1 / 20

Stane Kavčič, Emil Erjavec, Miroslav Rednak, Tina Volk

MAFF, “Lecture for visiting students from the Marche Polytechnical University” 19 April 2004, Ljubljana. EU Accession Effects and Challenges for Agriculture and Agricultural Policy in Slovenia. Stane Kavčič, Emil Erjavec, Miroslav Rednak, Tina Volk

preston-burch
Download Presentation

Stane Kavčič, Emil Erjavec, Miroslav Rednak, Tina Volk

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MAFF, “Lecture for visiting students from the Marche Polytechnical University”19 April 2004, Ljubljana EU Accession Effects and Challenges for Agriculture and Agricultural Policy in Slovenia Stane Kavčič, Emil Erjavec, Miroslav Rednak, Tina Volk Biotechnical faculty, University of Ljubljana & Agricultural Institute of Slovenia

  2. Issues • Accession to EU (2004) • prices, budget, income changes • CAP Reform (2005/2007-2013) • which scheme of direct payments?

  3. Accession Effects • Issue: • Effects on production and farm income • Effect of different direct payment scheme • Standard scheme (pre-reform CAP policy) • Simplified scheme (equal value/ha: reference quantities/UAA) • Model inputs: • producer prices • quotas and direct budgetary support (acc.negotiations) commitments • Scenarios: • Baseline (Slovenia 2000/01) • EUo: (standard scheme of DP; estimation of most likely economic and budgetary situation in year 2005, with the likely range) • Simp: (like EUo, except direct payments with equal value/ha) • Model used: • APAS-PAM

  4. Models • APAS-PAM • Model type: • partial equilibrium model • national, synthetic, static, ‘closed’ on trade (exogenous prices) • Data and indicators: • 10 PSE products • food balances, income and competitiveness indicators • EAA/ABTA Model • Model type: • Static deterministic model • national farm, statistic data, balanced on flows and technical relations • Data and indicators: • whole agriculture • EAA calculation

  5. 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 Milk Beef Pork Maize Wheat Barley Egges Poultry Sugar beet Sheep meat EU 2001 EUo 2005 Accession – Prices (SLO 2001 = 100)

  6. Accession – Policy • Quotas and reference quantities • Accession negotiations as supply limitation • Direct payments 2005 • 30 % EU • 60 % “top up” from national budget • absorption: 95% • Rural development • broad program according accession negotiations • agricultural environmental program (absorption 80%) • less favoured area payments (absorption 90%)

  7. Accession – Budget support for agriculture Mio €

  8. APAS Model Results: Income per unit & Supply 8 Income (€/ha, head*) Production (SLO 2000 = 100)

  9. APAS Model Results: Sector Income (SLO 2000 = 100) 9

  10. Accession Effects Conclusions: • Economic effects • Production less response in short-term • Aggregate results stable, but… • Switch in income attractiveness • Policy implications • How to deal with sectoral shocks? • Increase of absorption and competitiveness! • Simplified scheme theoretically interesting, but means redistribution, different policy with EU-15 • Selection of the scheme is not only economic issue, admistrative capacity, reform of the CAP?

  11. CAP Reform Facts for SLO • 2003 • Standard scheme at EU level of 75 %. • 2004 • Governmental decision for SS (85 % level). • No SAPS! • CAP Reform for New members: • Regional single area payment. • Specific national solution in case of economic problems. • Single area payment: • Redistribution between the sectors! • Significant income losses (from 1500 to 400 €/ha) for intensive beef producers

  12. CAP Reform Scenarios A. Standard scheme 2004-2006, than regional single area payment and coupled production up to max level B. Standard scheme only 2004, than regional single area payment and coupled production up to max level • Standard scheme 2004, than gradually introduction of regional single area payments and gradually reduction of payments based per farm. ***** Single policy principle: No differences in policy design between EU and national financial resources.

  13. CAP reform Scenarios (Structure of direct payments in %, EU=100)

  14. CAP reform Scenarios

  15. CAP reform Scenarios

  16. CAP reform REPP

  17. CAP reform REPP

  18. CAP reform K2 Combined scheme of production coupled payments (bulls, sheep and goat) and additional specific (bulls; milk, suckler cows; other premium for cattle) and unified regional payments (arable land, grassland) (SS=100)

  19. CAP reform K2 Results show combined concept makes it possible to almost completely prevent that payments of individual farms also at the end of reform decrease for more than 30% in comparison with standard scheme (class -3).

  20. CAP reform Conclusions • Direct payments are the mayor accession issue for Slovene agriculture. • Slovenia is implementing policy which is changed significantly. • CAP reform for new member states with single area payment causes political and economic sensitive redistribution effects. • Graduall introduction of single are payments and degressive farm based payments is the “second best solution”. • Multi-annual program of direct payments is necessary.

More Related