the nature of rural development ii rural development in an...
TRANSCRIPT
Europe’s Rural Futures - The Nature of Rural Development II Rural Development in an Enlarging European Union
The Polish National Report Zbigniew M Karaczun Warsaw Agricultural University August 2002
2
Preface Background
Sustainable rural development has increasingly been prioritised in EU policy over the last decade. The Cork declaration in 1996 set out the main principles for sustainable rural development and a suggested action plan for Europe’s policy-makers. By 1999 both the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the Structural Funds of the European Union (EU) were reformed to further include sustainable rural development. A ‘Second Pillar’ was built into the CAP to support rural development through a specially tailored regulation. The aims of the Structural Funds were amended to include sustainable rural development. Further reforms of these policies are highly likely in the coming years, particularly given pressures from world trade negotiations and EU enlargement. There is, therefore, a need, as well as an important opportunity, to continue to develop new ways of promoting sustainable rural development in Europe that meet social, economic and environmental objectives. This pan-European research project on the rural development instruments of the EU was undertaken to promote a European debate on policies needed to support sustainable rural development, and to inform and influence the mid-term review of the Rural Development Regulation (RDR), further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and other policies relevant to sustainable rural development. The research aimed to explore implementation of rural development programmes supported under the EU’s Rural Development Regulation (RDR) 1257/1999 and the SAPARD pre-accession instrument (1268/1999). The study examined the extent to which these programmes are promoting integrated and sustainable rural development, the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the coherence of rural development policies with environmental legislation. The research was sponsored by the Land Use Policy Group (LUPG) of Great Britain’s conservation, countryside and environment agencies1 and WWF Europe2. The study was co-ordinated by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), the Centre for Rural Economy (CRE) at Newcastle University, Leeds University and IDRISI, working with a consortium of independent consultants in thirteen European countries. Research was carried out between September 2001 and August 2002. IEEP also co-ordinated the production of a separate comparative report, which analyses the combined findings and compares the various approaches to planning, implementation and monitoring of RDR and SAPARD programmes across Europe. The project builds upon a scoping project ‘The Nature of Rural Development’3 which compared the meaning of rural development and the institutional structures for its implementation in ten European countries. Aims
The principal aims of the project were to compare the approaches of various stakeholders to planning, implementation and monitoring of RDR and SAPARD programmes, and assess how far they can deliver a sustainable balance of economic, social and environmental
11 CCoouunnttrryyssiiddee AAggeennccyy,, CCoouunnttrryyssiiddee CCoouunncciill ffoorr WWaalleess,, EEnngglliisshh NNaattuurree,, SSccoottttiisshh NNaattuurraall HHeerriittaaggee aanndd tthhee EEnnvviirroonnmmeenntt AAggeennccyy,, wwoorrkkiinngg wwiitthh tthhee JJooiinntt NNaattuurree CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn CCoommmmiitttteeee.. TThheessee aaggeenncciieess hhaavvee eessttaabblliisshheedd tthhee LLUUPPGG ooff aaggeennccyy ppoolliiccyy ddiirreeccttoorrss ttoo aaddvviissee oonn ppoolliiccyy mmaatttteerrss ooff ccoommmmoonn ccoonncceerrnn rreellaatteedd ttoo aaggrriiccuullttuurree aanndd ootthheerr llaanndd uusseess,, ttoo ccoo--oorrddiinnaattee rreesseeaarrcchh aanndd iinnppuutt iinnttoo EEuurrooppeeaann aanndd iinntteerrnnaattiioonnaall ppoolliiccyy--mmaakkiinngg.. 22 WWWWFF EEuurrooppee iinncclluuddeess tthhee WWWWFF EEuurrooppeeaann PPoolliiccyy OOffffiiccee aanndd aa rraannggee ooff WWWWFF NNaattiioonnaall OOrrggaanniissaattiioonnss,, iinncclluuddiinngg tthhee UUKK,, GGeerrmmaannyy,, AAuussttrriiaa,, HHuunnggaarryy,, PPoollaanndd,, SSwweeddeenn aanndd SSppaaiinn.. 33 TThhee NNaattuurree ooff RRuurraall DDeevveellooppmmeenntt:: TToowwaarrddss aa SSuussttaaiinnaabbllee IInntteeggrraatteedd RRuurraall PPoolliiccyy iinn EEuurrooppee,, ccoommppaarraattiivvee ppaann--EEuurrooppeeaann ((aanndd 1100 nnaattiioonnaall)) rreeppoorrttss pprroodduucceedd ffoorr WWWWFF EEuurrooppee aanndd tthhee LLUUPPGG aaggeenncciieess bbyy IIEEEEPP aanndd tthhee CCRREE,, 22000011.. RReeppoorrttss ccaann bbee ddoowwnnllooaaddeedd aatt:: wwwwww..ppaannddaa..oorrgg//rreessoouurrcceess//pprrooggrraammmmeess//eeppoo//ppuubblliiccaattiioonnss//aaggppuubb..ccffmm..
3
benefits. Stakeholders included environmental, rural development and farming organisation and government authorities. The project also aimed to promote examples of good practice (particularly in relation to creative approaches to implementing rural development measures, but also in planning and monitoring) in the countries selected. Case studies have been selected to illustrate issues raised during national research, examples of integrated rural development, and particularly creative use of RDR/SAPARD measures. Method
The following national experts were commissioned to carry out in-depth national research, in co-operation with national WWF officers. AAuusstt rriiaa Robert Lukesch OAR Regionalberatung International
France Henry Buller University of Cheltenham and Gloucester
Germany Dirk Schubert Nova-Institut [email protected]
Hungary Gusztav Nemes Institute of Economics
Poland Zbigniew Karaczun Warsaw Agricultural University
Spain José Sumpsi Vinas University of Madrid
Sweden Karl Bruckmeier University of Gothenburg
UK Neil Ward University of Leeds [email protected]
The national research was carried out according to an agreed common framework. National researchers also undertook various national, regional and local case studies that are available from the WWF.
Core countries within the study area
Selected experts from other European countries were also invited to contribute to the study via participation in team meetings and seminars and comments on the draft comparative
Core study areas
Other EU Member States and Candidate Countries
4
analysis. A pan-European Roundtable was held in Brussels in April 2002 with the aim of validating emerging findings and gathering additional information and views from a wide range of stakeholders. Over 80 representatives of national and regional governments and agencies, environmental NGOs, farming NGOs, the European Commission and universities from across Europe attended this forum. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
Tel: +44 (0)20 7799 2244
Email: [email protected]
Zbigniew M. Karaczun
Warsaw Agricultural University
Tel: + 48 22 843 9041
Email: [email protected]
5
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................. 6 1. Polish agricultural policy at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries.......... 8
1.1 Polish rural policy....................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Pact for Agriculture and Rural Areas ....................................................................... 10
2. Present position of the SAPARD Programme in Poland........................ 14 2.1 Preparation of the SAPARD Programme................................................................ 14 2.2 Role of the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture................ 15
3. The SAPARD Operational Programme ................................................. 16 3.1 The SAPARD Operational Programme................................................................... 16 3.2 The agri-environmental pilot programme ................................................................ 20 3.3 Measures of SAPARD Programme in Poland .......................................................... 21 3.4 System for monitoring and controlling..................................................................... 24
4. Problems with implementing SAPARD in Poland.................................. 25 4.1 Different opinion on SAPARD Programme implementation................................... 26 4.2 The prognosis of the impact of SAPARD ................................................................ 28
Conclusions and recommendations............................................................ 30
6
Introduction Poland is historically an agricultural country, where arable land is the dominant factor in the land structure. This branch, therefore, plays important role in the national economy. In 1945 the share of agriculture in GDP production accounted for over 60%, and in spite of the fact that the share of agriculture in GDP creation is decreasing (in 1990 it was equal 14.9% in 1998 – 4.2%), the soils used for agricultural and forestry purposes still dominate (see Table 1). Additionally, a quarter of Poland’s population lives in the rural area. Table 1 Changes in the form of soil utilisation in Poland Share (in %) of the country territory in specific years
1950 1980 1990 1998
Agricultural soils
Forests and soils covered with trees
Others
65,5
22,0
12,5
60,6
27,8
11,6
59,9
28,0
12,1
59,0
28,5
12,5
[GUS 1999] Polish farmers paid high price for the maintenance of private ownership during the communist era, in the form of backwardness and insufficient investment. Most of the farms and villages have insufficiently developed infrastructure. There is a lack of sewerage or water pipelines, telephone, etc. (Table 2). It is considered as an important barrier for the sustainable development of rural areas. Table 2 Equipment of households in installations % of apartments with specific installations Urban areas Rural areas 1990 1998 1990 1998 Water pipelines 95,3 97,4 67,6 80,8 Toilet 86,0 89,0 49,4 61,4 Bathroom 83,5 87,4 54,2 65,3 Gas from the network 71,8 76,0 6,3 13,9 Central heating 74,4 79,6 42,9 52,2
