availability of GMO’s in the market
-
An after-sales obligatory supervision, that includes long term
consequences connected to interaction between GMO’s and the
environment,
-
Obligatory information campaigns regarding the public, which
are to be carried out,
-
A requirement for all member states to mark and track down
products throughout all stages of commerce,
-
Restriction of the duration of power of the first assignments
for the emission of GMOs for a maximum of
10
years,
-
Obligatory discussion with the scientific committee(s),
-
Obligation for requiring the opinion of the European
Parliament regarding the decisions for permission for the
emission of GMO’s.
Since the Communal Legislation regarding GMO’s came in force, in
the beginnings of the
90’s,
the emission of
18
GMO’s for commercial reasons has been approved from the EU.
Since October
1998,
however, no more permissions were issued. Currently, the
legislation on GMOs is being reexamined.
Detailed information regarding the EU legislation on GMOs is
available at the following website: "Foods
and animal feed security"
Questions and answers regarding the regulations that govern the
GMOs in the European Union
8.6
Agriculture and Climate Change
Agriculture is responsible for approximately
10%
of gas emissions that cause the “greenhouse effect” in the EU.
However, it could contribute to solution finding in the more
general challenges of climate change the EU is faced with.
The European Program about climate change (ECCP /ΕΠΑΚ), in force
since March
2000,
includes plans about in with which the EU will respond to the
commitment it made under the Kyoto Protocol, on reducing gas
emissions of the greenhouse effect by 8% until 2012. The main
sources of emissions of the greenhouse effect in agriculture
are:
-
N2O
emissions from soils, caused mainly by fertilizing with
nitrogenic fertilizers
-
CH4
emissions caused by intestinal fermentations –
41%
of the total of CH4emissions
του συνόλου in the EU are caused by agriculture
-
Emissions of CH4
and N2O
from manure handling.
-
The examined technical measures for restricting emission of of
the greenhouse effect include:
-
Encouragement of more productive application of fertilizers so
that their overall use is restricted, a procedure that has
already began in the framework of the existing legislation on
nitrogenic combinations directions about nitrogenic
fertilizing (http://europa.eu.int/scalpus/leg/el/lvb/l28013.htm),
fertilizing and improvement in the systems of airless fission
(e.g. for the production of biogas), targeting the handling of
bio-decomposition by-products and waste.
-
New emphasis on the production of biomass, in conservative
ploughing and in organic agriculture.
The working team of ECCP for the reception of carbon dioxide
regarding agricultural soil had as a general objective the
evaluation of the carbon dioxide binding potential in EU
agricultural land. According to experts’ evaluations, there is a
possibility of binding to
60-70
million tons of CO2
yearly from EU(15)
agricultural soils, a quantity that corresponds to
1,5-1,7%
of anthropogenic emissions of CO2
in the EU. The aforementioned quantity of CO2/year
would contribute
19-21%
of the total reduction, by
337mil.
tons CO2/year,
that the EU has committed to achieve. Carbon dioxide can be
fixed, either by restricting soil tillage (given that carbon
emissions in the form of CO2
are larger in cultivated soils, in comparison with the less
tillaged ones) or by increasing carbon inflow in the soil. At
the same time, it is important to sustain existing carbon
reserves and slow down carbon loss from the ground using
improved management practices.
Further development of renewable, agricultural biomass, could
contribute to the reduction of emissions from energy and
transport branches, with parallel benefits in the agricultural
sector. There are already productions of energy-cultivations in
areas that are under the regime of cultivation rest. Further
measures were regarded necessary. Therefore, the CAP reform of
2003
introduces a system supplying "credit in carbon", that offers
farmers the economic motivation to produce biomass.
