Memorandum submitted by Sir John Marsh
AGRICULTURE AND EU ENLARGEMENT
1. BACKGROUND
(a) In 2004 10 new members will join the
European Union. A further three countries, Bulgaria, Romania and
Turkey have started the process of negotiation in order that they
may join at a later date. In this note this group of applicants
are described as "second wave countries". The note itself
is concerned with the whole process of enlargement, leading to
an EU of 28 member countries.
(b) Accession requires new members to apply
within their own frontiers the rules and decisions already agreed
within the existing EU, the "acquis". Much of the process
of negotiation is to ensure that they are able to do this from
the point of entry. Where particular requirements are not fully
met, derogations from the rules may be applied but these are temporary
and the process of assimilation to the full acquis has to be completed
within an agreed time.
(c) Agriculture played a central role in
the establishment of the original European Economic Community.
It mattered because it represented a relatively large share of
employment and economic activity, because memories of war and
post war food shortages were still vivid and because each of the
member countries had intervened in agriculture, but in differing
ways and to different degrees.
(d) The Common Agricultural Policy was devised
to ensure that agricultural trade could take place within the
EEC and that a common set of regulations would apply to external
trade. This remains its core function but the way in which it
is realised has changed during the life of the Community.
(e) In the 1960s the CAP reflected the dominant
concerns of the day: food supplies and the standard of living
of farm families. Since the 1960s these have been overtaken by
anxieties about the impact of farming on the environment, about
food safety and about the impact of surpluses on the budget and
trade relations. Thus the acceding member countries are required
to apply the CAP but the CAP itself is changing. The most recent
of these changes, negotiated in 2003 and here referred to as the
Fischler Reforms, have taken place since the agreements for the
applicant countries to join were completed. The new members will
have to adopt the new arrangements where these differ from those
they had agreed.
(f) A much larger share of economic activity
among the new members is agriculture than most existing EU members.
The price of food weighs more heavily in the cost of living of
their populations. The economic and social impact of the CAP is
therefore a major issue relating to membership of the EU. It is
also of concern for the existing Union. This enlargement, especially
when the "second wave" countries are included, represents
a very large increase in the agricultural sector of the EU and
the potential impact of the CAP on the cost of the CAP, on world
trade and on the environment.
2. AGRICULTURAL
PRODUCTION IN
THE ACCEDING
COUNTRIES
(a) The 10 countries who are to join in 2004
will add some 30% to the Utilised Agricultural Area of the EU.
Their output in 2001 amounted to only 10% of the output of the
existing members. They will, however, add some 58% to the numbers
of people engaged in agriculture and related activities. When
the second wave joins, the UAA will be 70% greater than at present
and the agricultural population reach almost two and a half times
the present level. Many of these additional numbers are very small
scale farmers in Poland and, among the "second wave",
in Romania and Turkey. They operate on a semi-subsistence basis
far from the market oriented farming systems that prevail in the
existing Community. Their productivity is relatively low and hence
their ability to earn incomes equivalent to those enjoyed elsewhere
in the EU is weak.
(b) Annex Table 1 demonstrates the wide diversity
of resource use and production within the acceding member countries.
It does not show the huge variations in production conditions,
in capital equipment and in structural organisation that also
co-exist among the countries now joining the EU. These characteristics
will pose a further challenge to the CAP which has hitherto been
dominated by the relatively homogenous concerns of North West
Europe.
(c) Annex Table 2 looks more closely at the
place of agriculture in the economies of the countries concerned.
Again there are big differences between the existing members and
the new entrants. Among the 10, Agriculture's share of GDP is
roughly twice that of the existing EU whilst the share of food
in household expenditure is almost double that of consumers in
the Community. Trade in agricultural goods is a larger share of
their total trade and six of the new entrants are net importers.
For the acceding countries accession will ultimately open up markets
in the 15. It will also mean that their industries will have to
compete within the EU at the price level protected by the CAP.
(d) Annex Table 3 shows that, if production
continued at current levels, enlargement to 25 members would increase
cereal production by some 25%, milk by 18% and oil crops by 19%.
The second wave countries would, on the same assumption of continued
current levels of production add an even larger amount to current
production, especially of cereals, fruit and oil crops.