[GUS 1999] A serious problem which may have a negative impact on the possibilities for the sustainable development of rural areas is the level of education of people who live in these areas – it is much lower than the level of education of inhabitants of the cities (Table 3). Table 3 The level of education of inhabitants of rural areas and cities in Poland (individuals over 15 years of age)
Education level Cities Rural areas Higher High school and specialised schools Vocational Primary school Not completed primary school or with no education
9,8 34,1 24,7 27,6 3,8
1,9 15,4 28,1 43,8 10,8
Agriculture has an impact on biodiversity. Agriculture is especially significant as it covers a high acreage of agricultural land in acreage of the protected areas (Table 4) . Unsolved ownership issues in the protected areas, and lack of national agri-environmental Programmes lead to local conflicts of interests between agriculture and nature flora
7
Table 4. Share of agricultural soils in protected areas in 1998 Type of the protected areas Number Surface in thousands ha
Total Including agricultural soils
National parks Reserves Landscape parks Areas of protected landscape
22 1251 120 401
305,7 141,2 2482,2 6840,2
40,59 0
900,9 3275,5
The necessity of introducing sustainable development to agriculture and rural areas has been emphasised during recent years. Agricultural policy has also significantly evolved from being oriented solely on production issues, towards an orientation that emphasises the necessity of multifunctional development of rural areas. Despite the fact that these issues have been quite widely discussed, a generally accepted definition of sustainable development of agriculture or rural areas still does not exist. As a part of this study, a survey was conducted among scientists and experts working on agricultural issues. The results of this survey indicate that there exists a consensus on the necessity to discuss the concept of sustainable development of rural areas, with agricultural development as only one of its components. However, this is where this consensus ends. Besides a very general opinion that “sustainable development of rural areas” means achieving balance in three fields: social, economic and environmental, there is no common position on what the concept means in practice and how sustainable development of rural areas can be supported by practical activities. Lack of a common position in this field makes it difficult to evaluate programmes related to agriculture and rural areas, as it is difficult to distinguish which of them are sustainable and which are not. Therefore, the authors of this study decided to analyse the results obtained from research conducted in the first phase of the project. The research allowed to identify obstacles in achieving sustainable rural development4. The most important of them were5:
• poverty and the extremely bad economic situation of the majority of people living in rural areas;
• a high unemployment rate and lack of jobs in rural areas outside the agricultural sector;
• lack of familiarity and the ability among farmers for mutual co-operation, and an unwillingness to establish agricultural co-operatives and producer groups;
• a low level of education among country dwellers;
• lack of or an extremely bad state of technical infrastructure in rural areas.
44 In this text “Sustainable rural development” is understood as a creation of working and living conditions in rural areas which are safe for the environment as well as providing adequate civilisation standards so as to allow rural people (current as well as future generation) to achieve their environmental, economic , educational, cultural and social objectives. 5 See also: Karaczun Z., M., 2000: Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: The Polish National Report. Warsaw. December 2000. The criteria specified above are not the only indicators allowed for assessing sustainable development of the rural areas. They constitute one of the possible systems for evaluation of SAPARD impact. Apart from carrying out evaluation based on these criteria, a broader analysis of SAPARD influence on the development of rural areas in Poland will be presented in the text.
8
The above indicators have been acknowledged as criteria for conducting an evaluation of the role which is played by the SAPARD Programme in Poland. If the Programme provides for activities which will help to remove the above mentioned obstacles (and if at the same time it does not create any new obstacles for sustainable development), it will be possible to state that its implementation plays a positive role in achieving sustainable development.
This report is divided into three basic parts:
1. Part one (the first chapter) describes the context, conditioned by the national agricultural policy, in which the SAPARD Programme is implemented in Poland. It describes the main directions of public support for Polish agriculture and presents the Pact for Agriculture and Rural Areas, i.e. the document describing the main directions of Polish agricultural policy and directly referring to the SAPARD Programme.
2. Part two (chapters two and three) presents the current status of the SAPARD Programme in Poland and an analysis of the SAPARD Operational Programme.
3. Part three (chapter four) presents an evaluation of the role fulfilled by SAPARD in Polish agriculture and an analysis of the Programme’s impact on achieving sustainable development in the rural areas of Poland.
1. Polish agricultural policy at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries
A thorough evaluation of the Polish SAPARD Programme is not possible without prior consideration of the background in which this Programme is implemented. This is due to the fact that both the way of introducing changes and the scope of those changes are related not only to the requirements of the European Union but also, to the way in which the Polish authorities and specialists approach the problems of agriculture and rural area development. Therefore, before presenting the analysis of the SAPARD Operational Programme and problems related to its implementation, basic issues of the Polish agricultural policy will be described6.
1.1 Polish rural policy Despite the fact that the development of Polish agricultural policy was strongly influenced by the 1992 CAP reform, a system of subsidies for rural areas similar to the system present in the EU has not been developed7 and the scope of instruments for preserving environmental values in the rural areas can be considered as too narrow. The main activities related to the above mentioned issues are:
• support for breeding native breeds of farm animals in order to keep their stocks at an adequate level;
• support for organic farming and for conversion to organic farming;
• support for afforestation of agricultural land;
6 Due to the fact that the evolution of Polish agricultural policy was discussed in previous study, the present paper will examine only chosen elements of the policy. See: Karaczun Z., M.. 2000. Ibid 77 IUCN Poland, WWF Poland, 2001: The Development of Rural Areas. Integration of Nature Protection with Agricultural Policy. IUCN, WWF. Warsaw
9
• support for technical assistance in the field of defining suitable fertiliser and pesticide doses;
• support for agricultural technical assistance.
The development of rural areas can also be supported by subsidising environmental protection. The subsidies may be financed by environmental funds or by foundations sponsoring such undertakings8. Subsidies are to be provided for projects related to water supply and sewage disposal, air quality protection or projects aimed at organising waste management.
In recent years the state has provided some support for the development of agrotourism. Agrotourism has become popular in Poland, and it is treated by farmers as an additional, and sometimes primary source of income. Regional and local authorities are becoming increasingly interested in this form of activity9. Increasing this form of recreation could create a chance for the sustainable development of rural areas as it may be carried out only in naturally attractive areas with appropriately developed infrastructure (not only with regard to technical, but also social and cultural infrastructure)10. Therefore, as the number of farms implementing agrotourism increases, the number of individuals interested in the sustainable development of rural areas also increases. Support is provided mainly through the simplification of income tax procedures for agrotourism, establishing credit lines for starting such activity and advisory activities.
One should not forget, however, that the uncontrolled development of rural tourism constitutes a threat, especially as to date no system of control of the environmental impact of agrotourism exists11.
One characteristic trait of the Polish agriculture support system is that it does not have a long-term character. This is due to the fact that the extent as well as the scope of the support granted for particular objectives is defined annually and depends more on the availability of public budget resources than on the real needs of the agricultural sector. Therefore, the programmes prepared within this framework are not stable. Moreover, subjects who wish to carry out activities supported by the state are not able to predict the extent of the support and for what period of time it will be granted. This situation can be mainly attributed to the fact that the more difficult the financial situation in the Polish budget becomes, the less public resources are allocated for supporting Polish agricultural policy12. This claim is confirmed by data presented in Table 5.