8.7
Agriculture and Soil Protection
Common agricultural policies strengthen the models for good
agricultural and environmental practices, referring to soil
protection from erosion and sustaining organic matter and soil
structure. In a Committee announcement entitled "Towards a
thematic strategy for soil protection" (http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/el/lvb/l28122.htm)
the cornerstones of EU action targeting the containment of soil
degradation, were set. Agro-environmental measures (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/measures)
offer opportunities for the advancement of the enrichment of
soil with organic matter, containment of erosion, pollution and
compression. These measures include the support of organic
agriculture, conservative ploughing, the protection and
conservation of terraces, the safer use of pesticides, the
integrated management of cultivations, administration of
low-impact pastures systems, reduction of animal capital and
usage of certified fertilizers.
Detailed information regarding EU strategy for soil protection
is available on the websites “Formation of soil policy (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/soil/index.htm).
8.8
Agriculture and Pesticides
To reduce harmful effects of pesticides on the environment, the
EU aims at ensuring their correct use and at informing the
public regarding their usage and effects that might be caused by
their remains. EU regulations have been issued regarding
availability of plant-protective products and limits for remains
in food. Detailed information on EU legislation on pesticides is
available at "Plant-protection" (http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/plant/protection/index_el.htm).
Furthermore, the EU regulates quality protection of water as
opposed to pesticides. The regulating framework on water,
presupposes a completed framework for evaluating, monitoring and
managing all surface and underground waters. The directive
imposes the application of measures for the reduction of
emissions, wastes and losses of dangerous substances with the
purpose of protecting surface waters. Up to the year
2001,
33
primary substances had been included in a catalogue, and
13
among those were substances used in products for plant
protection.
8.9
Agriculture and Nitrates Pollution
EU legislation on nitrate pollution aims at reducing pollution
of water from nitrogenic combinations of agricultural origin and
at containing further pollution. The management of the EU’s
directive on pollution from nitrates (http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/leg/el/lvb/l28013/htm)
issued in 1991, includes the following:
Observation of quality of water in relation to agricultural
activities
Definition of areas vulnerable to pollution from nitrates
Definition (optional) of correct agricultural practice codes and
(obligatory) measures for application in areas vulnerable to
pollution from nitrates.
For these areas, the directive defines the highest limit of
nitrates content in animal manure, permitted and adopted on a
170kgN/ha
per year.
The adoption of the directive from member states is a
complicated process. Until today, only a small number of member
states have adopted fully the instruction and the Committee has
initiated penalty procedures against member states for failure
in application. Connection of correct agricultural practice by
complying to regulating environmental models (where relevant
directive on nitrates pollution is included), that was
established in the frame of EU policy for agricultural
development, can contribute to improved application from member
states.
Detailed information is available at the website
"Application
of instruction on nitrates pollution"
8.10
Agriculture and Water
A common agricultural policy is based on investments for the
improvement of the irrigation infrastructure and for giving
farmers the chance to turn to improved irrigation techniques. It
also protects the quality of waters as opposed to pesticides and
nitrates pollution. In the announcement of the Committee
"Pricing Policies – Policies for strengthening sustainability of
water resources" (http://europa.eu.int/scaldus/leg/el/lvb/l28112htm)
basic principles on water sector policies are applied, aiming at
promoting sustainable use of water resources. In the framework
of agricultural development measures we have investments for
encouraging farmers to turn to improved irrigation techniques
(e.g. drop by drop irrigation) are included, that do not require
large quantities of water to be pumped out. Furthermore,
agro-environmental measures cover the adoption of commitments
for decreasing irrigation water quantities and the adoption of
improved irrigation techniques.
EU also sets the rules for the protection of water quality in
relation to pesticides (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/#pesticides)
and nitrates pollution (http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/envir/#nitrates).
Detailed information regarding EU policy on waters is available
at the website:"Policy on European Union Waters" (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/water/index.html)
9.
Characteristics
of the EU Enlargement of
2004
With the accession of
10
new countries (Enlargement Countries) – Poland, Estonia,
Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, The Czech Republic, Slovenia, Malta
and Cyprus – the population of the European Union is increased
by
20%
and its territory by
23%.
Therefore, the new European Union (ΕU) now consists of
25
member-states, has a population of millions of citizens and is
the largest economic and political union of states worldwide.