3. THE PROSPECTS
FOR THE
AGRICULTURE OF
THE ACCEDING
COUNTRIES IN
AN ENLARGED
EU
(a) Simple addition of production levels
is an unsatisfactory approach to understanding the impact of enlargement
on the new member countries and the existing Community. What actually
happens will be greatly influenced by the overall economic performance
of their economies, by the CAP, and by the economic characteristics
of the agri-food sector within the countries concerned. This is
discussed in the following paragraphs.
(b) The original CAP supported commodity
prices. The reformed CAP, especially since the introduction of
the Single Farm Payment, allows the market to play a much larger
role in determining prices. Markets respond to consumer purchasing
behaviour but the prices received at each stage are greatly influenced
by the structure of the market itself.
(c) Consumers buy food rather than farm output.
The value added after the farm gate greatly exceeds that added
on the farm. This includes, transport, storage and first stage
processing, manufacturing, distribution and retailing. Europe
has an elaborate food chain that provides a year round choice
of fresh foods, processed and oven ready foods and supplies a
growing catering sector. The success of businesses within the
chain depends heavily upon the infra-structure of which they make
use. This includes not only investment in "food industry"
plant and equipment, but the road and telecommunication systems,
the availability of relevant skills and the advertisement and
marketing activities characteristic of mass marketing.
(d) The agri-food sector of the EU 15 is
highly developed. It offers a continued stream of innovative products
designed to appeal to a population that is relatively affluent
but time poor. Within the acceding countries the food industry
lagged under central planning. It has since been seeking to catch
up, often with the aid of investment from the West. This will
be encouraged by the accession but the food sector still lacks
the infrastructure of the current EU. Affluent citizens in the
new members form a target for EU food companies. But there remain
many people who are relatively poor and for whom the convenience
and time saving offered by modern food products may be less important
than the price at which they can be bought.
(e) If we assume that real incomes in the
new member countries will rise, the prospects for investment in
the food sector will improve but if local food producers are
to access the higher value added market they will need to compete
in the highly sophisticated markets of the EU 15. If they do not
their own citizens are likely to be serviced by imports from existing
members.
(f) Their main current advantages are lower
labour and raw material costs. However, the importance of these
should not be exaggerated. The modern food industry is capital
intensive. Increasingly the skill of the labour force is more
important than the wage paid. Raw material food forms a relatively
small and declining part of the total costs of putting food products
on the shelves of supermarkets. For this to happen the food businesses
must not only reach the regulatory standards required within the
EU, itself a costly process, but must become as innovative and
"fashion conscious" as those who currently supply the
markets of the European Union.
(g) There is no reason to believe that this
cannot be achieved in the long run but the process is likely to
be protracted. At the farm level large scale structural adjustment
is needed to secure economies of scale and increase productivity.
The growth of infra-structure will depend critically upon the
overall economic performance of the economies concerned. Investment
will be encouraged by certainty of access to the entire enlarged
EU market, but will need assurances about the availability of
skilled manpower. The rate of progress is likely to be critically
influenced by the need for cultural change from the legacy of
central planning and the predominantly peasant agriculture of
the small farm sector.
(h) The implication of this discussion is
that, at the outset, there is likely to be scope for increased
EU investment in the food industries of the East and a market
for more EU food products among the new member countries. As their
economies grow, the underlying advantages that some of the new
members have in terms of agricultural resources seem likely to
assert themselves. The trade flow may well be reversed as their
developing agri-food sector targets and captures markets elsewhere
in the EU. For that to happen, however, the market must be authentically
competitive and the CAP must be non-discriminatory. Thus the process
of transition and the ultimate shape of the CAP are of central
importance to the success of agriculture in the new member countries.
4. THE ARRANGEMENTS
FOR ACCESSION
(a) In preparation for enlargement the EU
has supported a variety of schemes under several programmes. In
the period 2006 these include the PHARE programme, established
in 1989, ISPA and SAPARD, both established in 1999. These programmes
have sought to assist the new member countries develop the necessary
legal provisions and institutional structures to cope with the
application of EU policies including the CAP.
(b) Negotiations for entry were divided into
some 31 chapters of which the largest was agriculture. The goal
was to allow the new members to apply the policy as it stood on
the date they entered. In June 2003 the Commission reported that
negotiations were complete with Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia.
They continued with Bulgaria and Romania.
(c) The agreements reached involved arrangements
for the opening of frontiers to agricultural trade, the provision
of a range of rural developments measures, to be co-financed (the
EU covering 80% of the cost), special measures relating to semi-subsistence
farms and the introduction of direct payments. The rural development
measures are intended to promote structural change. The direct
payments correspond to those received by existing members of the
EU.
