Agriculture and the European Union - Essay Example

Agriculture and the European Union Agriculture and the European Union Introduction The European Union (EU) has undergone a great deal of renegotiations over the past several decades, indeed changing its own titles and formats until finally it resembled the EU of today; a European-wide economic organization focused on the homogenisation of the European economic state. The purpose of this supranationalism has been simply to increase trade throughout Europe and to facilitate this goal it has been the duty of EU government officials to closely monitor agricultural policies in member states. In 2004, the European enlargement agreement was drafted so that the organisation might have some framework from which to actually govern the growing EU, with member states reaching from Great Britain right into eastern Europe as ex-Soviet states bid for entry1. In terms of the established Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU, the enlargement has directly affected original EU members in that CAP subsidies arranged prior to the expansion were immediately lessened and a new level of standardisation was created as new countries gained access to EU funding and official economic policies. Because of the enlargement, EU nations are currently facing reforms in terms of trade prices, environmental agendas, animal welfare and the further industrialisation and eventual commercialisation of member states. How the EU deals with modernised agricultural policies will directly affect the stability of the EU in general and the position of its influence in world affairs. In terms of the CAP today, it seems that this nearly 60 year old agreement is failing when it comes to the best economic options for EU members. The European Union Negotiations have been happening for years to organise a European-wide marketplace, and so far the EU is the only large-scale organisation of this sort in the world. To enhance failing economies within the continent and ultimately to create a strong market that was viable on the world stage, European nations thought it in their best interests to band together and develop trade laws that would benefit each nation in the long run. This organisation meant the standardisation of various levels of economy so that prices could be stabilised and producers might receive the government aid needed to keep working. Jonsson and Elgstrom explain how the term 'multi-level governance' is used in terms of the EU to encompass the awkward arrangement of government officials and local policy2. Essentially, this multi-level government is exactly what the EU legislation is based upon and it's the largest economic organisation of its kind in the entire world. EU officiates must tend to supranational matters while still leaving an allowable measure of sovereignty to each member state in terms of national law and municipal issues. In terms of agriculture and human rights, however, ultimately the EU holds precedent over national level government if a committee or individual does approach it. It is the wish of the EU organisation that each of its member countries adhere strictly to trade and practical agreements in such a way that promotes equality between citizens and fair standards of living and economics for individuals and businesses throughout the realm. If a state is found to be acting in a manner not in keeping with these principles of human rights, animal rights and safe practices then it faces sanctions by EU legislature. EU Enlargement Before 2002, the EU had a stable 15 members and it wanted more. In terms of membership, there was no shortage of interested nations, particularly in the eastern half of the continent, but officials realised that if they were to suddenly expand their numbers it would become necessary to share their current supranational income with poorer countries. Cowles and Smith explain that at the turn of the new millennium, it was expected of EU officiates to work towards two basic goals; monetary union and enlargement agreements3. The use of a common currency throughout the European Union has meant that, although not every single nation has yet to adopt the Euro, trade is simpler and banking less difficult between the nations. Travellers who are free to live and work in any EU state are not required to change their held currency at every new destination; banks are dealing with fewer exchanges and agricultural and other forms of EU trade are based on a common currency which means that producers and buyers have a better idea of the value of their goods. The enlargement agreement was necessary by the time it came into action in 2004 because of the large number of European nations who bid on entry; of course since the ultimate wish of the EU is to incorporate every single European country, government officials realised that they must work to establish some kind of framework from which these new countries could benefit from membership and also bring in new trade with established members. Instilling EU principles in a new country is not a straightforward matter, since there must be agreements made between the EU body and the country itself that draw out exactly what levels of sovereignty and EU legislation must be put into place. Auditory checks must be made throughout the economic levels of the country and in terms of agriculture, it must be ascertained if the nation is using what the EU deems proper methods. In Henrik Zobbe's explanation