8 The system of environmental funds and foundations supporting rural areas development was described in detail in: Karaczun Z., M., 2000: Actors, Institutions and Attitudes to Rural Development: The Polish National Report. Warsaw. December 2000 9 Zbrozek, O., 1999: Analysis of possibilities of development of agrotourism in the region of Western Polesie. Masters thesis of the Department for Environmental Protection of Warsaw Agricultural Univesity, Warsaw 10 Information of Public Relations Division of MARD, computer printout, Warsaw 2000 11 Kamieniecka, J., Borkowska, E., 1994: Development of pro-ecological tourism in Poland. Institute for Sustainable Development, Warsaw. 12 Stanislaw Kalemba - MP, a speech during the meeting of Parliamentary Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development, 3.07.2001
10
Table 5. Agriculture expenses covered from the state budget (in thousand PLN), years 1998-2000
1998 1999 2000
Expenses on agriculture including ASIF* 15034868 17020248 17468275
Expanses on agriculture excluding ASIF 3959581 3691278 3705991
The share of expanses on agriculture in overall budget expanses (including ASIF)
10,76 % 12,30% 11,56%
The share of expanses on agriculture in overall budget expanses (excluding ASIF)
2,83 % 2,67% 2,45%
The share of expanses on agriculture in GDP (including ASIF)
2,72 % 2,77% 2,55%
The share of expanses on agriculture in GDP (excluding ASIF)
0,72% 0,60% 0,54%
* ASIF – Agricultural Social Insurance Fund
The data presented in Table 5 confirms yet another characteristic trait of Polish agricultural policy - the fact that the majority of financial public means for supporting agriculture is allocated for social insurance for farmers by means of ASIF (about 95% for social insurance, 5% for health and social care). The fact that agricultural policy is dominated by social expenses has two negative effects. Firstly, the necessity to provide substantial means for insurance results in lack of sufficient resources for supporting activities directly related to agriculture and rural development (the data confirms this threat; although subsidies for ASIF have not increased during the last few years, as expenses on agriculture have been limited). Secondly, allocating relatively large sums of money for ASIF from the state budget, and including these sums in overall expanses on agriculture, provide an excuse for a lack of unified strategy for the whole sector. Politicians’ common response to the objection that not enough support is provided for agriculture and rural development is that they cannot allocate more money for agricultural development as already more than 10% of financial means available in overall budget expenses is assigned for agricultural purposes.
1.2 Pact for Agriculture and Rural Areas An attempt to alter this approach towards the development of agriculture and rural areas was undertaken by the end of the 1990s. A number of strategic documents was prepared: “Medium-term Strategy for Development of Agriculture and Rural Areas”, “Coherent Structural Policy for Rural Areas and Agriculture Development” and the “Pact for Agriculture and Rural Areas”13. The last document was prepared as a kind of a social agreement beyond political divisions. Therefore, before it was accepted by the Council of Ministers in July 1999 a number of relatively broad consultations had been carried out not only with agricultural organisations and agricultural producers but also with parties and associations representing agriculture and rural areas.
13 An analysis of two first documents: “Medium-term Strategy for Development of Agriculture and Rural Areas” and „Coherent Structural Policy for Rural Areas and Agriculture Development” was conducted in Karaczun Z. M., 2000: Ibid
11
The aim of the Pact is to “improve the chances of country dwellers so that they could, similarly to city dwellers, benefit from the possibilities created by a market economy i.e. receive appropriate incomes and improve their standard of living . . .”14. Undertakings presented in the quoted document are aimed at the multifunctional development of rural areas and they concern intervention activities performed by the state “which are indispensable to the implemenation oft market economy mechanisms and to prevent certain negative effects of a free market . . .”15. The above mentioned programmes were divided, with respect to their aims, into three pillars:
1. support for agriculture and its environment;
2. enhancement of economic activity and the creation of more non-agricultural jobs ;
3. support for creating a comprehensive social policy for agriculture and rural areas and developing civilisation infrastructure in rural areas16.
The document presents undertakings which should be carried out during coming years within the above mentioned framework and specifies institutions responsible for their implementation as well as the financial sources providing the means for its implementation (however, it does not specify the amount of money necessary to carry out particular undertakings). For the purposes of this study, the document discussed is of interest due to the fact that the implementation of the majority of undertakings provided for in the document, was to be financed from SAPARD17.
Pillar I - support for agriculture and its environment
Within this pillar the following activities were to be financially supported by SAPARD:
• investments in farms related to their modernisation and improvement in product quality;
• improvement of the current farm structure;
• development of producer groups;
• development of co-operative initiatives and ensuring modern organisation of agri-food market;
• modernisation of the agri-food sector and improvement of quality of agri-food products; farmers’ participation in the privatisation process.
Financial support from SAPARD was not to be provided for remaining five activity directions proposed within this pillar:
• interventions on the market of particular agri-food products;
14 The Council of Ministers, 1999: The Pact for Agriculture and Rural Areas. Typescript. Council Of Ministers Office. Warsaw. „the Pact …” was prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture on the basis of wide public consultations. Therefore, its provisions reflect expectations of rural areas inhabitants with regard to the development of agriculture and rural areas. 15 ibid 16 In his study Siekierski (Siekierski Cz., 2000: The Assumptions of Polish Policy for Agriculture and Rural Areas [in] Strategic Options for the Polish Agro-Business Sector in the Light of Economic Analyses. Research and Implementation Centre of WAU and FAPA. Warsaw) states that the Pact also includes Pillar IV: Institutionalisation of partnership and dialogue on agriculture. However, the activities within this pillar were not discussed in detail in the document referred to. 17 The Council of Ministers, 1999: Ibid
12
• procurement credits for agriculture;
• more effective protection against excessive or subsidised imports of agri-food products;
• biological development;
• tax regulations in agriculture.
Pillar II - enhancement of economic activity and creation of more non agricultural jobs
Within this pillar the following activity directions were to be financed from SAPARD:
• infrastructure projects;
• credits and loans for creating non agricultural jobs.
Remaining activities were to be sponsored mainly by state means. It was proposed that five of them (the first five listed here) will be financed from other EU funds: PHARE programme and support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
• local centres for the enhancement of economic activity;
• promotion of investments in rural areas;
• development of tourism and agri-tourism;
• vocational training and assistance programmes;
• counteraction against unemployment among graduates;
• microcredits;
• guarantees enabling SME to receive bank credits.
Pillar III - support for creating comprehensive social policy for agriculture and rural areas and developing civilisation infrastructure in rural areas.
It was assumed that the majority of activity directions within this pillar would be financed from the state budget, self-governmental budgets and other state/public financial resources. Only two activity types were to be financially supported from EU programmes (SAPARD and ISPA):
• the protection of rural areas with high nature values;
• increasing the forestry sector’s role in the development of rural areas and supporting the National Programme for Increasing Forest Coverage.
The following activities within this pillar were to be financed solely by domestic means:
• popularising education among children of pre-school age;
• modernising primary schools;
• developing modern secondary education schools (gimnazja);
• increasing access to and improving the quality of schools of secondary education (licea);
13
• creating and developing schools of higher education and increasing access to higher education institutions with high standards;
• developing a scholarship and loan systems for students;
• providing scholarships, fellowships and trainings for teachers and doctors (who start working in rural areas);
• providing term contracts for specialists required in the country;
• supporting rural institutions as well as cultural and sport initiatives;
• developing health programmes and illness prevention initiatives;
• promoting and providing security and hygiene of work in agriculture;
• developing health rehabilitation possibilities for the handicapped from rural areas;
• providing a well functioning social care system;
• providing social insurance for farmers;
• improving the system of social insurance for farmers;
• providing possibilities for social and vocational rehabilitation of the handicapped living in rural areas.
The above review indicates that the authors of the Pact intended to balance different economic, social and environmental aspects within the agricultural policy. However, it soon turned out that when put into practice, agricultural policy was still dominated by issues of agricultural production. This appears to be confirmed by the governmental proposal of financial support for each pillar. In 200118, it was proposed that from all public means earmarked for the Pact implementation 43% should be allocated for supporting activities from Pillar I, 49% from Pillar II, only 7% from Pillar III and mere 1% for activities from Pillar IV19. This proved that support for agriculture and its social and economic environment was considered as the most significant direction of agricultural policy20.
Although the Pact was approved two years ago, an official evaluation of its implementation still has not been carried out. Such a situation may ensue for two reasons. Firstly, it appears quite probable that despite declarations to further unify support for agricultural development, in fact, increasing agricultural incomes still remains the main aim of agricultural policy, and creating conditions for the sustainable, multifunctional development of rural areas is of marginal significance21. Secondly, the Pact was prepared with an assumption that its aims would not be fully implemented and that it would be a document of a declarative character, which was aimed at pacifying moods prevalent in society at that time.
18 Ibid 1199 See footnote 13 20 Currently it is not possible to evaluate to what extent the projected expenses were accurate – data on 2001 budget exp enses will be available only in summer 2002. However, the prognosis of exp enses on implementing the Pact shows that there exists the actual political will to allocate public means for the support of agriculture and rural development. 21 Majewski E., Dalton G., 2000: Strategic Challenges for Polish Agriculture and Food Processing Sector in the Context of EU Accession [in] Strategic Options for Polish Agro-Business Sector in the Light of Economic Analyses. Research and Implementation Centre of WAU and FAPA. Warsaw p. 7 - 40
14
Despite the above mentioned reservations a number of experts highlights the significance of the Pact. According to Fiedor (2001)22 the document represents an approach which is appropriate with respect to the idea of the sustainable and environmentally friendly development of rural areas. The provisions included in the Pact clearly indicate that agricultural policy cannot be focused solely on the development of agricultural production, but it should take into consideration all the issues related to rural areas, and that social and environmental aspects should play an important part in this policy. Such a claim remains true despite the fact that the Pact was prepared with an assumption that it would not be fully implemented. The authors of the Pact were aware of the fact that people concerned with the document expected that the government would take up activities supporting sustainable development of rural areas.
