A C T A U N I V E R S I T A T I S L O D Z I E N S I S FOLIA OECONOMICA 182, 2004
Maria Magdalena G rzelak*
T H E A D V A N T A G E S A N D C O ST S O F IM P L E M E N T IN G T H E IN S T R U M E N T S O F T H E C O M M O N A G R IC U L T U R A L
P O L IC Y IN PO L ISH F A R M IN G
1. In tro d u ctio n
D iscussions about the advantages o f P oland’s accession to the EU often focus on its financial outcom e, mainly direct subsidies and the increase in prices o f agricultural goods. A fter adopting Agenda 2000 in the C om m on A gricultural Policy (C A P) direct subsidies play a more substantial role in farm ers’ income. A nother result o f that reform is the fall o f prices o f agricultural goods (cereals, oil crops, high-protein crops, beef). Yet still in many cases they are higher in the EU than in Poland.
O ne should keep in mind that higher prices in the E U are linked with higher quality. A im ing at such quality may entail additional costs for food producers. W hen com paring betw een countries one has to take into account exchange rates; they are d ifficult to guess and their im pact on the estim ated advantages is considerable. T he cost o f purchasing m aterials and services for agricultural production in Poland has been slowly increasing, recently at the speed sim ilar to the inflation level. A fter join in g the EU farm ers can expect that som e costs o f agricultural production will rise, especially those o f the m aterial for sow ing and animal raising.
A nother factor vital for the advantages and costs o f the integration is production quotas and limits. The volum e o f those allocated lim its is decisive for the scope o f using the Polish production potential, for preserving jo b s and sources o f incom e in Polish agriculture.
This paper is an attem pt at assessing potential advantages and costs o f Polish agriculture’s integration with the EU. I will pay special attention to the transfer
o f financial m eans from the EU budget to Poland, to the system o f direct paym ent as well as to production quotas and limits.
2. T h e tra n sfers o f fin an cial m eans from the EU b u d get to P o la n d 1
W hen Poland jo in s the European Union, Polish agriculture and rural areas will receive about 7229 m illion euros in 2 0 0 4-20 06 (from the EU budget only) in the fram ew ork o f the Com m on Agricultural Policy. A nnually, it will amount to the average o f 2409 m illion euros, i. e. about tw ice as m uch as the budget expenditure for agriculture (except for KRUS - A gricultural Social Insurance Fund) in 2002 (5085 m illion zlotys, i. e. 1271 million euros). T hese m eans will be connected with:
♦ D irect paym ents: in 2004, 2005 and 2006, 835 m illion euros, 957 million euros and 1077 m illion euros respectively (which totals 2869 euros) from the EU budget. T he possibility o f increasing direct paym ents to the lim its o f 55% , 60% , 65% o f the EU level respectively in 2 0 0 4 -2 0 0 6 has been negotiated. Direct paym ents with the highest national subsidy may am ount to 1448 m illion euros, 1638 m illion euros and 1840 m illion euros - which totals 4926 m illion euros.
♦ M arket intervention and export subsidies: 135 m illion euros in 2004, 350 m illion euros in 2005 and 377 million euros in 2006, w hich totals 862 m illion euros.
♦ Rural developm ent: 647 m illion euros, 769 m illion euros and 887 million euros respectively in 2004, 2005 and 2006, which totals 2302 m illion euros.
♦ Structural funds in agriculture: the total o f about 1196 m illion euros in 2 0 0 4 -2 0 0 6 for the S ector O perational Programm e.
P olish agriculture will m oreover be able to receive national subsidies as a form o f national aid.
3. D irect p a ym en ts
As it was decided during the accession negotiations, P olish farm ers will be able to use the system o f direct subsidies. Direct paym ents in 2004, 2005 and 2006 can am ount respectively to 55%, 60% and 65% o f the EU rates levels (Table 1). T he highest level o f direct subsidies will consist of:
♦ 25% , 30% and 35% o f direct paym ents financed from the first pillar o f the CAP;
1 Inform acja na tem at zakończonych n egocjacji akcesyjnych z U E w o b sza rze "Rolnictwo", Warszawa 2003.
• a part o f the m eans moved from the second pillar o f the C A P (E U m eans and obligatory state subsidies), which will enable to raise the paym ents in the given years to 36% , 39% and 42% o f the target level;
• a further raise o f direct paym ents to the above-m entioned lim its (55% , 60% , 65% ) can take place thanks to the national budget subsidies (see Tab. 1).