of the historical foundations of the agricultural policies in Europe, he points out that EU agricultural standards are based primarily on the Common Agricultural Policy, established in the 1950's4 to help create a pricing standard throughout Europe. In relation to the EU enlargement, it is the CAP that has been noted as standing in the way since it is a similar and yet separate piece of legislation. Enlargement is a new agreement and under its legislation it becomes necessary to evaluate agricultural policies in each country separately and to be very stringent in those findings. After enlargement was agreed to, EU auditors had to travel and discover the true state of European agriculture and try to find ways to bring each of these up to the standards of the EU before their produce could be sold on the EU market. Factors like chemical use, environmental practise, genetic modification, labour forces and types of crops and other produce were taken into careful consideration so that the EU as a whole could understand how each new nation really fit into the trade market. The consideration of new crops and produce was of specific importance to these auditors because in the establishment of a unified trading zone it became necessary to find and promote unique products on the EU market to bolster local economies as well as the overall marketplace. Today's CAP issues are primarily reforms in terms of trade prices, environmental agendas, animal welfare and the further industrialisation and eventual commercialisation of member states because of the simple fact that when the legislation was agreed upon decades ago, these now global concerns were not on the agenda. Changing Trade Prices and Subsidy Amounts Trade prices are the most pressing issue following the 2004 EU enlargement, since this is exactly what the CAP focused on initially. Officials have been left to wonder, like in many other local sovereignty issues, to what extent should they be following CAP guidelines and to which extent those of the sovereign nations themselves This is often the case in EU legislation since individual states have always implemented their own versions of documentation to govern agricultural and other practises within their nations before the EU came into being as it is now. With the CAP, this piece of legislation was essentially a predecessor to the EU agricultural standards and as such it is currently used as the acting agricultural doctrine. Critics are concerned that these unified agricultural policies are not exactly economically or financially viable within the EU since enlargement incorporated poorer European nations into what had originally been an organisation of economically strong countries. The CAP officiators had decided in the 1950's that a standard pricing guide for all of Europe was beneficial to each independent nation; the EU agricultural policies have gone a further step with common currency and direct checks to agricultural practise. When CAP standards were conceived, the modern state of the European Union was yet to be beheld and it seemed the answer to European trade was a more loosely-knit standardisation to facilitate further trade amongst nations in the realm. With the more stringent guidelines put forth by the EU, it was assumed that the best thing to do was update CAP policies and keep European nations working under at least the semblance of a previously accepted doctrine. EU officials didn't seem to take into consideration that their own standards of subsidies must fall in order to incorporate these new, struggling economic polities into the framework. In effect, EU doctrine steps right on the toes of the CAP, when in fact it was simply the logically follow-up to those initial ideologies concerning the welfare of Europe's producers. Instead of trying to have both work alongside one another, the EU would be better off simply establishing EU rules as dominant and all others basically defunct except in terms of ideology. In 2002 the contemporary 15 EU member states voted for the continuation of CAP policies until 2013; Daugjberg and Swinbank explain how this arrangement has made it very difficult to incorporate central and eastern European nations into the EU for the enlargement5. "The new Member States have large areas of farmed land, but are relatively poor, and this meant that, if the CAP were to be fully implemented in the new Member States, it would substantially increase the CAP's budget cost"6. To deal with what primarily would be a financial burden of the new member states, the EU would have to sacrifice itself by way of channelling money from its successful members to those with weaker infrastructures. In taking on so many different countries with different traditions, economic situations and political systems, the EU faced financial integration of each of these countries although they could not be expected to bring in the same income, produce the same value and quantity of goods and neither could they be expected to change their political beliefs and heritage to work in conjunction with every other country within the Union. In the hopes that Europe could eventually function as one entity and simply treat those inner nations as regions within a whole, EU officiators decided that these initial economic disparities were of no real concern and that the successes of one 'region' could easily balance out those weaker states until such a time as when each region/nation could contribute a crucial income