For the purposes of this study it is interesting to note that the document indicates what rolethe SAPARD Programme should play in the development of Polish agriculture and rural areas. It was assumed that financial means from SAPARD would be allocated for supporting activities related to development of agriculture, increasing its competitiveness and creating new jobs, but also for projects related to environmental protection, development of infrastructure in rural areas and to afforestation. The analysis of the Pact is interesting due to the fact that it is the first document prepared wholly in Poland that would directly refers to financing of particular aims of the agricultural policy from the SAPARD fund. Therefore, it may be assumed that the document reflects the actual intentions of Polish authorities in relation to the way in which the instrument is to be employed. As it turned out, similar aims were specified for SAPARD in its Operational Programme.
2. Present position of the SAPARD Programme in Poland
2.1 Preparation of the SAPARD Programme The preparation of the SAPARD Operational Programme was initiated in the middle of 1999, soon after the publication of its Regulation (1268/99). Within six months Poland prepared its first version of the Operational Programme, which was in accordance with the regulation, and in December 1999 it was submitted to the European Union. This document constituted a basis for negotiations between Poland and EU and for preparing subsequent versions of the Programme (see below), which was finally accepted by the European Union on 18 October 2000. At the same time when the Operational Programme was being prepared, activities aimed at creating a system for SAPARD implementation were being conducted. The main difficulties with starting the Programme related to the way in which it was financed and managed. SAPARD is co-financed by the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and it should fulfil the requirements of the fund. Until SAPARD was introduced the fund had been used for financing activities carried out solely in EU Member States. Therefore, it was for the first time that the Union decided to allocate financial means from the fund outside its borders. This resulted in numerous difficulties mostly related to the fact that the Accession Countries were obliged to create a stable organisational and institutional system that would ensure that the financial means they receive are spent according to the plan.
22 Fiedor B., 2001: Agricultural Policy[in] Eco-innovations of Strategic Documents. An Attempt at Evaluation. Ed. K. Kamieniecki. Institute for Sustainable Development. Warsaw. p. 88 - 100
15
2.2 Role of the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture The above mentioned fact was one of the main reasons for delay in starting the Programme. According to the staff of the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture, the requirements of the European Commission that had to be met by accredited SAPARD paying agencies were more demanding that those which had to be met by agencies operating in Member States. In practice, the EU requirements led to a solution that one institution should be responsible for SAPARD implementation. It was decided that the role of a paying and implementing agency should be fulfilled in Poland by the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture (ARMA).
Therefore, the Multiannual Financial Agreement was signed as late as 25 January 2001 and the first annual financial agreement on 29 March 2001. The annual agreement specified the Community’s financial input to the SAPARD Programme, from the resources provided for the year 2000. At the same time activities aiming at ARMA’s accreditation as a paying agency were conducted. The accreditation of ARMA as a SAPARD Agency and of the institutional system for managing the Programme, which includes Ministry of Finance as ‘the National Fund’ and Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) as the ‘Managing Authority’ is the last formal condition which has to be fulfilled before the Programme’s financial resources are made available. As it has already been noted, ARMA, as a SAPARD Agency, will fulfil a twofold function as an implementing and paying agency. It will also be responsible for supervising the undertakings of particular institutions to which certain functions and activities will be transferred. Foundation of Assistance Programmes for Agriculture (FAPA) and The National Advisory Centre for Agriculture and Rural Development23 are such institutions. According to the Multiannual Financial Agreement the implementing function of the ARMA as the SAPARD Agency will be to: call the parties interested in submitting applications; state the conditions for qualification; accept and formally verify applications for financial support; provide an evaluation of applications in relation to their technical and economic aspects; conclude agreements with beneficiaries; and monitor and conduct reporting activities. The number of agreements to be signed will be limited by budgets for particular Measures. The paying function of the SAPARD Agency will be: to review applications for payment; conduct on-the-spot controls and specify whether the payment should be granted; grant permissions for the payment; and realise payments and register commitments and payments.
The steps undertaken to adjust ARMA to the requirements for the accreditation were of a comprehensive character. The pace of the changes was, to a great extent, determined by external conditions, both in Poland and in the European Union. The preparations included: organisational changes (change of organisational structure, establishing sixteen regional units of the Agency), providing necessary computer service, extensive staff training, professional assistance in adjusting for the accreditation those units to which certain functions and activities will be transferred from the SAPARD Agency. The most significant (and the most difficult) element of the process was the preparation of detailed implementation and payment procedures. Several volumes of procedures were prepared, including implementation procedures for particular Measures provided for in the SAPARD Programme, as well as financial accounting, control and other procedures.
23 A more thorough discussion of the institutions in: Karaczun Z.M., 2001: Ibid
16
Despite these long-lasting preparations, the accreditation process for ARMA has not been completed until now. The state accreditation process was carried out by the Arthur Andersen Consulting Company. The results were submitted to the European Commission on 31 May 2001. Officially, the state act of accreditation was granted for the ARMA on 20 September 2001. However, the completion of the accreditation procedure carried out by the EU has been delayed. It was still not completed in May 2002.
3. The SAPARD Operational Programme
3.1 The SAPARD Operational Programme The basis on which the SAPARD Operational Programme has been prepared is constituted by the National Programme of Preparation for EU Membership, which specifies the priorities in the field of adjustment of agriculture and rural areas to EU standards. The priorities include: establishment and implementation of coherent structural policy for development of agriculture and rural areas, harmonisation of veterinary and phytosanitary law and administrative structures, modernisation of particular food sectors (dairy sector, meat sector, fruit and vegetable processing sector), environmental aspects of agriculture, and the preparation for CAP implementation. According to the authors of the SAPARD Operational Programme, the most significant aims of the Polish agricultural policy, with which the Programme should be in line, are:
• the creation of working and living conditions in rural areas which are adequate to current civilisation standards so as to allow rural people to achieve their economic, educational, cultural and social objectives;
• restructuring the agricultural sector by putting in place conditions allowing the adaptation of agriculture to the changing economic and social situation;
• creating conditions for the sustainable development of rural areas, protection of the natural environment and the rural cultural heritage25.
However, the first version of the Operational Programme was focused on measures that would support agricultural production and would make Polish agriculture and agri-food processing more competitive. It was proposed to allocate for those measures about 70% of the financial resources which Poland will receive by means of the SAPARD Programme (Table 6). Financial resources allocated for other measures were to be substantially smaller.
24 Siekierski Cz. – Deputy Minister of Agriculture. A speech during the MARD Seminar which took place on 16.01.2002 in Warsaw. 25 These are aims defined in: Medium-term Strategy for Development of Agriculture and Rural Areas, which was accepted by the Council of Ministers in April 1998.
17
Table 6. The allocation of financial resources for achieving particular objectives of the SAPARD Programme as postulated in the first version of the Operational Programme.
Programme’s Objective Measure Scope Budget in million Euro
Priority axis I
Improvement in processing and marketing of food and fishery products
Modernisation of processing plants, process lines, etc.
1 678.82
Investments in agricultural holdings Modernisation of diary and animal production, investments in animal farms
367,92
Priority axis II
Development of rural infrastructure Development of road system, telephone lines, sewerage and water supply systems, etc.
438.27
Diversification of economic activities in rural areas in order support multifunctional development of rural areas and to create alternative sources of income
Capital grants and loans for creating new jobs, enhancing economic activities, providing technical assistance, etc. Agri-environmental pilot project
542.84
Complementary Axis
Technical assistance 34.77
TOTAL 3 062.62
According to Leiber (2001) the way in which the aims of the SAPARD Programme were formulated in its first version shows backwardness of the politicians who were responsible for the preparation and implementation of the Programme in Poland. The author compares the Programme with the EU agricultural policy from the 1960’s and 70’s26. However, it appears that the criticism is too harsh. The shape of the SAPARD Programme is determined not only by political choices of the people preparing the Operational Programme (although their impact is tremendous) but also by the results of consultations conducted, and therefore, it reflects the way in which agricultural problems are perceived by farmers, scientists, experts, technical assistants, etc. Moreover, even though final version the SAPARD Operational Programme, which was a result of negotiations between Poland and the European Commission (and according to Leiber, it was prepared under pressures of the EU administration27) is somewhat different from the first version, in reality only one new aim was introduced i.e. vocational training for farmers (Table 3).
