Europos Sąjungos bendrosios žemės ūkio politikos raidos perspektyvos ir Lietuvos interesai.

LTEuropos Sąjungos bendroji žemės ūkio politika (BŽŪP), įsteigta 1957 m. Romos sutartimi, buvo nuolat reformuojama, tačiau dar nė karto nebuvo reformuota iš esmės. Nors kiekvienas bandymas reformuoti BŽŪP buvo lydimas retorikos apie radikalių pokyčių būtinumą, reformos rezultatas visuomet buvo inkrementinio pobūdžio. Taip BŽŪP po truputį evoliucionavo nuo žemdirbių pajamas ir žemės ūkio produkcijos lygį palaikančios politikos (originali BŽŪP) link politikos, orientuotos į žemės ūkio produkcijos kainų mažinimą, nemažinant žemdirbių pajamų (MacSharry reforma, įvedusi tiesiogines išmokas ūkininkams), paisančios aplinkosaugos reikalavimų ir skatinančios kaimo plėtrą (Darbotvarkės 2000 reforma, įvedusi antrąjį BŽŪP ramstį) bei atskiriančios dalį paramos nuo gaminamos produkcijos (2003 m. reforma). Net ir ES plėtra, padvigubinusi žemdirbių skaičių ES, nesąlygojo radikalios BŽŪP reformos, o derybos dėl ES 2007–2013 m. finansinės perspektyvos nepajudino tiesioginėms išmokoms ir rinkos reguliavimo priemonėms numatytų lėšų. Siekiant kompromiso dėl ES 2007–2013 m. finansinės perspektyvos, 2005 m. gruodžio 15–16 d. Europos vadovų taryboje buvo sutarta, kad Europos Komisija 2008–2009 m. turi pateikti ataskaitą dėl ES biudžeto peržiūros. Taigi, tik susitarus dėl ES 2007–2013 m. finansinės perspekty vos, jau 2007 m. prasidėjo diskusijos dėl naujo – 2014–2020 m. – laikotarpio. Viena sudėtingiausių temų diskutuojant dėl ES biudžeto peržiūros bus BŽŪP reforma. Šio straipsnio tikslas – atsižvelgiant į BŽŪP efektyvumo problemas ir tikėtinas valstybių narių ir Europos Komisijos nuostatas šios politikos ateities atžvilgiu, identifikuoti labiausiai tikėtiną BŽŪP raidos scenarijų ir įvertinti, kiek jis atitinka Lietuvos interesus. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: BŽŪP; CAP; EU; Europos Sąjunga (European Union).

ENStriving for compromise on EU financial perspective for 2007–2013 it was agreed in the European Council of 15-16 December 2005 that in 2008–2009 European Commission should submit report on EU budget review. So, just after reaching agreement on EU financial perspective for 2007–2013, discussions on the new period of 2014–2020 have already started in 2007. One of the most complicated issues in the context of the EU budget review will be the CAP reform. The goal of this article is, taking into account the CAP efficiency problems and likely attitudes of Member States and European Commission in respect of this policy future, to identify the most likely CAP development scenario and evaluate how well it matches the interests of Lithuania. The CAP always has been substantially criticised that with enormous financing in principle does not creates any added value, but distorts markets, boosts prices of agricultural products, privileges one social group – farmers, especially the big ones. Critics note, that the efficient CAP is impossible at all, because the agricultural sectors of Member States differ too much in respect of number of farmers, size of holdings and their competitive abilities as well as kinds of production they produce. Despite that, the CAP till 2014 will be one of the main EU common policies containing more than 40 percent of overall EU budget and, as the analysis of agricultural sectors of Member States and European Commission’s attitudes showed, it is difficult to argue that after 2013 the importance of the CAP will be substantially diminished.Member States, taking into account the financial benefits they receive from the CAP budget and peculiarities of their agricultural sectors, conditionally can be divided into two groups: Member States supporting CAP liberalisation and essential reduction of its budget and Member States favouring its continuity. To the first group belong Member States, having tiny part of labour force employed in sector of agriculture dominated by big and competitive agricultural holdings, while their net balance from the CAP budget is negative. The following countries are assigned to this group: United Kingdom, the Nederlands, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, Belgium, Finland, Austria and Italy from the EU-15 and Cyprus, Malta, Check Republic, Estonia and Slovakia from the new Member States. Contrary, to the second group of countries belong Member States having much higher numbers of farmers, their agricultural sector is characterised by smaller, and in some new member states even semi-subsistence, holdings, for which it would be much more complicated to compete in case of free market economy. Most of these Member States on the basis of CAP receive substantial financial gains. Conditionally to this group are assigned Ireland, Greece, Spain, France and Portugal from the EU-15 and Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania and Bulgaria from the new Member States. More or less equal distribution of Member States between these two groups render impossible any extreme CAP development scenario, such as immediate CAP liberalisation or renationalisation, on the one hand, or status quo, on the other.Furthermore, European Commission, as it was showed by the analysis of its attitudes, is tending to continue the CAP reform of 2003 and propose not radical but incremental changes. Therefore the most likely CAP development scenario foresees further decoupling of direct aids from agricultural production, gradual reduction of financing allocated for direct payments and market support measures and further strengthening of the second pillar of the CAP. Lithuanian agricultural sector at this moment is not ready to operate under market economy conditions and on the basis of the CAP till the end of 2013 will receive substantial financial support. The most likely CAP development scenario after 2013 foreseeing the vision of not radical, but incremental changes, would make conditions for gradual liberalisation of Lithuanian agricultural sector and development of rural areas. So, such scenario would match the mid-term development interests of Lithuania. Using the CAP assistance Lithuania should prepare for complete liberalisation of this policy in the long-term and design efficient rural development policy. [From the publication]