to the EU. In terms of agriculture, the expansion had much more foresight than its critics believe since the vast amounts of farmland and rural populations inherent in these new eastern European countries meant that given workable subsidies and standardisation policies these countries might be capable of producing a great deal of valuable agriculture for the EU. Although at the moment countries like Great Britain and France tend to feel like they are carrying these countries, within the long-sighted ideology of the organisation this economic sharing will create a more productive future for the entire realm. Specifically, "the EU supports farm incomes by providing direct aid payments and by maintaining producer prices at higher levels than would be the case if market forces had prevailed. Direct paymentbecame a significant feature of the CAP"7. For now, the issue of subsidy reforms remains at the forefront of the EU agricultural agenda as a reshuffling of benefits continues endlessly. The CAP standardisation of pricing remains the goal for the EU, however more modern ideologies have prevailed in that it is the long term benefits that are used to measure the success of the organisation. The Environment, Animal Rights and the EU Environmental agendas have been a driving force behind every nation in the world today, since scientific data and green organisations have been pushing to spread awareness of issues like global warming, habitat destruction and acid rain before the world becomes uninhabitable. To keep these important factors in mind, the EU has felt it necessary to update agricultural standardisation practises to reflect healthy environmental policies. The reasoning is again focused on the long term for the European Union; for the moment it is simpler and perhaps more financially viable for poorer EU countries, especially those brought in by the 2004 enlargement, to use harsh chemical pesticides on their crops or to plant genetically modified strains of cereals, or in fact to feed their livestock with animal byproducts. The fact is, however, that scientific evidence in cases like the BSE outbreak and in health studies following pesticide usage (both on people and the land) means that consumers are becoming aware of the damage they might be doing to the earth and ultimately to themselves in the production and support of outdated agricultural methods. To gain a foothold into changing market features, therefore, it is necessary for the EU to impose environmental clauses into its legislation so that the produce of its member states is actually saleable, and also so that it is sustainable. Anderson and Martin point out that in the early years of the CAP, it was the primary goal of participating nations to implement pricing standards that would in turn benefit the workers8. The CAP was introduced not as specific to agriculture, per se, but instead as specific to economic standardisation and higher agricultural income. It was not the intention of the organisers to establish better ways of producing crops, livestock and related goods unless by doing this they could secure the standardisation they sought. Today, CAP rules are in need of a realigned focus so that they might take these environmental concerns to hand and accept that without a proper way of dealing with the fundamentals of agriculture, such as land use, pesticides, irrigation, rotation, etc., the practise itself is not sustainable and therefore cannot be counted on to provide EU income in the future. Van Dijck and Faber explain how each farm subsidy is broken down by its EU recipients, and aside from basic spending needs like infrastructure enhancement and supplies, EU farmers are expected to use their funds for keeping up with animal welfare and environmental standards implied by the EU government9. On par with the modern environmental conservation theories, people (namely consumers) are becoming more wary of meats and meat products that are the culmination of what they see as a cruel production process. Sales of free range eggs as opposed to cage eggs, free range meats as opposed to penned meats and organic produce as opposed to those containing pesticides have gone up considerably in the last decade and it is because of these new ideas concerning animal welfare that EU agricultural sectors must take new policies on board. Like the use of pesticides might seem to bring in more money in the short term, battery hens and other animals raised in close quarters with no room to run around and live seemingly natural lives can provide producers with more bulk and therefore more money. In the long term, the EU is wise to think about market trends and if it wants to help its poorer nations grow economically strong, animal welfare is one of those issues it must confront. Of course, CAP policies did not have such intentions and because of the sheer age of the agreement the EU must constantly be stepping in and making changes to reflect modern thought and modern agricultural issues. Further Industrialisation of EU States The CAP agreement has always focused first on the financial welfare of European farmers; the European Union, conversely, is focused on the financial welfare of its member nations in a purely generalised sense. If the greater income comes of agriculture in one area and industry in another, these will both be celebrated and used to bolster the unified economy that is the EU. Under CAP policies, however, this generalisation is not