Hence the EU, following the
2004
enlargement:
-
Includes various countries (like those of the ex-Eastern
Block) that are still in the process of transition from a
centrally planned to market economies. It also includes a
country (Cyprus) whose soil is under occupation from a third
country (Turkey).
-
Includes countries whose GDP barely reaches
4,58
% of EU
15,
GDP (Graph
1),
while GDP per capita, estimated in Purchasing Power Parity
(PPP) of states of the enlargement fluctuates around an
average of
40
% of the EU
15,
equivalent (Kok,
2003).
-
Includes countries whose agricultural sector is large, with a
minor contribution of agriculture to the GDP and the people
actively involved in agriculture. In some of the Enlargement
Countries a large amount of agricultural crops is considered
to be «semi, or quasi-subsistence», which means capable of
just covering substantial needs, while generally agricultural
infrastructure is poor (Rollo,
2003).
After the enlargement, around
3,87
millions of farmers will be added to the current
6,7
millions of existing farmers in the EU, an increase of
57,8
% (CEC-DG Agriculture,
2003a).
9.1 Τhe
Current
Situation in the
2004
Enlargement Countries
During the transitional decade, agricultural occupation in
enlargement’s states had substantial fluctuations. It increased
substantially in many countries during the beginnings of the
90’s
and then is decreasing. Until
2000
total employment agriculture had decreased a lot in all
countries, except Poland. Also, the importance of the
agricultural sector was largely decreased during the transition,
reaching percentages of below
10%
of the GDP (OECD,
2001).
The overall economic growth of the CEE (Central Eastern Europe)
during the last years was not expressed in agricultural
production that has generally reached bottom. On the contrary,
the demand in genetically modified food has increased.
Therefore, the balance between import and export of agricultural
products has been negative during the last years, or like in
Hungary’s case, which is the only purely exporting country, has
become worse (Pouliquen,
2001).
The main exporting products of those countries are dairy
products, pork, cereals, fruit and vegetable and wine (OECD,
2001)
(Table
1).
All the aforementioned factors result in low productivity. In
Poland, the value added per worker reaches
8%
of EU. This is strictly related to the high density of
employement in agriculture per quarter of an acre, which is by
3,2
times larger than that of the ΕU. The size of agricultural
activity in Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia, are comparable
to the EU average, or slightly higher. This fact makes the
agricultural sectors of those countries more productive.
9.2 The
Agricultural
Situation of ΕU-15
The soil occupied by agriculture (Utilized Agricultural Area,
UAA) consiste
39%
of the total area of EU-15.
As far as the farm structure (Table
2),
there is a dynamic situation that is characterized by certain
general and gradual changes:
-
Reduction in the number of farms (Table
3),
especially intense in small-sized agricultural cultivations,
(smaller than
20ha)
(Vidal,
2000).
-
Reduction of people involved in agriculture (Table
4).
The only category of cultivations where an absolute increase
of the people involved is observed is in cultivations larger
than
50ha
(Vidal,
2001).
-
Increase of the average extent per cultivation (on average,
approximately
40%
between
1987-97
for the
12
EU countries) and generally of the average size per
agricultural cultivation (Table
5),
Increase of the concentration of agricultural economic
activities, of farming income (Table
6),
of the average Gross Standard Profit (GSP) and the average
economic size of agricultural cultivations, as a result of the
above. The concentration of agricultural economic activities is
particularly intense. In
1997,
10%
of the European agricultural cultivations produced
2/3
of the total Gross Standard Profit. Half of the European
agricultural cultivations produced
95%
of Gross Standard Profit. Therefore, the economic importance of
the other half of agricultural cultivations remains irrelevant
(Vidal,
2000).
More generally speaking, agriculture remains mainly a family
business in the EU, since in
1997
family work force made up
79%
of the total, (Vidal,
2001),
while agricultural activities are basically practiced by the
owners of the cultivation, or by its tenants by
98%.
The percentage of the land cultivated by its owner tends to fall
with the passage of time due to, firstly, the reduction in the
number of small agricultural cultivations and secondly the large
value of land leading to the option of renting (Vidal,
2000).