Nevertheless, the final version of the Operational Programme differs from the first version as it includes much more detailed description of environmental protection problems in Poland, highlights the need to take account of environmental problems in vocational trainings for farmers and emphasises the significance of organic farming. During the negotiation process the Polish side proposed to introduce a separate SAPARD component 26 Leiber T., 2001: Can SAPARD Form the Foundations for Agri-Environmental Sustainability. Paper presented at the ACE Seminar on Sustainable Agriculture in CEE Countries. 10 - 16.09.2001. Nitra Slovakia 27 Leiber T. ibid (p.18)
18
i.e. a support for installing facilities for liquid animal waste storage in agricultural holdings28. However, due to controversy related to the extent of financing provided from EU sources for such investments, the measures did not acquire the status of a separate SAPARD component29. Due to the fact that the SAPARD Programme has not started yet, it is difficult to evaluate its influence on the reduction of water pollution by agriculture. It is also impossible to evaluate in detail the impact of SAPARD on other environmental protection activities in rural areas. It should be noted, however, that both the SAPARD Operational Programme, and statements of the officials from the Ministry of Agriculture emphasise that these activities will play a crucial role. It is, therefore, possible that the implementation of some of the projects will result in environmental protection improvement in rural areas (see below).
The authors of the Operational Programme placed an emphasis on those sectors in the field of adjusting Polish agriculture to the conditions of the Common Market which, according to them, required the largest investment input and which will be crucial for integration of Polish agriculture and rural areas into the Single Market30. Under Council Regulation No 1268/1999, Article 1, support shall be granted to facilitate meeting the requirements defined by the Partnership for Accession and shall relate in particular to:
• the implementation of the acquis communautaire with respect to the Common Agricultural Policy and related policies;
• solving priority problems related to the adjustment of agriculture and rural areas to the CAP.
On this basis the following objectives for the SAPARD Programme were defined31:
• improvement of the competitiveness of Polish agriculture and the agri-food sector on both domestic and international markets;
• adjustment of the Polish agri-food sector to the sanitary, hygiene and quality standards of the Single Market;
• encouragement of multifunctional rural development, especially via developing technical infrastructure and creating conditions for non-agricultural economic activities in rural areas.
The Polish SAPARD Programme is based around two priority axes (Table 7):
• Improvement of market efficiency in the agri-food sector;
• Improvement of conditions for economic activities and job creation;
supported by a complementary axis.
28 Magdalena Nowicka - chief specialist in Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. An interview. 29For a more thorough discussion of this issue see: Karaczun Z. M., 2001: Problems of Transposition and Implementation of the Requirements imposed by the directive 91/676/EEC in Poland. Paper presented at the ACE Seminar on Sustainable Agriculture in CEE Countries. 10 - 16.09.2001. Nitra Slovakia 30 The SAPARD Operational Programme. 31 Ibid
19
According to the authors of the Operational Programme, the basic assumption is to achieve balance between two priority axes in relation to both the objectives and allocation of financial resources from SAPARD.
Table 7. The allocation of financial resources for achieving particular objectives of the SAPARD Programme as postulated in the final version of the Operational Programme.
Measures Budget in millions Euro
Priority axis I: Improvement of the market efficiency of the agri-food sector Measure 1 - Improvement in processing and marketing of food and fishery products
1 195.52
Measure 2 - Investments in agricultural holdings 554.89
Priority axis II: Improvement of conditions for economic activities and job creation Measure 3 - Development of rural infrastructure 445.96
Measure 4 - Diversification of economic activities in rural areas 362.77
Complementary axis
Measure 5 - Agri-environmental measures and afforestation (pilot projects)
30.56
Measure 6 - Vocational training 34.15
Measure 7 - Technical assistance 32.46
TOTAL 2 656.31
Prior to preparation of the SAPARD Operational Programme, relatively broad consultations were conducted with different social and professional groups. Moreover, regional consultations were carried out in each viovodship (region). It is a novelty that the Operational Programme includes information on the scope and results of the consultations, identifies people and groups which participated in them and presents their comments on the Programme. It is particularly significant due to the fact that although the practice to conduct social consultations on strategic documents has been present in Poland since the beginning of the 1990s, it is for the first time that such reliable and detailed information on the consultation process was included in a state document.
According to Nowicka32 all measures of the Programme include objectives related to environmental protection. For example, measure 1 - Improvement in processing and marketing of food and fishery products includes the objective of installing environmental protection facilities in agri-food holdings; measure 2 - Investments in agricultural holdings includes the objective of installing tanks for slurry storage and manure storage facilities;
3322 Nowicka Magdalena, chief specialist in MRRD. An interview.
20
measure 3 - Development of rural infrastructure includes establishing local and regional waste disposal stations, water treatment facilities, developing the sewerage system, etc. (see below) Nevertheless, when considering the aim of developing sustainable agriculture in Poland, implementing the agri-environmental pilot programme will be of the greatest significance33.
3.2 The agri-environmental pilot programme The importance of the agri-environmental pilot programme ensues from two reasons. Firstly, Poland lacks instruments of this type and, therefore, the fact that agricultural lands are located in protected areas often leads to a conflict between agricultural production and the necessity to protect the environment34. In such situation the administration responsible for environmental protection does not possess an instrument that would enable it to solve such a conflict. Secondly, agri-environmental programmes include a significant educational element. Farmers who decide to implement those programmes will cease to be solely agricultural producers but they will begin to provide environmental services, which will be economically advantageous for them. In the long run this should increase the involvement of farmers in carrying out activities for environmental protection.
The agri-environmental pilot programme will be carried out in several regions in Poland:
• The Narew and the Biebrza river valleys, which constitute the largest complex of wetland and peat areas in Europe, and are a refuge for numerous bird species. The Pilot Programme should cover 11000 ha (47% of the utilised agricultural area in the river valleys).
• The Lower Warta river valley, which has a unique breeding biotope of wading birds as well as migrating birds (60% of Polish avifauna species). The Pilot Programme should cover 1,500 ha (35% of the planned permanent grassland areas in the river valley).
• The Warminsko-mazurski region, the area of ‘the Polish Green Lungs’, which is characterised by diversified landscape features, a small level of urbanisation and a relatively low level of industry development. The prevalent forms of economic activity are agriculture and tourism. The area is endangered by water and wind erosion. The Programme will cover 13,500 ha.
• The Podkarpacki region, which is a diverse, mountainous area. The problem of abandonment of agricultural land has increased during recent years. The Programme will cover 4,000 ha35.
33 As Table 7 shows the amount of financial resources for agri-environmental Programmes within the SAPARD Programme is very low, and amounts to 1.1% of total outlays. According to officials from the Ministry of Agriculture such allocation is considered as reasonable, as Poland does not have experience in such Programmes. Therefore, in short-term it would not be possible for Poland to absorb any larger funds. Although, this explanation is rational, according to environmental NGOs such an approach is not correct because of the extreme problems with implementation of the agri-environmental pilot Programme and the lack of legal basis for implementing provisions of the Code of Good Agricultural Practice. Therefore, the government should take all the necessary steps to enable larger groups of beneficiaries to take advantage from such activities. 34 A more thorough discussion in: Karaczun Z.M., 2001: Ibid 35 One of the barriers for implementing agri-environmental Programmes in Poland is the lack of Code of Good Agricultural Practice that should be adopted by the government and transposed into legislation. Although the project of the Code has been prepared, due to numerous comments of the Ministry of Agriculture on this document, it has not yet been adopted by the government. The final version of this document is still being prepared and it is not clear when it will be completed. Nevertheless, some of the requirements of the „Code…”
21
Within the framework of agri-environmental programmes two basic components will be implemented. The first aims at biodiversity preservation (maintenance of meadows and pastures of high nature values as well as the preservation and shaping of rural landscapes). The second component aims at developing organic farming. All the farmers with holdings no smaller than 3 ha will be beneficiaries (the limit of minimal farm size is not imposed with regard to organic farms). All the participants will be obliged to take twenty hours of training. It is assumed that about 3,500 farmers will receive agri-environmental payments . Maximum payments for an agricultural farm are specified at Euro 6,000 a year (Euro 10,000 a year for organic farms).
Another direction of activities within the component discussed are undertakings related to the afforestation of marginal areas. Farmers for whom farming is the main source of income and who undertake the afforestation measures on an area over 0.1 ha will be the beneficiaries. The Afforestation Pilot Project will be carried out in two regions: Swietokrzyskie voivodship (central Poland, mountainous area) and Podlaskie voivodship (eastern Poland, lowlands).