acknowledged and therefore even though many EU members are striving to urbanise and industrialise their countries the CAP has no ideological knowledge of this. Following the 2004 enlargement of the EU structure, it was assumed that eastern European nations would be given the subsidies necessary to build a sound agricultural infrastructure, but also that in doing so other parts of these countries would start to urbanise and ultimately build towards an economic structure similar to that of the western European EU nations. Because of conflicting CAP and EU goals, these countries are faced with the difficult transformation first from a weak to a strong economy and then from an agriculturally based centre to an industrial nation with agriculture running alongside. To incorporate both these seemingly different goals into one set of policies is not the easy job that EU officiates might hope; it seems that CAP policies are yet again simply too outdated to meet the needs of modern Europeans. For such an agricultural policy to really work for the modern EU, CAP agreements would foremost need to acknowledge that its focus cannot be solely on one aspect of the unified economy. With the focus either on agricultural income, or simply on agriculture itself, CAP cannot hope to be used to the best of its ability because the rest of EU policy is always changing to reflect modern ideals and issues like those of the environment and lowered trading prices. CAP cannot and indeed never could stand alone and this is why it has been incorporated into the European Union's official policy. Farmers and agricultural workers in European states know what CAP represents and they have remained happy to work under the knowledge that this agreement has their best financial interests at its heart. If these same workers wish to remain competitive and successful in the future, however, they must recognise that CAP has indeed become outdated and in need of a facelift. Conclusions The CAP was introduced at a time when the European Union itself was a distant dream, and because of this CAP policies were introduced to take the largest economic factor in hand: agriculture. With standardisation of trade prices for crops and other agricultural goods, CAP drafters believed that they were implementing a good trade deal into all of Europe so that workers could count on a decent wage. These policies were accepted by workers and economists alike and in following years it was clear that CAP measures had indeed had a great hand in tightening up agricultural trade practises in Europe. Decades later, however, the European Union was being fabricated and come the new millennium the EU was at the forefront of European economic policy as that was the primary function of the group. CAP policies were adopted and yet they were, and still are, in need of constant rewriting so that modern farmers might benefit and deal with contemporary issues. With growing concerns over environmental practises, animal welfare, trade prices and eastern European industrialisation, it seems that CAP is falling further and further behind other EU policies. It was not drafted to incorporate and deal with these issues and so the post-2004 EU members are finding that their own agricultural policies are not deemed acceptable by current standards. Dealing with the environment, for example, has never been at the top of the agenda for eastern European countries who are instead focused on building their weak economies and receiving EU financial aid. The mere incorporation of these new EU members means that CAP trade prices are doomed to fall, and yet it is precisely these under which most European states have come to work and rely. CAP policies have not necessarily been a particular hindrance to EU legislation although it might seem so; without these established guidelines the EU government might have had a more difficult time instilling any kind of agricultural policy on its members. Now, however, the EU has had sufficient time to review and understand its members and it is in a better position to draft a new agricultural policy than those were who created CAP. If the EU wants to achieve its goal of becoming a world leading economy, it must take the time to reorganise CAP and perhaps bring an entirely new doctrine into practise. Bibliography Anderson, Kym and Martin, Will 'Agricultural Trade Reform and the Doha Development Agenda', at http://www-webct.ucl.ac.uk/web-ct/courses/SESS3006/2505964775.pdf, (17 March 2007). Cameron, Fraser (ed.) The Future of Europe: Integration and Enlargement London: Routledge, 2004). Cowles, Maria and Smith, Michael (eds.) The State of the European Union: Risks, Reforms, Renewals, and Revival, Volume: 5 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Daugjberg, Carsten and Swinbank, Alan 'The CAP and EU Enlargement Prospects for an Alternative Strategy to avoid the Lock-in of CAP Support', at http://www-webct.ucl.ac.uk/web-ct/courses/SESS3006/2547179439.pdf, (17 March 2007). Elgstrom, Ole and Jonsson, Christer (eds.) European Union Negotiations: Processes, Networks and Institutions (London: Routledge, 2005). Zobbe, Henrik 'The Economic and Historical Foundation of the Common Agricultural Policy in Europe', at http://www-webct.ucl.ac.uk/web-ct/courses/SESS3006/2505964779.pdf,(17 March 2007). Pitou Van Dijck and Garrit Faber 'CAP Reform and the Doha Development Agenda' at http://www-webct.ucl.ac.uk/web-ct/courses/SESS3006/2505964776.pdf,(17 March 2007). Read More