1. Introduction
Agriculture is an important area of policy development in the EU. There are 500 million people residing in the EU (European Commission, “Agriculture”). Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) expresses the EU’s agricultural strategies and plans for all member states. CAP is one of the oldest EU policies. Revision of the CAP occurs periodically to accommodate emerging issues affecting all member states or specific to one or some member states. Spain protects its interests as a major agricultural producer by influencing the EU’s agricultural policy.
Agriculture is a key sector in Spain. The agricultural sector contributes 3.4% to GDP, but Spain is a significant producer of agricultural products for domestic consumption and for trading with other member states (Ryan 13). The EU exercises significant influence on Spain’s agricultural policy. Spain adheres to the policies imposed on all EU member states, including the CAP and its subsequent revisions.
Developing a sound and responsive agricultural policy for the EU and Spain depends on the reciprocal influence of Spain on the EU’s policymaking in agriculture and the EU’s influence on Spain’s agricultural policy. The discussion considers the dynamics of the influence of Spain on policy development in agriculture for the entire EU as well as the impact of the EU-wide agricultural policy on Spain.
2. Spain’s Influence on European Policymaking in Agriculture
Spain’s impact on the EU’s agricultural policy commenced during its entry into the European Community. Dudek (91) explained that Spain’s accession to the EU posed problems that required adjustments to existing policy. Spain’s unique economic and political context created difficulties in achieving integration. Spain relied strongly on its agricultural sector. While agricultural production was competitive, production involved manual equipment and outdated technology. Agricultural production lacked the scientific advancements already available to the agricultural sector in other member countries. At the same time, agricultural production focused on domestic consumption. Insular agricultural production meant that its practices do not necessarily align with European standards. Uncertainties over the agricultural contribution of Spain to the EC affected the development of policymaking in agriculture, particularly on the policy priorities for Spain under CAP.
Spain proved its significant contribution to olive oil production. This led to CAP revisions that supported this agricultural sector. According to Lefebvre et al. (54), Spain’s accession contributed to the transformation of the EU from a net importer to a net exporter of olive oil in the global market. Due to the change in its position, there was need to update the EU agricultural policy relating to olive plantations and olive oil production. Initial reforms in 1998 served to facilitate transition. Extension of these reforms until 2003 became necessary. By 2004, change occurred with the implementation of the Single Payment Scheme (SPS) for olive farmers. This replaced the coupling system that allocated payments to specific sectors. SPS allocated payment to a broader range of beneficiaries in the agricultural sector to address the goal of the EU to support farmers and address the agricultural needs of the community. While the SPS applied to Spain, it opted to retain the coupling system to sustain olive plantations.
Moreover, Dudek (91) posited that Spain’s accession also affected the agricultural interest of some EC member countries under CAP. Spain is a significant producer of agricultural products. CAP coverage was an important part of accession. With an economy in the early stage of industrialization, the salary of workers was lower than the wage for the same work in other member countries. Lower wages in Spain meant that agricultural products cost less. The large agricultural production of Spain and lower wages of farm labor caused concern on the part of countries with significant agricultural sectors. Balfour and Preston (9) provided several examples of the resistance to the changes expected from Spain’s accession. France, for example, sought the imposition of stronger restrictions on Spain as condition for becoming part of CAP. Farm owners in the Southeastern region of France expressed the strongest concern over the impact on them of Spain becoming part of CAP. They collectively asked the French government to support their interests in managing the impact of Spain’s CAP coverage on demand for agricultural products from French farmers and prices of agricultural exports. According to Lieberman (269), France vetoed the Commission proposal on Spain’s involvement in agricultural trade by asking for a quota on the wine production of Spain and reduction in Spanish fishing vessels allowed to fish in Community waters. Balfour and Preston (10) cited Italy as another member state concerned with the CAP coverage of Spain. Italy, which also has a significant agricultural sector, expressed concerns over the changes in the agricultural market that would result from Spain’s accession. However, Italy’s concerns over the impact on its agricultural sector weighed less than its interest in having an ally when polarization of decision-making on EU policies occurs along the northern and southern divide. Even if Spain becomes a competitor of Italy in agricultural trade, Italy expected that it could gain the support of Spain in lobbying for agricultural and other policies beneficial to both countries at the community level.