The number of part time workers slightly increased in the past
e.g. in
1997
it fluctuated around
75%.
As far as the age structure, an aging trend in the work force
involved in agriculture is observed, a trend that is more
significant than that observed in other sectors, considering
that working people over
55
increased from
32%
to
38%
of the permanent staff, between
1980-95.
Finally, it is worth noting that the importance of agricultural
land as compared to the load of work (UAA/AWU) increased in the
past in all countries faster than the growth of agricultural
cultivations, that is, the productivity of work is constantly
increasing (Vidal,
2001).
9.3
General Conclusions:
Enlargement Agriculture and the Environment
Enlargement is a strategic and political choice of the EU, that
will bring few economic results in the short term, but in the
long term it is expected to have substantial macroeconomic
effects worldwide.
Enlargement countries will have only a small contribution to the
GDP, a substantial one to the population and a greater one to
the used agricultural land and the EU’ s agricultural
population.
These countries are still in the transitional phase from a
centrally planned to market economies and are facing a series of
challenges regarding the continuation and restructuring of their
economies.
Within these frameworks, it is very important to restructure an
agricultural economy, which is currently faced with many
institutional, administrative, legal and economic deficiencies,
and (under) employs a large part of the population in the
framework of survival and semi-survival cultivations, thus
absorbing a large part of social strains.
Specific terms, under which the enlargement was agreed and is
being realized in the agricultural sector, target exactly this
restructuring of the economy (CEC,
2002a),
include however a large degree of uncertainty, considering the
macroeconomic environment and especially the pace of development
and its consequences on employment.
Agriculture is strongly protected as a sector of economic
activities, due to the multiple economic, social and
environmental tasks it serves. Therefore, the consequences of
enlargement in agriculture can be viewed under the scope of
techniques practiced (like protectionism of prices, subsidies,
structures) before and after the enlargement, for each sector of
agricultural production separately and in each of the
enlargement countries and the EU
15,
separately.
9.4
Hypotheses
on the Consequences of Enlargement
Hypotheses have been made that are mainly based on mathematical
models, each of which is restricted by the factors it can
include. They are, therefore, of an indicative but not
irrelevant value. All hypotheses converge towards the general
conclusion that the enlargement will have a minor negative
effect on the agricultural income of EU-15
and a positive effect on agricultural incomes. However, some
growth is predicted, such as in dairy production and in the
cultivation of rice and hard wheat. As main effects, we observe
increases in consumer prices, reduction of reserves as well as a
reduction in exports.
It is obvious that, like in the past, the challenge for
agriculture in the EU-15,
lies on the response to pressures for restructuring the farms,
that is, reduction in the employment and concentration of
cultivations, and an increase in efficiency per Yearly Work
Unit. In most Northern European countries this pressure
involves a small part of the population. On the contrary, in
certain Southern countries, specifically, it involves a
substantial part of the GDP and the population. In these
countries, an important part of the agricultural production
concerns branches in which the enlargement countries do not have
substantial participation.
In conclusion, one might say that the enlargement will have only
a minor impact on the EU-15’s
agriculture, at least in the medium term. Besides, through
bilateral agreements there preexisted a substantial degree of
finalization of new member states agricultural products
purchase. The enlargement, however, was a fact that needed
intensification of agricultural policy reforms towards the
direction that already existed, and heading to the gradual
«liberalization» of world trade of agricultural products.
On the contrary, regarding the new member states, enlargement is
expected to have a bigger effect on their agriculture, mainly
long-term, as long as a stable and reliable structural, legal
and economic frame of operation is created, that will pressurize
and at the same time contribute to the restructuring of the
sector.
Given that all EU policies are the result of negotiations, all
future decisions are important in defining the relation of
pressure-contribution, especially those that are related to the
fiscal programming of the period from
2006-2013.
Even though the EU-15
has tried to anticipate developments with various decisions it
has taken, the participation of the new member states alters the
power relations and creates new circumstances on the negotiating
tables.