(d) Membership of the EU involves opening
frontiers to trade between all member countries. However, trade
in agricultural products is regulated to safeguard animal and
plant health and food safety. There remain concerns about the
ability of several of the new member countries to ensure that
the standards required within the Union can be maintained. As
a result, at the date of accession products will move freely from
existing to new member countries but trade in the opposite direction
may still be restricted by phytosanitary and veterinary requirements.
Until their standards reach the level required the new members
will be unable to exploit any competitive advantage they have
for the products affected.
(e) The MacSharry reforms of the CAP and
those resulting from the Agenda 2000 decisions, embodied direct
payments as a form of compensation for lower prices. Payments
were based on past levels of production of the specific commodities
affected by the reform. They had the beneficial result of reducing
the price level for EU consumers and the unit cost of export subsidies
needed to sell goods abroad. By the end of the 1990's direct payments
had become the largest single element in budgetary support for
farmers in the EU.
(f) Introducing direct payments in the applicant
member countries presented several problems. The historical justification
did not exist for farmers who had not received the higher prices
paid in the EU. Payments of equivalent amounts would create windfall
gains for some farmers and an provide incentive to produce in
order to qualify for their receipt. The payment system required
a record of the fields involved, their area and history used by
the Integrated Arable Control Scheme (IACS) in existing member
countries. This did not exist and there were insufficient administrative
structures to develop one within many if not all the acceding
countries.
(g) Agreements were reached relating to rural
development programmes and reference quantities for quotas and
base areas for calculating direct payments These agreements provided
that direct payments should be phased in, starting at 25% in 2004
and eventually leading to parity with the then applicable EU levels
in 2013. Member states who had already given support to their
farmers in anticipation of entry were allowed to top up these
payments one of two schemes. First to use up to 30% of the rural
development funds provided by the EU together with national funds
to raise direct payments to levels growing from 55% to 65% of
EU levels by 2006. Beyond 2006 any topping up would have to be
wholly financed by national governments. Second, national governments
could top up payments to the level the farmer would have receive
on a product by product basis before accession.
(h) The total amount of direct payments for
each country would be expressed as a national envelope that could,
for a limited period, be paid on an area basis, the Single Area
Payment Scheme (SAPS), rather than related to the past production
of each farmer. However, when this interim arrangement ceased
farmers would be required to complete an IACS statement and payments
would be related to their production of the commodities concerned.
(i) The veterinary and phytosanitary concerns
of existing EU members made this a key area of negotiation. Agreement
was been reached on these issues although transitional arrangements
that mean that products of member countries that do not meet the
required standard cannot be marketed to other countries of the
EU. Those products that do meet the standard will be freely saleable
within the entire enlarged EU.
(j) The Commission already monitors progress
towards accession within applicant countries. It will continue
to be responsible for ensuring that the arrangements agreed are
fully carried out after accession.
5. THE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE
2003 PACKAGE OF
REFORMS FOR
THE CAP (THE
FISCHLER REFORMS)
HAS RADICALLY
CHANGED THE
LOGIC OF
SUPPORT FOR
AGRICULTURE AS
WELL AS
THE WAY
IN WHICH
IT IS
DELIVERED WITHIN
THE EU
(a) For most products future support is not
to relate to current production but will be delivered in the form
of a Single Farm Payment (SFP) fixed in relation to past production.
The amount paid will not be affected by future levels of output,
thus it is "decoupled" from production. However, to
receive the payment farmers have to continue to farm and to comply
with a number of conditions known as cross compliance. These are
designed to ensure that agricultural land is kept in good condition;
in effect it is still "coupled" to continued farming
activity.
(b) Individual member states have some flexibility
in applying the new arrangements. In particular they have to decide
whether direct payments are to be paid to farmers on the a basis
of historic production upon which or distributed regionally on
an area basis.
(c) The decoupled Single Farm Payment (SFP)
changed the basis upon which the acceding countries had negotiated
entry. However, the terms of the accession agreements requires
countries to apply the "then applicable CAP". They will
therefore have to apply the reformed policy. To cope with this
the Council agreed in October 2003 to adapt the Act of Accession.
The changes allow for:
1. New direct payments covering the dairy sector,
energy crops, fruit and nuts.
2. The continuation of the SAPS arrangements
as a means of distribution direct payments, rather than the introduction
of the Single Farm Payment based on historic levels of production
on individual farms.