3.3 Measures of SAPARD Programme in Poland Other activities will include various works. Some of them may contribute to the improvement of environmental protection in rural areas and decrease the impact of agriculture on the environment. This issue is discussed below: Measure 1: Improvement in processing and marketing of food and fishery products. There will be two directions of activities carried out under this priority: This activity covers two components: 1. Support for restructuring of processing and improvement in marketing animal origin
products (financial support will be provided to e.g. investments aimed at the reduction of nuisance caused by waste water discharges, gas and dust emissions; investments resulting in reductions of energy and water consumption with regard to production processes; and investments in waste and by-product management);
2. Support for restructuring processing and improving marketing of fruit and vegetable products (financial support will be provided for e.g. investments that increase the number of processing plants with sewage treatment facilities and improve by-product and waste management in processing plants);
Project assessment criteria for these two components include e.g. assessment of the quantity of environmental protection investments. Measure 2: Investments in agricultural holdings This measure includes three components: 1. milk production restructuring; 2. livestock farms modernisation; 3. increasing diversification of production of agricultural holdings.
have been transposed into legislation e.g. provisions relating to maximum fertiliser levels , or requirements for having installations for the proper slurry management .
22
Financial support under the first two components may be provided for e.g. construction and purchase of equipment for proper treatment of animal manure. The third component does not provide for any particular activities in the field of environmental protection. Measure 3: Development of the rural infrastructure This measure includes a number of components: • Water supply for rural households, including water purification; • Waste water purification and disposal; • Solid waste management; • Gmina and powiat roads in rural areas; • Energy supply; • Rural telecommunication; The beneficiaries of the financial aid under this measure will be, in particular, municipalities (gminas) and associations of municipalities. Measure 4. Diversification of economic activities in rural areas • Capital grants for investments in diversification of economic activities in rural areas; • Marketing and the promotion of diversification of economic activities in rural areas; Although, this measure does not relate to environmental protection activities (despite providing support for agro-tourism) implementation of this measure is of crucial importance. Unemployment, poverty and lack of jobs outside the agriculture constitute a significant barrier for the sustainable development of rural areas. Measure 6: Vocational training Activities within this measure are aimed at improving the skills and knowledge of farmers taking up additional activities other than conventional agricultural production and at increasing the level of knowledge and skills of farmers managing viable agricultural, forestry and fishery holdings. The Programme does not contain a detailed description of the activities proposed, therefore it is difficult to say to what extent environmental protection issues will be included in the training. Measure 7: Technical assistance Technical assistance will be aimed, in particular, at increasing the efficiency of implementation, of monitoring and controlling the SAPARD Programme at the national, regional and local level. It will also focus on effective targeting of the Programme beneficiaries. Both farmers who would like to participate in agri-environmental programmes and other potential SAPARD beneficiaries will have to meet strict rules when applying for resources36.
• It is forbidden to make use of different assistance resources within one undertaking i.e. resources from the PHARE Programme, from the Rural Development Programme or preferential loans provided by ARMA.
• Co-financing will be carried out only after the project is finished and it will be in the form of a refund defined in the ‘eligible expenditure’ part. In general such expenditures will include the cost of: construction and modernisation of buildings, purchase and
36 www.arimr.gov.pl
23
installation of new machinery and equipment, and of particular items from general expenditures whose cost will not exceed 12% of eligible expenditures. Detailed specification of the costs will be different for each measure, scheme or component.
• The financial help granted will be limited in its sum and by percentage.
1. The maximum sum for Measure 137, depending on the scheme, cannot exceed Euro 350 000 – 1 400 000. Additional Euro 250 000 may be granted for producer groups. The share of public resources in overall eligible expenditures cannot exceed 30 – 50%, depending on the investment and sector.
2. Measure 2 – depending on a scheme and component Euro 12 000 – 25 000, share of eligible expenditures up to 50%.
3. Measure 3 – respectively Euro 20 000 - 400 000, share of eligible expenditures up to 50%, in particular cases it can be increased to 75%.
4. Measure 6 and 7 – budgets for particular projects will be specified by the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, 100% of eligible expenditures will be refunded.
5. In the case of high cost projects there is a possibility to carry out payments in two stages, according to an accepted division of a particular undertaking into ‘functional instalments’.
It has been decided that a subject applying for financial help will have to fill in and submit an application form prepared by the SAPARD Agency together with all the necessary attachments. For the majority of measures carried out within the Programme the applications are to be submitted to a particular regional ARMA unit operating in the same area where the measure is to be carried out. Measures 6 and 7 will be implemented by the Foundation of Assistance Programmes for Agriculture (FAPA).
In theory the scope of the SAPARD Programme beneficiaries is quite wide and diversified. The beneficiaries vary in relation to their legal status and the direction of their economic activities. The following groups, depending the type of undertaking, will be entitled to apply for support from the SAPARD Programme:
• farmers,
• entrepreneurs,
• territorial self-government units – gminas, inter-gmina associations and powiats,
• formally registered non-governmental organisations, farmer organisations and associations, economic self-government units, institutions providing technical assistance in agricultural and rural area development, business support institutions and centres (of non-profit type),
• specialised training institutions, including agricultural schools,
• universities, research and development centres.
37 Types of activities within particular measures were described in Table 6.
24
As it will be demonstrated later, opinions on the actual possibilities for receiving SAPARD resources are quite diverse. Moreover, it appears that not all of the Programme’s intended beneficiaries will be able to receive financial support from SAPARD. Trainings for farmers that are presently conducted by ARMA show that due to a complicated procedure of submitting applications, only a very small number of agricultural producers will be able to receive support form the Programme. Such a situation is caused not only by EU requirements but also by the fact that Poland prepared the most complicated and demanding rules for obtaining SAPARD support amongst all the accession countries38 (e.g. a farmer applying for support will have to fill in a twenty-page application and attach fifteen detailed annexes to it). As it has been estimated, if the rules are not simplified, as few as 2 500 agricultural farms will receive SAPARD assistance in Poland39.
3.4 System for monitoring and controlling The SAPARD Operational Programme provides for establishing an extensive system for monitoring and controlling whether the Programme functions according to its aims. In order to assess the efficiency of the Programme and to assess if the results reflect the objectives defined, the support provided for the activities under the SAPARD Programme will be subject to a preliminary and mid-term evaluation, as well as to on-going monitoring and final evaluation. Both the Polish side and the European Commission will monitor the Programme. The monitoring will be based on physical, environmental and financial indicators listed in the SAPARD Operational Programme. The indicators will be related to the specific nature of the aid, its objectives and the socio-economic, structural and environmental situation of Poland and its regions. In addition to the monitoring, periodic evaluations will be carried out. Improvement of the monitoring mechanism, as well as providing useful tools for decision-making and efficient management will be the main objective of the periodic evaluations. Periodic evaluations will provide information enabling the Monitoring Committee to consider and submit to adequate authorities proposals for corrective actions. The Monitoring Committee was established according to Article 35 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/99. The Monitoring Committee will be responsible for the evaluation and approval of selection criteria for the project financed under each measure, and for periodic evaluations of progress in achieving the objectives of the assistance. The Committee shall consider and communicate to the European Commission (i) proposals for any changes resulting from the Programme implementation, and (ii) physical and financial indicators for Programme monitoring. Moreover, the Committee should evaluate the results of the Programme implementation, in particular with regard to objectives of particular measures. The Committee shall also accept the annual implementation report and the final implementation report, prior to their submission to the European Commission. The Monitoring Committee shall gather at least every six months. The Monitoring Committee consists of representatives of the European Commission, relevant authorities from the central level, regional authorities, representatives of self-governments, as well as one representative of environmental NGOs (ENGOs), and two 38 Gajewski J., 2002: SAPARD spectre. Wprost 8/2002: 23 - 24. 39 Gajewski J., 2002: Ibid
25
representatives of the organisations whose focus is to provide support for development of rural areas. According to Bogdan Szymanski, the representative of ENGOs in the Monitoring Committee, his role will be mainly to inform members of environmental organisations about activities carried out under SAPARD, and to submit comments and opinions of ENGOs to the Committee. Due to the fact that the Monitoring Committee has been operating for a short time, it is difficult to assess the influence of the representative of ENGOs on the activities of the Committee. However, the ENGOs representative are not likely to have sufficient influence on the way the SAPARD Programme is implemented in Poland. Nevertheless, environmental organisations have undertaken steps to co-operate in order to have a larger influence on the Committee. The State Monitoring Committee, together with regional Steering Committees, will control whether the decisions related to ranking submitted projects are made correctly, and will participate in allocating financial resources for measures related to particular SAPARD aims. The operation of the paying agency will also be strictly monitored. Moreover, the control will include activities undertaken by the Programme’s beneficiaries. Identification of deficiencies will result in different types of repercussions; from refusal to refund costs if a beneficiary does not comply with the requirements of the Programme, to criminal responsibility, if a beneficiary commits a financial offence. It should be noted that the SAPARD Operational Programme does not contain any detailed information on whether environmental protection issues will be taken into account during monitoring and evaluation of the SAPARD Programme in Poland. This is disturbing, as the Programme specifies detailed information on the other criteria for evaluation – in particular relating to economic efficiency of the agricultural sector and beneficiaries of the Programme.