The equilibrium that will result -a purely structural issue-
will mainly judge the funding of policy measures until
2013
and it will also be capable of, (-when and if it is achieved-),
being included as one of the enlargement consequences, as well
as to define a part of the consequences of the enlargement to
European agriculture.
Tables
|
Table
1:
Basic elements of agriculture, agricultural products trade
and consumption for the Enlargement Countries |
|
|
Land utilized in agriculture,
2000 1) |
Categorization of land utilized in agriculture, as a % of the total,
2001 2) |
Foodstuff trade, alive animals, liquor and tobacco, as a %
of the total,
2000 3) |
Consumption for nutrition as a
% of the total consumption
|
|
|
In
1000 hectares |
As a % of the total area |
Arable land |
Permanent meadows |
Permanent plantations |
Imports |
Exports |
19981) |
|
Estonia (EE) |
1001 |
22,1 |
76,3 |
21,8 |
2,0 |
8,0 |
5,6 |
37,5 |
|
Cyprus (CY) |
134 |
14,5 |
67,6 |
0,8 |
31,6 |
11,7 |
26,0 |
19,0 |
|
Latvia (LV) |
2488 |
38,5 |
74,2 |
24,6 |
1,2 |
11,6 |
5,8 |
44,9 |
|
Lithuania (LT) |
3489 |
53,4 |
84,0 |
14,3 |
1,7 |
9,0 |
11,1 |
46,0 |
|
Malta (MT) |
12 |
38,1 |
91,7 |
- |
8,3 |
8,2 |
2,6 |
; |
|
Hungary (HU) |
5854 |
62,9 |
77,6 |
18,9 |
3,4 |
2,7 |
6,9 |
42,1 |
|
Poland (PL) |
18220 |
58,3 |
77,2 |
21,2 |
1,5 |
5,6 |
7,9 |
36,9 |
|
Slovakia (SK) |
2444 |
49,8 |
63,0 |
35,6 |
1,4 |
5,3 |
3,0 |
31,8 |
|
Slovenia (SI) |
491 |
24,2 |
34,9 |
58,8 |
6,3 |
5,7 |
3,6 |
23,5 |
|
Czech Rep (CZ) |
4282 |
54,3 |
75,4 |
23,0 |
1,6 |
4,6 |
3,7 |
26,8 |
|
Enlargement Countries |
38415 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EU-15 |
131619 |
40,6 |
56,4 |
34,8 |
8,8 |
|
|
17,4 |
|
Sources:
1)
CEC-DG Agriculture (2001b)
2)
Eurostat (2002b),
3)
CEC (2003c) |
|
Table
2:
Participation of the agricultural production sectors in
the national agricultural income, for each member state of
the ΕU-15
|
|
Production Division |
Participation of the division in the total value of the
agricultural production (2001)
in % |
|
|
ΕU-15 |
A |
B |
F |
D |
DK |
EL |
UK |
IRL |
E |
IT |
L |
NL |
P |
S |
FIN |
|
Vegetable Production |
52,4 |
44,8 |
43,3 |
56,3 |
50,1 |
38,6 |
71,6 |
37,2 |
20 |
60,7 |
63,7 |
33,1 |
49,9 |
56,2 |
47,4 |
44,2 |
|
Cereals |
12,4 |
12,9 |
|
15,6 |
17,9 |
18,6 |
10 |
15,7 |
5,1 |
12,4 |
10,8 |
9 |
|
6,8 |
16,5 |
18,3 |
|
Oil seeds |
1,7 |
1,6 |
|
|
3,1 |
1,4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
0,8 |
|
Forage cultivations |
|
8,9 |
