Farming Discontent
As farmers in Hungary take to the streets to protest the threatened state of their livelihoods and consumers are warned yet again of poisoned produce on their shelves, many are beginning to seriously question for whose benefit is the European Union
It's gradually becoming an annual event: Hungarian farmers up in arms against the government's agricultural policy take to the streets to draw attention to their plight, as well as try and exact concessions from the government in order to ease their burden. Before Hungary became a full member of the EU, discontent was centered around the new rules that would have to be met, regulations which taxed the financial and organisational abilities of many. Ever since becoming a full member of the EU, however, the focus has shifted more to the way in which the government administers the financial aspect of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).
Presently, farmers in Hungary are upset over the government's repeated delay in paying out the EU CAP subsidies. They accuse the government of purposely delaying the payments in order to use the funds for other purposes. In fact, some point out that the government had already spent last year's CAP subsidies on something else and were now buying time in order to compensate farmers for fiscal 2004 with the money earmarked for fiscal 2005. The Hungarian government, however, contends that the payments are late because most of the farmers didn't properly fill out the required forms.
On a separate front, meanwhile, issues relating to the import of food products has again risen to the fore as poisoned peppers once more grabbed the headlines. This time it wasn't about paprika spice, as in October of last year (Paprika Panic), but that of fresh green peppers imported from Morocco via Spain. The shipment was found to contain traces of pesticide which, if consumed in large amounts, could cause minor health problems.
Although the health authorities maintain that no-one was sick as a result, speculation is rife that the poisoned peppers only came to the attention of authorities after some had actually become ill. Yet according to health authorities, they came across the problem during a routine, random inspection. They added that the produce was immediately removed from the shelves and promptly destroyed.
The fact that this pepper scandal has erupted so soon after the paprika scandal of last year has put the government under a lot of pressure. The prime minister had promised after the 2004 scandal that measures would be taken to ensure that such a situation would not reoccur. It has since become clear that nothing had been done.
Not only this, but the latest poisoned food scandal, coupled with the discontent of farmers over the administration of EU subsidies, have raised public concern over the agricultural policies pursued both by Budapest and Brussels, with many feeling that perhaps joining the EU wasn't such a good idea. The irony is that as farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to sell their produce domestically because of cheaper produce dumped from other areas of the EU, consumers are finding that this cheaper produce is of inferior quality and, as has been now demonstrated on a number of occasions, is often a risk to human health.
This problem is one that is not limited to Hungary but to the entire region. Throughout the former communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the story is the same: farmers are being squeezed out of their own domestic markets by a flood of cheap and inferior imports -- not only from western Europe, but from other Central and Eastern European countries as well. Hence, prior to EU membership, Polish farmers protested against the import of cheap Hungarian corn by soldering the train wagons to the tracks. Likewise, the Czechs have vehemently protested EU regulations which would see cheap imported apples flood out those that were domestically produced.
The end result of all this is a growing backlash in the region against the EU and what it represents. For the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, one of the main selling points of EU membership was that it would bring with it several advantages, such as "European" type of quality control and the freedom of an internal market. For farmers and consumers within the new members states, none of these promises have come true; if anything, the exact opposite has happened.
In terms of quality control, for instance, Hungary used to have very stringent import regulations prior to EU membership. All fresh produce was checked and many types were held in quarantine in order to ensure that it was safe. Since becoming a part of the EU, however, these measures have been relaxed. Anything coming from another member state is not usually checked or held in quarantine as it is assumed that the originating country would have done the necessary inspections.
Recipe for desaster
As for the benefits of an internal market, this promise has clearly not materialised. Farmers within the new member states are unable to compete with old member states, as the former are already well established within the framework of the CAP. Indeed, in Hungary some view the governments lack of support for its own farmers as a way of selling out smaller farming operations in favour of larger, multinational concerns.
Not only this, but the dumping of non-EU produce raises questions as to who the internal market actually benefits. There have been numerous complaints among farmers and consumers alike of inferior and unsafe products coming from China. Honey producers, for example, have been lobbying Eurocrats in Brussels for more stringent regulations which would clearly indicate when different honey products are mixed. As with Hungarian paprika, honey within the EU is often mixed with an inferior type coming from China. The problem is that this mixed product isn't appropriately labelled.
As a result, the notion of an internal EU market, together with the concept of "the logic of the market", has proven to be a recipe for disaster. Many producers send their produce abroad while domestic consumers end up forced to buy imported produce. For example, Hungary sends its garlic to Italy while Hungarians end up consuming garlic from China.
The problem with such an arrangements is quality control and responsibility. Domestically produced food can be easily monitored and usually comes under more stringent regulations. Not only this, it ensures the survival of rural economies. The extent to which BSE in the 1990s devastated the European cattle industry in the UK and elsewhere can be attributed to the way in which livestock was so easily moved from one place to another.
This problem is further exacerbated by the flood of cheap imports from outside the EU. If one of the main purposes of the EU is to encourage an internal market and to make Europe a vibrant and competitive economy, then allowing cheap imports from countries like China is definitely counter-productive. The present way in which the EU is set up actually benefits non-EU countries more than new member states. Chinese exporters need to send their products to only one EU country; from there, it then has access to all of Europe.
Although regulations are supposed to be harmonised throughout EU, reality is another story. This means inferior products, which probably wouldn't be allowed in one country, can still enter Europe through a member state where the same regulations aren't properly implemented or enforced. In this way, inferior products still are able to legally infiltrate into those countries which otherwise wouldn't have allowed them to enter in the first place. The fact that tainted pepper products have twice entered Hungary via Spain in less than half a year raises a question as to whether Madrid turns a blind eye to EU regulations in order to facilitate its role as a middleman for the import and export of cheap agricultural products.
This apparent and negative aspect of globalisation has begun to have an effect in many areas of Central and Eastern Europe. There is a growing backlash against large "hypermarkets" (i.e., huge, international supermarkets) as these companies are the main purveyors of globalisation within the EU. Still, what maintains these companies are national economies in where workers are under severe financial stress. Because these companies deal in a large volumes and the sale of cheap, inferior products, they are able to stay "competitive" by keeping prices low. For those on tight budgets, unfortunately, shopping isn't a question of quality or politics, but of price.