It should be noted that at that time the share o f the EU support from the first pillar o f the C A P and the share o f the state budget m eans will rise, w hile the share o f the m eans from the second pillar o f the C A P will fall.
Table I. Sources and level o f financing direct subsidies for Polish farmers in 2 0 0 4 -2 0 0 6 (%)
Years
EU means for direct subsidies from the first pillar
o f the CAP
M eans moved from the second pillar o f the CAP. including additional means from state budget
M eans from the
Polish state budget Total
2004 25 11 19 55
2005 30 9 21 60
20 0 6 35 7 23 65
S o u r c e : D o p ła ty bezp o śred n ie dla polskich rolników . Rada 2 /2 0 0 3 , Bratoszew ice 2003. From 2007 the level o f direct subsidies will gradually increase, but the way o f their financing will change. The money assigned for rural developm ent (the second pillar o f the C A P) will not serve as subsidies, but their level will be com pleted by up to 30% per year from the national budget. In this way the level o f full direct subsidies could be reached by 2010.
Table 2. Sources and level o f financing direct subsidies for Polish farmers from 20 0 7 (%) Years EU subsidies for direct payments
from the first pillar o f the CAP National subsidies Total
2007 4 0 30 70
2008 50 30 80
2009 6 0 30 9 0
2 0 1 0 70 30 100
S o u r c e : A s same as Tab. 1.
It has been decided that a sim plified system o f direct subsidies will be applied. T hat system will operate in the first three years o f our m em bership and can be prolonged for another tw o years until 2008 included. It seem s that the introduction o f the sim plified system will enable to use m ore efficiently the financial m eans that the E U will put at P oland’s disposal in the initial years o f its m em bership, and to gain experience necessary for an effective im plem entation o f m ore com plicated procedures o f the standard system o f direct subsidies.
The follow ing rates o f area subsidies will function in the sim plified system: a) the base subsidy rate for each hectare o f the U tilised A gricultural Area (U A A ) in a farm , corresponding to 25%, 30% and 35% o f the state quota divided by the total area o f the UAA in Poland;
b) the rate of the additional area subsidy for the tillage area covered with direct subsidies in the EU (cereals including m aize for grain and fodder, oil crops, high-protein crops, flax and hemp, pulses, tobacco, hop, starch potatoes);
c) the rate of the additional area subsidy for the fodder area used for anim al production covered with direct paym ents in the EU , i. e. for cattle, sheep and milk production, w ithout the obligation o f providing docum entation on anim al production.
A dditional area subsidies will be financed from the EU m eans assigned for rural developm ent in Poland as well as from the national means. It was specified in the negotiations that the highest level o f subsidies (basic subsidies + additional ones) could not exceed 55%, 60% and 65% o f the EU level in the first three years o f m em bership. A dditional subsidies will exclude those cultures which are not allocated direct support in the EU (m ainly non-starch potatoes, sugar beet, fodder crops except for maize, fruit, vegetables and others).
D ifferentiating between the rates o f area subsidies for the directly subsidised crop and anim al production in the EU and for the non-subsidised production in the EU will enable to assign additional direct subsidies to those products whose com petitiveness in the EU depends on direct support.
In the system o f simplified direct subsidies there will be no obligation that the part o f the land (10% ) set-aside. T o get an additional area subsidy for meadows and pasturages a farm er will not be obliged to prove he/she owns cattle or sheep.
O ne has to bear in m ind that direct subsidies for agricultural production in the EU are assigned on the basis o f farm ers’ dem ands subm itted to a paym ents agency. A producer has to m eet several criteria to get the money. T he crucial instrum ent for dealing with the dem ands for paym ents is the IACS system. Poland is creating such a system right now and has a lot o f trouble with im plem enting it.
4. E stim atin g the rates o f d irect su b sid ies
At the m om ent, the rates o f direct subsidies can only be prelim inarily estim ated. I have used the estim ations o f the rates o f subsidies done by the A gricultural Policy A nalysis Unit at the FA PA 2. T he criteria for estim ating the rates o f subsidies (both basic and additional) were as follow ing:
2 System u p ro szczo n y d o p ła t bezpośrednich w P olsce - fu n kcjon ow an ie i w stępne szacunki staw ek d o p ła t, SA EPR / FAPA.