|
7,5 |
|
|
|
|
7,8 |
|
|
|
|
5 |
17,5 |
13,9 |
|
Sugar beets |
1,6 |
2,4 |
2,9 |
|
2,6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Potaoes |
2,5 |
1 |
4,6 |
1,8 |
2,2 |
1,4 |
|
3 |
1,2 |
1,6 |
|
|
3,2 |
|
2,7 |
2,1 |
|
Fresh vegetables |
7,5 |
2,4 |
11,2 |
|
3 |
|
12,4 |
5,9 |
|
12,7 |
11,8 |
|
10,1 |
11,1 |
|
3,9 |
|
Fruits |
6,0 |
4,7 |
|
|
1,6 |
0,4 |
13,4 |
|
|
14,1 |
10,7 |
|
|
12,7 |
|
0,8 |
|
Plants and flowers |
5,7 |
|
6,6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,1 |
6,5 |
|
|
|
Olive oil |
1,8 |
|
|
|
|
|
12,2 |
|
|
4,6 |
4,8 |
|
|
1,3 |
|
|
|
Wine |
4,9 |
7,1 |
|
12,6 |
2,2 |
|
|
|
|
3,5 |
9,5 |
11,1 |
|
8,3 |
|
|
|
Cotton |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10,6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rest not calculated |
8,3 |
3,8 |
18 |
18,8 |
17,5 |
16,8 |
13 |
12,6 |
5,9 |
11,8 |
16,1 |
13 |
11,5 |
4,5 |
10,7 |
4,4 |
|
Animals |
42,5 |
27 |
40,6 |
23,8 |
24,2 |
38,6 |
13,6 |
36,6 |
50 |
27,3 |
20,3 |
28,4 |
23,4 |
29,1 |
21,5 |
15 |
|
Cattle |
8,9 |
12,5 |
15,3 |
12,3 |
8,7 |
4,7 |
|
14,7 |
34,3 |
6,6 |
8,2 |
20,9 |
6,6 |
6,1 |
9,3 |
6,8 |
|
Pigs |
9,8 |
11,9 |
20,5 |
4,7 |
11,9 |
28 |
2,5 |
5,4 |
4,7 |
10,9 |
5,2 |
6,7 |
12,6 |
8,7 |
7,7 |
5,9 |
|
Poultry |
4,3 |
|
4,2 |
4,8 |
2,1 |
|
|
|
|
3,8 |
|
|
3,5 |
8,4 |
|
1,9 |
|
Goat sheeps |
2,0 |
|
|
1,2 |
|
|
7.2 |
6,8 |
5,8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rest not calculated |
|
2,6 |
0,6 |
0,8 |
1,5 |
5,9 |
11,1 |
9,7 |
5,2 |
6 |
6,9 |
0,8 |
0,7 |
5,9 |
4,5 |
0,4 |
|
Animal products |
|
18,2 |
15 |
13,5 |
22,2 |
19 |
10.7 |
18,3 |
25,2 |
8,7 |
12,1 |
33,2 |
18,6 |
14,5 |
25,8 |
34,7 |
|
Milk |
14,2 |
14,9 |
12,8 |
12 |
19,9 |
18,1 |
8.6 |
15,6 |
24,6 |
6,2 |
9,9 |
31,7 |
16,5 |
12,5 |
23 |
27,2 |
|
Eggs |
1,8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,9 |
|
|
|
1,5 |
|
|
|
Rest not calculated |
1,5 |
3,3 |
2,2 |
1,5 |
2,3 |
0,9 |
0 |
2,7 |
0,6 |
0,6 |
2,2 |
1,5 |
2,1 |
0,5 |
2,8 |
7,5 |
|
Agricultural services |
|
3 |
0,5 |
4 |
3,2 |
3,7 |
|
4,4 |
4,7 |
1,2 |
2,3 |
2,9 |
7,5 |
|
2,1 |
2,7 |
|
Secondary activities |
|
7,1 |
0,6 |
2,3 |
0,3 |
0,1 |
4.0 |
3,5 |
|
2,5 |
1,7 |
2,4 |
0,4 |
|
3,2 |
3,4 |
|
Total |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
Source: Eurostat
2002a |
|
Table
3:
Reduction of the number of agricultural operations in EU-6
between
1967-1997 |
|
Member state |
Number of operations variation (% of the total) |
|
Belgium |
-
69
% |
|
France |
-
60
% |
|
Germany |
-
60