When considering environmental protection issues, it is very significant to introduce an obligation to prepare Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in relation to projects financed from SAPARD. Such an obligation would be imposed on projects which will result in significant negative environmental impact as well as all the projects included in Annex I to the Directive 97/11/EC. It will be possible to carry out other activities that may have a negative impact on environment only after obtaining a consent from relevant environmental protection authorities. Moreover, the beneficiaries will be obliged to produce information on the impacts that their undertakings may have on environment as well as to propose ways for preventing or limiting negative impacts.
4. Problems with implementing SAPARD in Poland The process of preparing, negotiating and implementing the SAPARD Programme has revealed a number of problems. The following two groups of the problems should be considered as the most significant ones. The first one relates to a delay in starting the Programme – despite the fact that activities related to SAPARD have been carried out for two years, Polish farmers have not received a single Zloty from this fund. The second
26
group of problems relates to the disappointment of various stakeholders with the scope of SAPARD. These issues are discussed in the following chapter.
4.1 Different opinion on SAPARD Programme implementation The opinions on the reasons for delays in SAPARD implementation in Poland vary significantly. Two extreme views suggest that this situation is either a fault of the Polish side or a result of lack of real political will on the side of the European Union to transfer financial resources for agricultural development in accession countries. Mr. Siekierski points out the mistakes committed by the Polish side40. He argues that a basic problem in implementing SAPARD is lack of good co-operation between the Polish side and the EU representatives. He also argues that the EU representatives have lost trust in the Polish side (especially in the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture) as a result of problems with implementation of the IACS system. He claims that this was the actual cause of such detailed and scrupulous controls carried out by the EU representatives in the Paying Agency.
Some policy makers and experts present completely different opinions. According to Balzas41 delays are the fault of the European Commission, which did not manage to prepare all the procedures for the SAPARD Programme. Part of the staff of the ARMA shares the same opinion. Andrzej Bobuchowski emphasises that the audit of the Agency had to be interrupted, because the European Commission had not prepared on time all the requirements that must be fulfilled by paying agencies. He also argues that the delay in implementing SAPARD resulted from the change of operational rules for paying agencies which were introduced in mid 200142. Some people suggest that the EU representatives do not respect procedures which were formerly established. An example may be constituted by the EU refusal to organise in September a meeting of the SAPARD Monitoring Committee (in which EU representatives participate). The European Commission justified the refusal explaining that a five-week period for preparing the meeting is too short to get familiar with the proposals of the Polish side. It should be noted that the Commission refused despite the fact that both the Polish and the EU sides had earlier agreed on such a time for preparing meetings of the Monitoring Committee43. Magdalena Nowicka, who is a main expert on SAPARD in the MARD presents more moderate opinion44. She argues that problems with Programme implementation result from the fact that when the Polish and the EU sides were initiating SAPARD they did not realise how difficult and complicated the process of implementation would be. Therefore, both sides are learning mutually how to co-operate, and they are building the trust in each other. This should bring positive results in future when Poland gets access to the EU resources provided for the Member States.
Disregarding what the actual reasons for the delays in SAPARD implementation are, the delay itself may have very negative consequences for the Programme’s success. It is quite
40 Siekierski Cz., a speech delivered by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture during the meeting of Parliamentary Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development, 5.12.2001. 41 Balzas A.,2001: former Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. A speech in the Parliament. Parliamentary Bulletin 113/IV 42 Bobuchowski Andrzej, a speech of the ARMA representative during the meeting of Parliamentary Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development, 5.12.2001. 43 Drygas Miroslaw, information provided by the Director of MARD Department 44 Nowicka Magdalena, a speech during the WWF and IUCN Seminar. 16.01.2002
27
possible that Poland will not be able to utilise all the financial resources provided by this Programme. Moreover, as one of the members of the Parliament stated “attitudes of Polish farmers towards implementation of SAPARD are so negative that it is difficult to be surprised with the decreasing support among this group for the integration of Poland with the EU . . .”45 Lack of a uniform and firm attitude from the EU side towards initiating the SAPARD Programme enables the opponents of Polish accession to accuse the EU of being unwilling to spent its money on the modernisation of Polish agriculture, and of being interested solely in the sale of its food products on the Polish market.
The second group of accusations towards SAPARD relates to its content. Many of the representatives of non-governmental organisations and environmental protection experts express their disappointment with SAPARD. According to them SAPARD will not contribute to the sustainable development of Polish agriculture, and will preserve the current structure of Polish agriculture. Mr. Gawlik (2002) emphasises that only selected farmers who have more than 3 ha of land will benefit from agri-environmental Programmes. He estimates that 10 – 20% of the richest farmers will benefit from other Programmes, and other farmers will not be included in the Programme. According to Gawlik it will not improve the economic situation of Polish rural areas, and moreover it will make the gap between rich and poor farmers even larger46. Rembialkowska expresses a similar opinion47 as according to her only a small group of the richest farmers will benefit from SAPARD, and the resources that they receive will be used primarily for intensification of agricultural production. Rembialkowska stated that the components that relate to environmental protection in the SAPARD Programme are just an insignificant addition, and the entire Programme is oriented on the development of conventional farming. Mr. Górny shares the same opinion and stated that assumptions of the SAPARD Programme will lead Polish agriculture to pursue an inappropriate development direction, which will result in environmental problems relating to agriculture that are common in the EU48.
The representatives of environmental NGOs state that despite including in SAPARD many crucial issues (e.g. the possibility of implementing agri-environmental measures), the Programme will not contribute to the sustainable development of rural areas and agriculture49. According to them environmental protection issues have been given only small attention. They emphasise that criteria enforcing the implementation of environmental Programmes within specific priorities have not been established. This may lead to a situation in which such Programmes are not undertaken at all. Considering the allocation of resources within the Programme they share the opinion that SAPARD is oriented more to the development of agriculture than the multifunctional development of rural areas. Therefore, its implementation will not contribute to the sustainable development of Polish agriculture and rural areas. Likewise, Zdanowicz and Dalton indicate that SAPARD is not
45 Kalemba Stanislaw, MP, a speech during the meeting of Parliamentary Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development, 5.12.2001. 46 Gawlik Radoslaw. Former Deputy Minister of Environment. An Interview 16.01.2002. 47 Rembialkowska Ewa, Associated Professor, Warsaw Agricultural University. An Interview 10.01.2002 48 Górny Mieczyslaw, Retired Professor Warsaw Agricultural University, a specialist in organic farming. A speech during MARD Seminar which took place in 16.01.2002 49 Szymanski Bogdan, Vice-President of the Polish Ecological Club, a representative of ENGO in the SAPARD Monitoring Committee. A conversation. 10.01.2002
28
in particularly oriented on achieving environmental objectives50. At the same time ENGO representatives emphasise the crucial role of agri-environmental measures in solving conflicts regarding agricultural development in the environmentally valuable areas51.
Majewski and Dalton (2001) present other critiques of SAPARD52. According to them this Programme gives insufficient attention to investing in human capital, and connecting development of the economy in rural areas with the development of agriculture. These authors point out that the Programme supports solely agricultural training. In their opinion training of a much wider-scope is necessary to ensure that the full advantage is taken from investing in the modernisation of agricultural and processing holdings. Moreover, they note that SAPARD will not contribute to the improvement of education among the rural population.
Zdanowicz and Dalton54 point out that SAPARD should to a larger extent reflect the characteristic features of regions, and that the scope of the proposed measures should depend on these features. They state that underdeveloped regions need much more active support, as current experience (e.g. from implementing PHARE) indicates that these regions are not always able to absorb available assistance. At the same time they underline the fact that SAPARD was established during a situation when policy makers were more interested in solving current problems of Polish agriculture than making strategic decisions leading to long-term structural changes. Moreover, these authors state that SAPARD implementation in Poland will create a new approach towards the evaluation of public support for rural and agriculture development Programmes. None of the former Programmes were subject to such regular monitoring and periodic evaluations. This new approach should positively influence political decision making relating to rural and agricultural development, and to Structural Funds planning, when Poland joins the EU55. Also Mr. Kamieniecki draws attention to the fact that experience from SAPARD implementation should have a positive influence on the successful and efficient use of Structural Funds by Poland56. It is worth noting that SAPARD was planned as a multiannual Programme. All this may contribute to stabilising the various forms of assistance for rural and agricultural development from public resources.