S pecification Quotas proposed by Poland during the negotiations
Q uotas proposed b y the European
Union N egotiated quotas
Field cultures
Base area for cultures covered with direct payments Referential crop 9 263 0 0 0 ha 3.61 t / h a 9 2 1 7 6 6 7 ha 2 .9 6 t / h a 9 4 5 4 671 ha 3. 0 t / h a M ilk Total quota G ross sales Direct sales N ational reserve 11 845 0 0 0 tons 11 183 662 8 875 0 0 0 tons 6 9 5 6 9 19 9 3 8 0 0 0 0 tons 8 500 4 6 4 4 1 6 Animal premiums
Suckler c o w premium 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 heads 325 581 heads 325 581 heads Slaughter premium for calves 1 0 1 7 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 6 0 0 83 9 518 Slaughter premium for adult cattle 2 021 0 0 0 2 0 3 4 3 0 0 1 815 4 3 0 Special premium for male bovin e
animals 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 857 7 0 0 9 2 6 0 0 0 Sugar B ase quota A quota В quota 1 8 6 6 0 0 0 tons 1 6 5 0 0 0 0 2 1 6 0 0 0 1 665 0 0 0 tons 1 5 9 0 500 7 4 5 0 0 1 671 9 2 6 tons 1 5 8 0 0 0 0 91 9 2 6 Potato starch T obacco 2 4 2 0 0 0 tons 55 0 0 0 9 0 5 0 0 tons 38 100 144 985 tons 3 7 933
S o u r c e : M y ow n analysis based on: „Podlaski rolniczy informator europejski” 2 0 0 3 , nr 2; Informacja na temat zakończonych negocjacji akcesyjnych z U E w obszarze „R oln ictw o”; M o żliw o ści i sp osob y argumentacji w zakresie zw ięk szen ia proponow anych przez KE kw ot i lim itów produkcyjnych oraz w ycen a ekonom iczn a zw ięk szen ia kw ot i w ielk ości referencyjnych. O
T he A d va n tag e s an d C o st s of Imp lementing th e In st r u m e n ts ..
1. The base rate o f direct subsidies (for each hectare o f the U A A ) was calculated by dividing the available total quota o f basic direct subsidies for Poland (25% , 30% , 35% ) by the num ber o f the eligible FL - 15,323 million hectares. By definition they will include the farm land in the farm s o f above one ha, which on 30 June 2003 will be m aintained in a good rural culture. The prelim inary GUS [Polish Central Statistical O ffice| data o f the G eneral Rural C ensus o f 2002 w ere used for those calculations. It was assum ed that 15% o f fallow and w aste lands in those farms would meet the criteria o f eligibility for direct subsidies.
2. The rates o f additional direct subsidies, one for crop production and the other for anim al production, directly supported in the EU, were estim ated as follows:
a) In the case o f the subsidies financed from the m eans for rural developm ent: dividing 25% , 20% and 15% o f the m eans for rural developm ent available in 2004, 2005, 2006 into the two above-m entioned sectors (anim als and crops), proportionally to their share in the state quota o f full (100% ) direct subsidies w hich was calculated on the basis o f the negotiated param eters; the resulting sector quota (sector envelope) was then divided into the area o f farm land proper for that sector:
- f o r crop production, covered with direct support within the EU, it was assumed that the area that can serve to estim ate the rate is the com plete negotiated basis area o f field cultures, as well as the area of other cultures directly supported in the EU (cereals, oil crops, high-protein crops, pulses, flax, fibrous crops, tobacco, hop, starchy potatoes). In the case of the products for which not an area but a quota (in tons) has been negotiated, the area was calculated on the basis of the average crop. Estimated that way, the complete tillage area directly supported in the EU am ounted to 9.505 million hectares for Poland.
- f o r anim al production, covered with direct support within the EU (cattle, sheep and milk [from 2005J), it was assum ed that the area for estim ation is the area o f durable grassland equal to 3.514 million hectares (the prelim inary GUS data o f the G eneral Rural C ensus o f 2002).