3. Modifications in the arrangements for national
topping up of direct payments in the new member countries. In
effect national topping up arrangements relating to particular
commodities would be merged into a national envelope representing
the difference between payments due under SAPS and the topping
up margin (+30% or to the pre-accession level of support). Payments
would be granted on a per hectare basis for the entire area eligible
under SAPS.
4. The introduction of cross compliance by the
replacement of the "meeting Community standards" conditions
of the Act of Accession with the requirement that applies to all
recipients of the Single Farm Payment, that they must meet EU
cross compliance standards.
6. THE IMPACT
OF THE
REFORMED CAP
(a) The application of the Fischler reforms
in the new member countries is to be welcomed
1. It avoids the need for the new members to
establish commodity related payments based on the earlier CAP
regimes. By enacting these changes now investments will have to
be based on the market rather than commodity policy configuration.
2. The system based on area payments is administratively
less complicated and will reduce bureaucratic costs for countries
that still have large numbers of very small farms. It should also
reduce the risk of fraud.
3. The requirement that "standards"
must be applied to all recipients of direct payments, avoids the
earlier impression of discriminatory standards applying to the
new member countries.
4. Price reductions for milk and the prospect
of further liberalisation as part of a WTO negotiated outcome,
will reduce the cost of the policy to consumers. For people who
receive incomes well below the EU average this is of especial
importance.
(b) Short to medium term considerations concerning
the impact of CAP reform within the new member countrie
1. Attaining acceptable phytosanitary and veterinary
standards is critical if the new member countries are to develop
trade with the established EU. Progress seems to be uneven among
the applicants.
2. The SAPS system of direct payments is administratively
simple but it has the effect of providing resources for farmers
who were not producers of products upon which entitlements to
payments are based. Given the high proportion of fixed cost characteristic
of many sorts of farming it is likely that it will encourage more
of these producers to remain in business. This may impede structural
reform.
3. The "topping up" provisions benefit
farmers in some acceding countries. If they are distributed as
SAPS payments, farmers who did not produce the commodities on
which they were based will gain. Compared with producers of the
same products in existing members that do not regionalise payments,
farmers in the new members will be at a disadvantage.
4. The rural development provisions are not directly
affected by the changes in the CAP commodity policies but the
switch to decoupled payments will change the pattern of incentives
so far as future investment is concerned. The SAPS payment should
have a less distorting impact on future investment policies by
farmers than support based on current production.
(c) The impact of CAP reform within the new
member countries—longer term consideration
1. Direct payments originated as compensation
for price cuts. If they are to continue they will need to find
fresh justification. Within the existing EU this has focused on
the environment. Within an EU with many more very small and relatively
poor farmers it is likely to be based more strongly on social
considerations. This could affect the distribution of CAP payments
among member countries.
2. The new member countries represent a substantial
addition to the agricultural resources of the EU. In the longer
term, given equivalent access to capital and markets they will
approximate to productivity levels elsewhere in the Community.
To realise this potential the EU will need to be competitive within
global markets. This will not be attainable if the CAP seeks to
solve social and political problems of adjustment by protection.
3. The major market constraint on full exploitation
of these resources is the under-developed state of the agri-food
sector infrastructure. To strengthen the ability of the food and
agricultural sector to compete, more training, more research
and development activity, the creation of institutional structures
that are market rather than regulatory oriented and the inflow
of external resources to accelerate progress are crucial.
4. The competitive advantage of low wage costs
and lower land prices will provide a short run benefit for sectors,
such as fruit picking. However, as incomes rise and cheap labour
becomes scarce and land prices reflect overall prosperity, the
uptake of improved technologies is likely to determine the success
of food chain businesses enabling them to respond rapidly to market
opportunities. Entrepreneurial energy, cultural acceptance of
change and a constructive regulatory environment will determine
how large an agricultural industry will survive in the new members
as in the rest of the EU.
7. The enlargement of the European Union
presents a major challenge to the Common Agricultural Policy.
The Fischler Reforms have made a major step forward in liberating
the support system from commodity production. However, the future
for farming lies not in continued support from the state but in
becoming a fully competitive user of the resources it needs. Farming
has to see itself as the first stage of the food chain that provides
food for sophisticated consumers. At the same time it has to respond
to social pressures for a more sustainable and sensitive use of
the natural environment. To secure this development is needed
in the whole rural economy. This is a wealth creating challenge
that an enlarged Community must tackle together and articulate
through a CAP for the 21st Century.