4.2 The prognosis of the impact of SAPARD As it was stated at beginning of this study, an evaluation of SAPARD may be based on its impact on removing barriers to sustainable development. An attempt at such a prognosis is presented in Table 8.
50 Zdanowicz A., Dalton G., 2000: SAPARD and Other Forms of Assistance for Polish Agriculture [in] Strategic Options for Polish Agro-Business Sector in the Light of Economic Analyses. Research and Implementation Centre of WAU and FAPA. Warsaw, p.134 - 152 51 Wójcik Bozenna, an employee in the Institute for Sustainable Development. An Interview. 8.05.2001 52 Majewski E., Dalton G., 2000: Strategic Challenges for Polish Agriculture and Food Processing Sector in the Context of EU Accession [in] Strategic Options for Polish Agro-Business Sector in the Light of Economic Analyses. Research and Implementation Centre of WAU and FAPA. Warsaw, p. 7 - 40 53 Majewski E., Dalton G., 2000: Strategic Challenges for Polish Agriculture and Food Processing Sector in the Context of EU Accession [in] Strategic Options for Polish Agro-Business Sector in the Light of Economic Analyses. Research and Implementation Centre of WAU and FAPA. Warsaw, p. 7 - 40 54 Zdanowicz A., Dalton G., 2000: Ibid 55 Ibid 56 Kamieniecki Krzysztof, Vice-President of the Institute for Sustainable Development. An interview 1.02.2002
29
Table 8. The impact of the SAPARD Programme on reducing barriers to the sustainable development of rural areas in Poland – a prognosis57
Barriers to sustainable development Type of impact
Poverty and the extremely bad economic situation of the majority of people living in the rural areas
Improving the situation of a small group of beneficiaries, increasing the differences between rich and poor agricultural holdings. The majority of the rural population will not be impacted.
High unemployment ratea and a lack of jobs in rural areas outside the agricultural sector
Possibilities to create new jobs outside the agricultural sector in particular regions.
Lack of familiarity and abilities among farmers for mutual co-operation and an unwillingness to establish agricultural co-operatives and producer groups
Possibly of some kind of positive impact – some components of the Programme provide for undertakings which necessitate co-operation among farmers.
Low level of education among country dwellers Positive, but not a very significant impact
Lack or an extremely bad state of technical infrastructure of rural areas
There is a possibility for SAPARD to have quite a significant positive impact
The above analysis shows that a common opinion of SAPARD does not exist and expert opinions are in the majority negative rather that positive. However, it appears that such a negative evaluation of the Programme may be attributed not to its weak points but rather to excessive expectations that SAPARD will solve the majority of basic problems of Polish agriculture. The Programme was introduced to farmers as a state intervention instrument that would make Polish rural holdings competitive with EU farms 58. Farmers’ expectations were made even greater by announcements stating that SAPARD financial resources would be available in a very short period of time to the majority of agricultural producers 59. However, it turned out quite quickly that due to limited resources and to an extremely complicated procedure for applying for those resources only a very small number of beneficiaries will have access to SAPARD funds. The disappointment is made even larger by the delays in Programme implementation. The first applications for support were submitted in 2001. However, according to estimations SAPARD resources are unilikely to be available by as late as 2003.
It appears that although the support received form Poland by means of SAPARD will be quite large, when compared with the actual need of financial resources for restructuring and modernising Polish agriculture, it turns out to be insufficient. Therefore, SAPARD should be considered as an instrument that assists in the endeavours of the Polish government to support rural development or modernise the country’s agriculture, rather than as a basic instrument implementing changes. Due to a significant delay in starting the Programme, it is impossible to evaluate to what extent its implementation will assist in achieving sustainable development aims and to what extent it will be an instrument preserving the hitherto prevailing conventional model of agricultural development.
57 The Delphic method was used when preparing the prognosis. The evaluation criteria were the following: inclusion of certain activities in the SAPARD Operational Programme, the amount of resources for particular activities, the possibility of negative direct or indirect impact occurrence. 58 Szafraniec K., 1998: Polish Peasants. Between „Real Socialism” and „Real Capitalism”. EEC. Torun. 59 Kalemba Stanislaw, MP, a speech during the meeting of Parliamentary Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development, 5.12.2001.
30
The evaluation of SAPARD presented in this study indicates that the implementation of the Programme may have a positive impact on achieving the sustainable development of rural areas. Resources provided from the Programme are likely to create possibilities for improving social, economic and environmental situation of Polish agriculture. However, it is also possible that only those investments which are targeted on the intensification of agricultural production are chosen. The impact of SAPARD on achieving sustainable development in Poland depends on decisions made by farmers and on the type of applications submitted by prospective beneficiaries. Therefore, it is disturbing that both the administration and environmental organisations do not take up educational projects that would show farmers the advantages of carrying out activities in such a way that they would be in line with environmental protection requirements. Considering the low environmental awareness of Polish society, lack of such education may aggravate the danger that, when faced with a choice of different possibilities for action, farmers will choose those which have a negative impact on the environment.
Conclusions and recommendations As it was stated above it is presently impossible to evaluate the impact of SAPARD on the development of rural areas in Poland. It is due to delays in the Programme implementation. Therefore, only apreliminary evaluation is possible:
• Analysis of the Operational Programme indicates that the main objective of SAPARD in Poland is to support agricultural production – 65% of SAPARD resources will be allocated in this field. To a lesser extent SAPARD will support social development (jobs outside the agriculture, and infrastructure of rural areas). Environmental protection issues seem to be only a negligible addition to the entire Programme. According to some people who criticise the Programme, SAPARD will contribute mainly to the intensification of agricultural production in selected areas and repeating mistakes carried out by the EU Member States60. However, it seems that such opinion is too extreme, and the actual scope of SAPARD influence in Poland will be relatively small.
• The Operational Programme does not contain clear environmental criteria that should be considered when granting support from the SAPARD Fund. Although Ministry of Agriculture officials argue that environmental issues will be taken into account during the actual decision-making process, it is still impossible to say to what extent the issues will be considered. It is worrying that there are no environmental criteria that would be taken into account during monitoring and evaluating SAPARD Programme implementation.
• According to the prognosis only several thousands of agricultural holdings will receive support from SAPARD. Therefore, one should expect that the gap between rich and poor farms will increase. The current form of SAPARD favours the most prosperous farms, and leads to a worsening of the situation of the poor farms.
60 M. Górny – retired professor at WAU, speech during WWF and IUCN Seminar, 16.01.2002. Ewa Rembialkowska employee of WAU. Interview.
31
• Due to delays in implementing SAPARD, Poland will probably not be able to use all the available funds. It means that implementation of the Programme will not significantly influence the development of rural areas in Poland, the structure of agricultural holdings etc. This delay (regardless of its reasons – whether it was caused by the Polish or the EU side) results in a decreasing support for inhabitants of rural areas for the integration process.
It is relevant to ask whether it is currently possible to change the way of using SAPARD resources, so that the Fund would support to a larger extent the sustainable development of rural areas and to a lesser extent intensification of agricultural production. The answer to this question is not an easy task. On one hand there is no political will for such a change in Poland– both, politicians and rural inhabitants believe that the main objective of agricultural Programmes should be to increase the incomes of rural households. On other hand, activities related to SAPARD are so advanced (and delayed!) that changing the Programme (e.g. amounts of resources for given measures) seems impossible. On this basis one may propose recommendations, which relate more to future EU Programmes in Poland than to SAPARD:
• An active role of the state is necessary for the preparation and implementation of the assistance Programmes from the EU funds. The state should support farmers, local governments and producers groups in preparing good projects. The support should be carried out through: simplification of procedures necessary to obtain aid, support for training on proposal preparation, and capacity building in the agricultural advisory institutions that could help farmers and local governments with preparation of the proposals.
• Clear environmental criteria should be established for aid Programmes, and such criteria should constitute a condition for providing aid. Environmental criteria for evaluating and monitoring of these Programmes should also be set up.
• It is necessary to establish the Programmes enabling, to a larger extent, preservation of the traditional agricultural landscape, and the support of family farms. Therefore, special attention should be paid to agri-environmental Programmes, which may be a significant source of additional income for small farms in Poland. Such Programmes would contribute to preservation of the traditional landscape of Polish rural areas.
• It seems that Programmes supporting rural development should pay more attention to education issues and enhancing economic activities outside the agriculture.