- it was assum ed that the difference between the total surface o f the UAA and the area serving to estim ate the rates o f subsidies for crop and anim al production, am ounting to 2.305 m illion hectares, corresponds to the area o f tillage which is not directly subsidised in the EU and is not eligible for additional subsidies.
b) In the case o f the subsidies financed with the national support, their highest possible rates resulting from the negotiated ceilings (55% , 60% and 65% in 2004, 2005 and 2006) were estim ated. It should be noted that the above- m entioned lim its o f support will be controlled in sectors, in line with the proposed form ulation o f the A ccession Treaty - for the sector o f crop production subsidised in the EU and for the sector o f crop production subsidised in the EU.
3. T h e e x ch a n g e rate assum ed for estim a tin g th e rates o f su b sid ies w as 1 eu ro = 4 ,00 P L N
Figures 1, 2 and 3 present the estim ated rates o f direct subsidies in PLN per ha (w ith the above-m entioned assum ptions).
P L N /ha 6 0 0 5 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0
200
100
161 2 0 0 4 ---199 2 0 0 5 238 2 0 0 6 □ Podstawowe stawki (25%,30%,35%)Fig. I . Rates o f base area subsidies for all U A A
S o u r c e : System u proszczon y d o p ła t bezpośredn ich w P o lsce - fu n k cjo n o w a n ie i w stępne szacunki staw ek d o p ła t, W arszawa 2003.
600 500 400 300 200 100 0 P L N /ha
£
161 342 167 199 424 228 238 513 2004 2005 2006□ State financing limit (to 55%, 60%, 65%)
O From 2nd pillar
lo 55%, 6М>, 65%)
□ Basic rates (25%, 30%, 35%)
Fig. 2. Rates o f area subsidies for the U A A in animal production directly subsidised in the EU S o u r c e: A s same as Fig. 1.
4. P ro d u ctio n q u o ta s and lim its
The accession negotiations in the “A griculture" dom ain were difficult not only because o f the lack o f a position o f the EU in financial issues until the last stage o f the negotiations. The EU did not take any definite stand tow ards our postulates concerning such vital issues as the volum e o f referential crop, the base area and production quotas (R ow iński, W igier 2003). M ost o f Polish postulates were rejected in their entirety, while the offered volum es differed too considerably from Polish proposals. The intensive negotiations at the final stage led the EU to do change its attitude tow ards several issues.
T able 3 com pares the quotas and paraquotas o f production proposed in the initial negotiation by Poland and the EU.
Polish proposals o f area o f basic field cultures (cereals, oil crops, high- protein fodder crops - field bean, sweet lupine) and referential crops o f cereals should be considered as m oderate. During the negotiations Poland proposed to set the level o f cereals production at 30.8 m illion tons, the resultant o f the base area and referential crops (8541 X 3.61 = 30.8 m illion tons). It was not a high
level. T he differences between the Polish negotiation position and the EU position (25.9 m illion tons) result from assum ing different referential crops. A lthough the volum e o f those crops proposed by the Polish side (3.61 t/ha) is higher than their “ historical" volum e, it is much low er than the crops in the eastern part o f G erm any (about 5 tons), in com parable clim ate and land conditions. T here is no reason why such differences in the level o f intensiveness should exist.
The base area o f field cultures proposed by the C om m ission alm ost corresponds to the Polish negotiation position. It was eventually extended to include the culture o f m aize for silage. The referential crop proposed by the C om m ission (2.96 t/ha) is approxim ately tw o tim es low er than in the EU countries in the sam e clim ate areas as Poland.
A ccepting the production capacity and the level o f subsidies at 25% o f the EU quota in the first year o f m em bership, proposed by the C om m ission, m eans that the Polish farm er will receive only 13% o f the average EU level o f subsidies per one hectare o f the UAA.
The m ilk production quota is one o f the most im portant issues in the dom ain o f agriculture. T his param eter is different than the ceilings for raising b eef cattle. A farm er can raise m ore beef cattle than the individual ceiling assigned to him; its only consequence is the lack o f bonus for extra cattle. M ilk production exceeding the individual quota is out o f question because the farm er is severely fined (115% o f the price o f milk).