% |
|
Italy |
-
22
% |
|
Luxembourg |
-
65
% |
|
The Netherlands |
-
56
% |
|
ΕU -
6 |
-
43
% |
|
Source: Vidal
2000b |
|
Table
4:
Variation of the number of the persons working in each
sector in ΕU-9
between
1975
-
1999 |
|
|
Number of the persons in millions in ΕU-9 |
Tendencies
1975
–
1999 |
|
|
1975
|
1999 |
Millions |
% |
|
Services |
48,1 |
78,2 |
+
30,2 |
+
63
% |
|
Industry |
40,9 |
33,7 |
-
7,1 |
-17
% |
|
Agriculture |
7,6 |
3,8 |
-
3,8 |
-
49
% |
|
Total |
98,6 |
115,8 |
+
17,2 |
+
17
% |
|
Source: Vidal
2001a |
|
Table
5:
Collection of livestock operations between
1990-2000
in ΕU-12 |
|
|
Tendency of the number of agricultural operations with
ruminants between
1990-2000,
ΕU-12 |
Tendency UBA by agricultural operation with ruminants
between
1990-2000,
ΕU-12 |
|
Cattle |
-
38
% |
+
48
% |
|
- from which milk products |
-
51
% |
+
64
% |
|
- other |
-
18
% |
+
56
% |
|
Sheeps |
-
27
% |
+
32
% |
|
Goats |
-
39
% |
+
64
% |
|
Total animal capital |
-
31
% |
+
47
% |
|
Source: Vidal
2001a |
|
Table
6:
Historical development of the agricultural income in
ΕU-15
(1995
=
100) |
|
|
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
|
Austria (AT) |
107,1 |
98,6 |
89,8 |
87,8 |
83,6 |
90,1 |
107,3 |
103,3 |
|
Belgium (BE) |
93,5 |
102,6 |
106,6 |
100,7 |
93,2 |
101,1 |
109,3 |
100,5 |
|
France (FR) |
101,8 |
102,3 |
105,9 |
110,5 |
108,3 |
108,2 |
111,9 |
110,8 |
|
Germany (DE) |
97,8 |
110,7 |
111,9 |
98,7 |
92,5 |
111,5 |
137,5 |
110,7 |
|
Denmark (DK) |
104,8 |
107,2 |
102,6 |
81,0 |
78,4 |
95,5 |
115,2 |
87,1 |
|
Greece (EL) |
103,1 |
98,2 |
98,5 |
98,7 |
101,0 |
105,1 |
1209,0 |
114,9 |
|
United Kingdom (UK) |
105,5 |
98,9 |
76,5 |
65,9 |
64,4 |
61,1 |
65,5 |
69,9 |
|
Irland (IE) |
101,4 |
103,8 |
101,2 |
98,7 |
93,8 |
99,9 |
105,9 |
93,6 |
|
Spain (ES) |
95,9 |
107,7 |
108,9 |
106,4 |
103,4 |
115,2 |
118,6 |
117,9 |
|
Italy (IT) |
101,1 |
106,8 |
109,5 |
109,4 |
117,9 |
113,8 |
113,8 |
111,2 |
|
Luxembourg (LU) |
102,6 |
106,5 |
97,9 |
107,5 |
96,7 |
97,6 |
92,4 |
86,9 |
|
Netherlands (NL) |
102,3 |
98,1 |
105,9 |
95,1 |
88,4 |
85,6 |
89,8 |
80,9 |
|
Portugal (PT) |
99,7 |
109,5 |
104,3 |
104,6 |
125,4 |
111,7 |
139,4 |
131,8 |
|
Sweden (SE) |
106,3 |
104,2 |
110,4 |
113,0 |
99,7 |
112,2 |
123,6 |
120,7 |
|
Finland (FI) |
111,6 |
90,0 |
91,7 |
80,9 |
91,9 |
115,8 |
110,6 |
115,6 |
|
ΕU-15 |
100,8 |
104,4 |
104,7 |
101,6 |
101,2 |
105,7 |
112,6 |
107,8 |
|
Source: Eidmann
2003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
