Govt's agriculture position already under fire
Although slightly behind schedule, the government last week submitted its official negotiating position on what may prove to be the most difficult haggling point in the country's bid to join the European Union (EU) agriculture.
But before any documents could exchange hands in Brussels, opposition against the government's stance was already mounting on the home front.
"We think the position demands review and must be discussed," said Stanislaw Zieba, general secretary of the Polish Union of Meat Producers, Exporters and Importers (PZPEiIM).
Targeted for submission by the end of November and last of all positions to be presented, agriculture is widely considered to be the biggest stumbling block for Poland's entry into the EU. Not only does the ag sector lag sorely behind those in current EU member countries, but with 40% of all EU legislation concerning agricultural and rural issues, it also means Poland's greatest challenge will be to adapt its laws in these areas to meet EU requirements.
In presenting its agriculture position, the government took what might be considered an all-or-nothing approach the stance forgoes any talk of a transition period for agriculture and claims that it will be wholly ready for entry by Dec. 31, 2002. That means that in three years' time the ag sector would have to be fully in line with EU regulations. But if that happens, the government would expect that as full EU members, Polish farmers would qualify for upward of zl. 9 billion ($2.14 billion) a year in EU funds subsidizing ag sector production.
"The fact that our side has not announced any transition period is very progressive and is aimed at insuring our farmers the possibility to compete with farmers in the EU," said Ewa Haczyk, spokeswoman for Poland's chief EU negotiator, Jan Kulakowski. "In not requesting a transition period, (Poland) wants all the benefits coming out of the common agriculture policy (CAP)."
But before arriving in Brussels, the government was already watering down its original version. While the government forgoes any formal transition period that would prevent farmers from receiving CAP subsidies, the stance foresees a longer preparation period for the country's dairy and meat sectors, considered two of the most difficult to prepare for accession. This special treatment had meat producers up in arms.
"You can't expect that all of agriculture will enter the EU without a transition period and the meat sector will have a (medium-term) adaptation period," Zieba said. "We don't know the arguments why this was presented this way."
At issue is not whether the sectors will be prepared by the Jan. 1, 2003 deadline, but whether or not those sectors can afford to prepare in such a short time period. In its original plan for agriculture, the government pledged to spend zl. 25 billion ($5.95 billion) during the three-year run up to EU membership to ready the rural areas for joining the union as full members. Much of the financial burden of refitting individual parts of the ag sector falls on the industries themselves.
For the dairy sector, where only one-third of the milk sold here meets EU norms, the price tag for upgrading runs zl. 15.5 billion ($3.69 billion), or more than 60% of the nation's run-up bill.
To fund the changes in addition to E500 million in EU aid from programs targeting agricultural, environment and infrastructure, the government is looking at funding about 20% of the bill from the state budget. The remainder of the funding would be borne by companies in the sector as well as the farmers themselves.
"The majority of the money has to be borne by the agro-food business," Zieba said. "That's an absurdity."
To ease the burden on the dairy and meat sectors, the revised government stance foresees spending zl. 13.6 billion ($3.23 billion) in the three-year run up and the remainder would be parceled out over two years after entering the union.
That special treatment has meat producers outraged.
"The meat sector has to enter the EU alongside all other sectors of the Polish economy," Zieba said. "A transition period is a kind of euthanasia for the meat sector."
For its part the government is touting the position as realistic and one that has been reached after widespread consultations with parliament, representatives of the agriculture sector and the president. "It seems to us that this position is good and realistic and we are going to fight for it," Haczyk said.
PZPEiIM, which groups 26 of the nation's largest meat producers that already produce according to EU standards, claims it was not consulted. Therefore, it wants the government to go back to the drawing board and reconsider its stance on the meat sector. "As an organ we were not consulted at all concerning this position," Zieba said. "We learned (about it) from the press."