D uring the negotiations Poland postulated that a production quota o f 11.845 m illion tons be fixed in the first year o f m em bership and that it rise gradually in the follow ing years. T he quota would achieve its target volum e o f over 13.7 m illion tons in 2008. Such a quota would be the fourth m ilk quota in the EU after G erm any (27.9 m illion tons), France (24.2 m illion tons) and G reat B ritain (14.6 m illion tons), w hich is an appropriate position, taking into account the num ber o f inhabitants and the volum e o f consum ption o f milk and m ilk products recom m ended by food specialists. The EU w anted the Polish milk quota to be as low as possible because the Union has been producing too much m ilk for several years and it probably tried to avoid the trouble with the Polish surplus. Finally, the milk quota o f 9380 thousand tons was negotiated, including 8500 thousand tons for gross sales, 464 thousand tons for direct sales and 416 thousand tons as a structural adjustm ent reserve. A ccepting those proposals m eans that sales o f milk to dairies per capita will be approxim ately tw o tim es low er than the average level in the EU.
D irect paym ents, the so-called “prem ium s” , are given to the farm ers raising b ee f cattle. T he pre-determ ined production lim its also serve as bonuses w ithin the so-called “ national ceilin g ” ; the rules o f th eir allocation are laid dow n by the M em ber S tates. A special prem ium s is given to tho se farm s which raise b ee f cattle extensively. It is not so closely co n n ected with direct paym ents than the o th er kinds o f bonuses and som e o f its features are sim ilar to the ag ricultural and environm ental resources. T rad itio n ally in Poland cattle is raised for milk. B ecause o f the negotiated quotas the d evelop m ent o f that branch o f farm production will how ever be lim ited after Poland jo in s the U nion. T his poses an o th er problem : that o f using grasslan d s in N orthern Poland. It w ould be best to raise b ee f cattle extensiv ely on that area, applying traditional m ethods, keeping calves with their m others. T h is solution is feasible only if Poland has a sufficient production quota o f feeding cow s. The determ ined quota o f 325581 heads does not allow for the d ev elo pm ent o f cattle raising in Poland. T h e stock o f feeding cow s per one hectare o f grassland s will be m uch low er in Poland than in the EU countries.
In the EU there are also other quotas, not conn ected w ith the production quotas w hich are or will soon be part o f the system o f direct paym ents. T he most im portant o f those is the sugar production quota. In the EU , ju st as in P oland, tw o quotas are operative. O ne is the quota o f su gar w hich can be sold by its pro d u cer on the internal m arket (the A quota); an o th er is the q uota o f sugar that has to be exported, but w hose p roducer can apply fo r an export subsidy (the В quota). A part from those, the EU sugar industry can produce sugar (the so-called С quota) that has to be exported, but w hose pro d u cer can receive no ex p o rt subsidy. T he fundam ental m echanism s o f the sugar m arket regulation in the E U include the subsidies given to th o se w ho ex po rt, to the non-EU co u n tries, sugar, isoglucose and insulin syrup p ro du ced w ithin the В quota. T h e m eans used to pay the export subsidies com e from the so-called sugar fee, paid by sugar industry. It is a self-financing system ; the sugar fees m ust fully co v e r the exp o rt subsidies.
Poland dem anded to fix the sugar quota at the total o f 1866 thousands tons, where the A quota would make 1650 thousand tons and the В quota - 216 thousand tons. T he negotiated A quota generally corresponds to the dom estic sugar dem and. T he negotiated В quota am ounted only to 91926 tons, which is partly due to P o lan d ’s liabilities to the W TO (104 thousand tons). H ow ever, it should be noted that in the EU countries the share o f the В quota in the total quota is higher.
Potato starch in the EU is supported in a tw ofold way: with direct paym ents given to farm ers for starch potatoes supplied to potato industry, and with
subsidies given to starch producers. The highest subsidy in a given m em ber state results from the production quota assigned to it.
From the m arketing year 2 0 0 1 -2 0 0 2 , direct paym ents total 110.54 euros for a ton o f starch from the potatoes supplied by farm ers, w hile the subsidies com pensating for the production costs o f potato starch higher than the starch com ing from o th er ag ricultural raw m aterials total 22.25 eu ros for a ton o f starch.
Poland is one o f the European and world potentates in potato production. The area occupied by potatoes in Poland (1.2 million ha) alm ost equals that in all EU countries (about 1.4 m illion ha in 2000). Potato crop in Poland in 2000 equalled 24.2 m illion tons, while in the EU - 48.8 m illion tons.