Sir John Marsh
January 2004
Statistical Annex
Table 1a
BASIC ECONOMIC DATA FOR EU 15
| Utilised Agricultural Area 000 ha
| Employment in Agriculture 000s |
% in Employed Civilian Population | Output in Agricultural Activities M Eur
|
| 2001 | 2001
| 2001 | 2001 |
| Belgique/België | 1,390
| 56 | 1.4 | 7,359
|
| Danmark | 2,694 | 96
| 3.5 | 9,098 |
| Deutschland | 17,038 | 956
| 2.6 | 44,490 |
| Elláda | 3,575 | 627
| 16 | 11,655 |
| España | 25,596 |
1,025 | 6.5 | 35,585
|
| France | 27,856 | 964
| 4.1 | 65,072 |
| Ireland | 4,458 | 120
| 7 | 5,879 |
| Italia | 15,355 | 1,113
| 5.2 | 43,388 |
| Luxembourg | 128 | 3
| 1.5 | 263 |
| Nederland | 1,933 | 238
| 3.1 | 20,744 |
| Österreich | 3,375 |
215 | 5.8 | 5,751
|
| Portugal | 3,838 | 645
| 12.9 | 2,844 |
| Suomi/Finland | 2,216 | 140
| 5.8 | 3,976 |
| Sverige | 3,154 | 114
| 2.6 | 4,563 |
| United Kingdom | 15,799 |
390 | 1.4 | 24,119
|
| EU totals | 128,305 | 6,701
| 4.2 | 287,886 |
| | |
| |
Table 1b
BASIC ECONOMIC DATA FOR 10 ACCEDING COUNTRIES
| Czech Republic | 4,280 |
228 | 4.9 | 3,232
|
| Estonia | 891 | 43
| 7.1 | 422 |
| Cyprus | 143 | 14
| 4.9 | — |
| Latvia | 2,485 | 145
| 15.1 | 562 |
| Lithuania | 3,487 | 245
| 16.5 | 1,181 |
| Hungary | 5,853 | 235
| 6.1 | 5,660 |
| Malta | 12 | 3
| 2.1 | 158 |
| Poland | 18,246 | 2,736
| 19.2 | 14,965 |
| Slovenia | 486 | 90
| 9.9 | 1006 |
| Slovakia | 244 | 132
| 6.3 | 1,522 |
| CC10 | 38,327 | 3,871
| 13.2 | — |
Table 1c
BASIC ECONOMIC DATA FOR THE THREE SECOND WAVE COUNTRIES
| Bulgaria | 5,498 | 286
| 9.7 | 3,705 |
| Romania | 14,897 | 4,801
| 44.4 | 10,707 |
| Turkey | 30,883 | 7,217
| 35.4 | — |
| Second wave | 51,278 | 12,304
| | |
Table 2a
AGRICULTURE IN THE ECONOMY OF THE EU 15
| Aggregate Share of GDP % 2001
| Aggregate share of imports % 2001 |
Aggregate share of exports % 2001 | Percentage Household Expenditure on Food 2000
|
| Belgique/België | 1.1 |
6.7 | 5.7 | 16.8
|
| Danmark | 2.3 | 8.1
| 20.5 | 17.4 |
| Deutschland | 0.9 | 4.8
| 2.9 | 15.6 |
| Elláda | 6.7 | 5.4
| 21.8 | 21.4 |
| España | 3.6 | 8.2
| 10.4 | 18.5 |
| France | 2.2 | 4.7
| 7.7 | 17.6 |
| Ireland | 2.5 | 3.8
| 7.7 | 17.2 |
| Italia | 2.4 | 6.4
| 5.1 | 16.9 |
| Luxembourg | 0.6 | 1.2
| 1.2 | — |
| Nederland | 2.2 | 9.9
| 16.4 | 10.5 |
| Österreich | 1.3 | 4.1
| 4.3 | 15.6 |
| Portugal | 2.4 | 11.8
| 8.6 | 22.5 |
| Suomi/Finland | 0.9 | 3.3
| 3.6 | 16.1 |
| Sverige | 0.6 | 4.1
| 3.1 | 16.7 |
| United Kingdom | 0.6 | 5.7
| 5.1 | 13.9 |
| EU totals | 1.7 | 6
| 6.1 | 16.1 |
Table 2b
AGRICULTURE IN THE ECONOMY OF THE ACCEDING 10
| Aggregate Share of GDP %
| Aggregate Share of Imports % | Aggregate Share of Exports %