P oland s neg otiation position was m oderate, taking into con sid eratio n the place o f potatoes in P olish agriculture, the difficu lty o f rep lacing them with other crops on light soil, and the volum e o f crops. D uring the n ego tiation s the EU did not take into acco u n t the recent transform ations, i. e. the increase o f the level of starch in P olish starch potato varieties from 16% at the beginn in g o f the 1990s to about 20% now. N either did they co n sid er the increasin g dem and for potato and w heat starch products in food, p h arm aceutical and paper industries. T he p otato starch production quota ev en tu ally assig ned to Poland equals 145 thousand tons. It should be com pared w ith the qu otas in G erm any (650 thousand tons), H olland (over 500 thousand tons), o r F ran ce (ov er 260 thousand tons).
A lso raw tobacco com es within production quotas. The dem and for Polish tobacco started to pose serious problem s after tobacco industry had been privatised and the liabilities stipulated in privatisation agreem ents, com m itting the buyers to contribute 40% o f home tobacco to the production o f cigarettes for the Polish m arket, had expired.
The E uropean U n io n ’s proposal o f the quota (38.1 th ou sand tons) was based on the average raw tobacco production in P oland in 1 99 7-19 99 . At the end o f the 1980s Poland produced about 100 thousan d tons o f raw to bacco per year, part o f w hich w as exported. T he quota Poland prop osed (55 thousand tons) w as m oderate, although it exceeded its present p rod uction and the usage o f hom e m aterial. T he negotiated quota is disadv antageo us. It m eans that tobacco productio n in Poland m ust rem ain perm anently lim ited to 38 thousand tons.
A ctivity ha / unit
Crop [ t J ]
Prices Output Input Direct surplus C hange in
direct surplus (% ) Polish conditions A ccessio n 2004 Polish conditions A ccessio n 2 0 0 4 P olish conditions A ccession 2 0 0 4 P olish conditions A ccession 2 0 0 4 M eadow 1 5 0 0 575 X X Spring barley 0.5 3.2 4 8 0 .4 411 769 658 353 4 0 6 4 1 6 252 61 W inter wheat 1 3.5 504.5 4 2 6 1 766 1 491 933 1 073 833 418 50 O ilseed rape 1 2.4 821.7 841 1 972 2 0 1 8 558 641 1 4 1 4 1 377 97 Edible potatoes 0.5 2 0 3 2 2 .7 370 3 2 2 7 3 700 361 4 1 6 2 866 3 2 8 4 115 Total U A A 4 M ilk 1 4 500 0.78 1.0 3 5 1 0 4 500 853 981 2 657 3 5 1 9 132 Total X x x X 11 244 12 367 3 558 4 092 7 6 8 6 8 275 108
S o u r c e : M y ow n analysis based on B ilan s k o rzyści i k o sztó w p rz y s tą p ie n ia P olski d o UE. W arszawa 2 0 0 3 , p. 129.
M a n a M ag da le na G rz el ak
5. T h e a n a ly sis o f the eco n o m ic situ ation o f ex em p la ry farm s before and after P o la n d 's accession to the E u rop ean U nion
T w o farm s o f a different size, situated in different regions and having different structure o f production were chosen to dem onstrate the results o f the E ll Com m on A gricultural Policy. Such a choice will enable to present not only results oi the integration to r prices, but also the results o f subsidising agricultural production, characteristic o f the EU. The estim ation o f the advantages o f P oland’s jo in in g the EU took into account the assum ptions o f the official docum ents prepared by Polish G overnm ent (the negotiation position. M inistry of F inance’s m acro-econom ic indices). The exchange rate assum ed in the calculations was 1 euro = 4,00 PLN.
A. Farm o f 5 ha
Situated: central Poland;
Profile: a m ulti-profile farm typical for that region;
Land: 5 ha (farm land: 4 ha), high-quality soil;
Source o f income: anim al production - milk, crop production - cereals. Table 5. Impact o f the accession on the changes in the exam ined farm’s incom e
Specification
2004 Change
Polish
conditions A ccession [PLN] [%1 Farm’s direct surplus M odified |PLN] 7 686 9 280 1 594 121 Indirect costs + amortisation [PLN) 4 119 4 737 618 115 Farmers’ net incom e [PLN] 3 567 4 543 9 7 6 127
S o u r с e: A s same as Tab. 4, p. 130.
A fter the accession, the value o f direct surplus in the exam ined farm will rise by 8 %. It will be m ainly due to the rise in milk prices. T he incom e from the sales o f cereals will fall, since they are cheaper in the EU than in Poland. Production costs will rise by about 15%. The T able 5 data clearly show a positive im pact o f the accession on farm ers’ incom e. It should be observed that the exam ined farm will be able to achieve such good econom ic results if it m anages to sell its products.
B. Farm o f 56 ha
Situated: W estern Pom erania Region; P ro file: crop production;
Land: 56 ha (farm land: 50 ha), good-quality soil;
Table 6. Estimation o f the change in production value and costs, and in direct surplus
A ctivity ha /unit
Crop [t, 1]
Prices Output Input Direct surplus
C hange in direct surplus [%] Polish conditions A ccession 2004 Polish conditions A ccession 2 0 0 4 Polish conditions A ccession 2 0 0 4 Polish conditions A ccession 2 0 0 4 Sugar beet 10 55 111. 2 180 61 160 99 0 0 0 11 600 13 3 4 0 4 9 560 85 6 6 0 172 Spring barley 10 5.5 4 8 0 .4 411 2 6 4 2 2 22 605 9 400 1 0 8 1 0 17 022 11 795 69 Winter wheat 20 6.5 5 04.5 42 6 65 585 55 3 8 0 21 200 24 3 8 0 4 4 385 31 0 0 0 70 Winter oilseed rape 10 3.5 8 21.7 841 28 7 6 0 29 435 9 000 10 350 19 760 19 085 97 Total X X X X 181 9 2 7 2 0 6 4 2 0 51 200 58 880 130 727 147 5 4 0 113 S o u r с e: A s same as Tab. 4 , p. 129. M ar ia M ag da le na G r z e la k
Table 7. Impact o f accession on the change in the exam ined farm’s incom e
Specification
2004 Change
Polish
conditions A ccession 1 P L N ) [%] Farm’s direct surplus M odified |P L N | 130 903 164 227 33 324 125 Indirect costs + amortisation [PLN) 58 480 67 252 8 872 115 Farmers’ net incom e [PLN] 72 423 96 975 2 4 552 134
S o u r c e: A s same as Tab 4, p. 133.
The farm o f 56 ha is exceptionally big for Poland. T here are about 12 thousands o f such farm s, which m akes 0,6% o f the total num ber o f farm s in Poland. T he direct surplus in the exam ined farm will rise by 13% after the accession. It should be noted that the prices o f sugar beet considerably influence the surplus level. It is also evident that farms specialised in crop production are in a relatively w orse position than cattle or pig farm s because o f the unfavourable price ratio. A fter the accession the exam ined farm ’s incom e will rise by 34% . Because o f its substantial size, the fa rm ’s incom e from direct paym ents should suffice to finance its m odernisation and investm ent.
6. Final rem ark s
Polish farm ers are in a difficult situation ju st now. A gricultural output in Poland does not pay, the profitability o f agriculture has been steadily decreasing. A dram atic decrease o f farm ers’ incom e entailed m any negative social and econom ic effects, not only in the agriculture, but also in the w hole econom y. It has w eakened the position o f Polish agriculture in the negotiations with the EU.
T he analyses prove that the exam ined farm s will benefit from the integration with the U nion, provided that they receive direct subsidies o f 55% o f the EU level in 2004 and that the anticipated prices in the EU and Polish agriculture turn out to be true. T he condition o f public finances as w ell as the go vernm ent’s and p arliam ent’s decisions will determ ine w hether the anticipated level o f subsidies becom es real.
Not all branches o f production will equally benefit from the advantages o f the accession such as a higher incom e from sales. Producers o f b ee f cattle and milk can expect the biggest profits. D irect subsidies for cereals will m ake this branch m ore rem unerative.
A gricultural producers have to be prepared for the increase in som e direct costs o f agricultural production. It is estim ated that production costs will rise by
15% on the average. Sim ulations prove that farm ers’ incom e will rise by 27-34% . T he surplus achieved may allow for com pensating the farm ’s other costs, such as the necessary adjustm ents to the EU standards for instance.