| Percentage Household Expenditure on Food
|
| Czech Republic | 1.7 | 5.4
| 4 | 29.7 |
| Estonia | 3.2 | 11.8
| 7.7 | 34 |
| Cyprus | 3.9 | 16.1
| 34.8 | 25.2 |
| Latvia | 3 | 13
| 6.6 | 34.3 |
| Lithuania | 3.1 | 9.3
| 11.8 | 39 |
| Hungary | 3.8 | 3.5
| 8.2 | 27 |
| Malta | 2.2 | 10.4
| 2.7 | 26.2 |
| Poland | 3.1 | 6.7
| 7.9 | 28.8 |
| Slovenia | 2 | 7
| 4.1 | 31.5 |
| Slovakia | 1.9 | 6.4
| 4.1 | 18.9 |
| CC10 | 3.1 | 9
| 9.2 | 28.8 |
Table 2c
AGRICULTURE IN THE ECONOMY OF THE SECOND WAVE THREE
| Bulgaria | 11.5 | —
| — | 31.8 |
| Romania | 12.9 | 8.1
| 4.1 | 39.3 |
| Turkey
Second wave | —
| 2.8 | 13.2 | —
|
Table 3a
PRODUCTION IN THE ACCEDING 10
| Cereals
Mt
| Fruit
Primary
Production
Mt
| Oil Crops
Primary
Mt | Meat total
Mt
| Milk Total | Beef and
Veal
| Wine |
| Czech Republic | 6,777,208 |
512,221 | 313,056 | 874,595
| 2,740,018 | 105,916 | 48,000
|
| Estonia | 543,335 | 28,000
| 25,115 | 59,091 | 620,716
| 13,244 | 2,000 |
| Cyprus | 138,000 | 248,930
| 4,375 | 101,044 | 209,900
| 3,900 | 44,400 |
| Hungary | 11,682,200 | 1,329,200
| 412,391 | 1,131,700 | 2,291,200
| 48,000 | 380,000 |
| Malta | 11,800 | 6,538
| 0 | 19,266 | 46,993
| 1,636 | 630 |
| Latvia | 1,044,000 | 67,306
| 13,221 | 63,126 | 813,643
| 16,043 | 0 |
| Lithuania | 2,539,100 | 163,400
| 42,298 | 184,138 | 1,815,000
| 64,500 | 5,500 |
| Poland | 26,833,198 | 2,996,866
| 385,712 | 2,789,800 | 12,201,100
| 315,000 | 0 |
| Slovakia | 3,153,359 | 186,774
| 150,693 | 275,895 | 1,222,508
| 37,544 | 31,595 |
| Slovenia | 495,923 | 227,026
| 663 | 170,990 | 650,000
| 42,200 | 44,000 |
| CC10 | 53,218,123 | 5,766,261
| 1,347,524 | 5,669,645 | 22,611,078
| 647,983 | 556,125 |
| | |
| | | |
|
Table 3b
PRODUCTION IN THE SECOND WAVE 3
| Cereals Mt | Fruit Primary Production Mt
| Oil Crops Primary Mt | Meat total Mt
| Milk Total | Beef andVeal
| Wine |
| Bulgaria | 7,400,007 | 688,400
| 226,620 | 498,000 | 1,568,700
| 61600 | 200,000 |
| Romania | 14,066,733 | 2,163,100
| 763,826 | 911,600 | 4,750,000
| 145,000 | 500,000 |
| Turkey | 31,940,180 | 10,995,550
| 936,207 | 1,314,084 | 9,495,550
| 350,000 | 28,234 |
| Second wave | 53,406,920 |
13,847,050 | 1,926,653 | 2,723,684
| 15,814,250 | 556,600 | 728,234
|
Table 3c
PRODUCTION IN EU 15
| Cereals Mt | Fruit Primary Production Mt
| Oil Crops Primary Mt | Meat total Mt
| Milk Total | Beef and Veal
| Wine |
| EU 15 | 215,025,120 | 56,226,143
| 7,053,555 | 36,244,088 | 125,616,214
| 7,502,335 | 15,526,148 |
| CC10 as % EU 15 | 25 | 10
| 19 | 16 | 18 |
9 | 4 |
| Second Wave as % EU 15 | 25 |
25 | 27 | 7 | 13
| 7 | 5 |
Sir John Marsh
January 2004
|