A gricultural production in the EU is regulated by m eans o f various instrum ents, m ainly by the so-called production quotas and limits. Sim ulations do not take into account the impact o f the negotiated production quotas and limits on the volum e o f production in the exam ined farm s. It was assum ed that the farm s would easily m anage to sell their agricultural goods. It should be kept in mind that the limited possibilities o f producing som e goods may noticeably influence farm ers’ income.
The EU budget for 200 4-2 0 0 6 includes financial m eans for structural activities w hich can play a vital part in m odernising farm s and in revitalising rural regions. A coherent state policy and an im m ense organisational effort to attract and effectively use the financial means from the EU budget will be the condition sine qua non for the im provem ent o f the situation in agriculture and rural areas.
As a result o f the negotiations in the “A griculture” dom ain, Poland gained more favourable conditions that those initially offered by the European Union; unfortunately, som e o f its essential postulates were rejected. T hus both during the transition period, i. e. 2004-2006 , and in subsequent years, Polish agriculture will have to change a lot in order to becom e com parable with and to com pete with the agriculture o f the EU countries.
R eferen ces
Bilans korzyści i ko sztó w p rzystą p ien ia Polski d o UE, UKJE, W arszawa 2003.
D r o b e k A., T. Ś n i e c i ń s k i (2 0 0 3 ), N egocjacje zakończone, W iadom ości rolnicze, Szepietow o.
D o p ła ty b ezp o śred n ie d la p olskich rolników, Rada 2/2 0 0 3 , Bratoszewice. G i e r a J. (2 0 0 3 ), Jak to z d o p ła ta m i będzie, „Aktualności rolnicze” nr 2.
Inform acja na tem at w yników zakończonych n egocjacji akcesyjnych z UE w obszarze, „R olnictw o”, M RiGŻ, Warszawa.
K r z y ż a n o w s k a Z. ( 2 0 0 1), K orzyści i koszty objęcia polskich g o sp o d a r stw instrum entam i w spóln ej p o lity k i rolnej - rachunki sym ulacyjne, [in:] G o sp o d a rstw o rolne w Unii E uropejskiej - k oszty i korzyści. Fundacja na R zecz R ozw oju P olskiego Rolnictwa, Warszawa.
K w oty i lim ity produ kcyjn e ustalon e dla Polski w K openhadze, „Podlaski R olniczy Informator Europejski" 2 0 0 3 , nr 2.
R o w i ń s k i J., W i g i e r M. (2003), M ożliw ości i sp o so b y a rgu m en tacji w zakresie zw iększenia p ro p o n o w a n ych p rz e z KE kw ot i lim itów produ kcyjnych o ra z wycena ekonom iczna zw iększen ia kw ot i w ielkości referencyjnych, JERiGŻ, Warszawa.
System u proszczon y d o p ła t bezpośredn ich w P olsce - fu n kcjon ow an ie i w stępn e szacu nki staw ek d o p ła t, SA EPR /FA PA, Warszawa 2003.
Maria M a g d a le n a G r z e la k
K O R Z Y ŚC I I K O SZTY O B JĘ C IA PO L SK IC H G O S P O D A R S T W IN ST R U M E N T A M I W SPÓ L N E J PO L IT Y K I R O LN E J
Przedm iotem artykułu jest próba określenia potencjalnych korzyści i kosztów integracji polskiego rolnictwa z rolnictwem Unii Europejskiej. Szczególn a uwaga zostala zw rócona na transfer środków finansow ych z budżetu UE do Polski, system płatności bezpośrednich oraz kwoty i limity produkcyjne. Do zaprezentowania skutków wspólnej polityki rolnej Unii Europejskiej wybrano dwa gospodarstw a o różnym obszarze, p ołożone w różnych regionach kraju oraz o różnej strukturze produkcji. Z przeprowadzonych analiz wynika, że dochod y rolnicze w zrosną przy założeniu uzyskania dopłat bezpośrednich w 2004 roku w w ysokości 55% poziom u unijnego oraz sprawdzenia się cen rolnych w UE i w Polsce. Uzyskana nadwyżka być m oże pozw oli pokryć wzrost kosztów produkcji na konieczne dostosow ania do standardów unijnych.