Spain’s accession also meant a significant increase in the CAP budget. Spain affects EU agricultural policy in terms of the budget allocation for CAP. Balfour and Preston (10) purported that since Spain has a significant agricultural sector, it would become a recipient of CAP funds to support the further development of agricultural production and contribute to achieving the EU goals of food security and sustainability of agricultural production. Budget adjustments caused concerns among EC member states. The authors added that Britain, which is not dependent on its agricultural sector, favored the integration of Spain into the EC but protested any increase in its contribution and requested for a reduction of its contribution.
As an agricultural country, Spain is the recipient of a significant portion of CAP funds. The issue with CAP allocation for Spain connects with its compliance with CAP measures. According to Dudek (91-92) Spain’s unique political system challenged the usual sharing of regulatory power between the EU and national government. In Spain, governance is largely decentralized. Autonomous Communities, such as Catalonia, Andalusia, Madrid, Valencia and Basque Country, largely make policy decisions on matters affecting their jurisdictions. Operation of the CAP in Spain required the transference of decision-making power from the Autonomous Communities to the national and EU government. A gap in perspective towards the locus of decision-making emerged. Within the EU, agricultural policymaking occurs at the supranational level. Among the Autonomous Communities, policy decisions affecting agriculture should remain at the local level. While Autonomous Communities needed to give up some of their decision-making power, Spain introduced a new context for CAP implementation in the EU. Assessments of compliance at the EU level have to consider the unique context of Spain that affects its implementation of CAP strategies.
Given Spain’s unique political system, it then became necessary to accommodate an implementation plan that suited the context of Spain and facilitated successful policy adoption. CAP revisions in 2007/2008 focused on food security for the EU and the world (Basch 2). In the 2013 CAP revisions, the focus was still on food security together with sustainable management of resources and rural development (Rocamora-Montiel et al. 165). Spain showed significant effort into pushing for the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, but it disagreed with the allocation of nearly one-third of CAP funds to this endeavor (Kolling and Serrano Leal). However, Spain has achieved greater success in conservation agriculture when compared to other member countries (Basch 4). Feedback from stakeholders in the agricultural sector on policy development and implementation are important to successful outcomes (Rocamora-Montiel et al. 156). EU’s agricultural plan for Spain should consider the areas for improvement based on the feedback from agricultural stakeholders in Spain.
Spain’s unique political system also meant that there was need to determine long-term arrangements for its inclusion in the CAP (Chislett 94). Agro-environmental policy offers a wide room for improvement in Spain. Bruckheimer (9) explained difficulties in this area. This can be due to the later adoption of the policy in Spain and the high level of diversity in the agricultural environment of the country. Spain only adopted the policy in 1996. Spain’s agricultural regions varies in terms of climate, water availability, and soil quality. Spain achieved some degree of modernization in agriculture production and involvement of farmers in sustainability measures. However, the measures do not yet fully address the issues of erosion and water problems that are specific to Spain’s agricultural sector, budget allocation to these issues are insufficient, and the measures are largely separate from rural development. Difficulties are due to the geographic, political, and socio-economic uniqueness of Spain (Bruckheimer 10).
EU agricultural policy is most relevant to states with strong agricultural sector. Spain will always exercise influence on future EU policymaking in agriculture. In 2020, the expected target of EU agricultural policy is more towards sustainable practices, actions to address climate change, and balanced regional development (Basch 2). A study (Rocamora-Montiel et al. 169) on the impact of feedback on agricultural issues from the Andalusian community showed that the perspective of parties directly experiencing these issues determines future CAP revisions. Results of the study showed that many of the respondents preferred a more balanced allocation of CAP funds between direct payments to farmers and environmental and other measures. This means decreasing direct payments in order to have more funds towards other measures. With regard to other measures, respondents also preferred the decrease in environmental allocation because of Spain’s significant achievements in this area and to have more funds allocated towards rural development. The Andalusian Community government is likely to lobby for these budget allocation preferences during negotiations on the 2020 CAP revisions. EU would have to consider the preferences of Autonomous Communities in Spain because the country is a significant agricultural producer and achievement of goals rests on the cooperation of agricultural stakeholders.
3. EU’s Influence on Spain’s Agricultural Policy
EU influenced Spain’s agricultural policy through CAP. Since the inception of CAP in 1962, it has undergone a series of changes. Its focus shifted from ensuring sufficient quantities of agricultural products to the multifaceted emphasis on “market orientation, quality, food safety and traceability, respecting animal welfare and broader environmental concerns, and sustainability” (European Commission, “Agriculture”). Spain’s accession in 1986 meant that it become subsumed by the CAP revisions applicable during this time. The primary objective during this time was “to provide a stable and safe food supply at affordable prices for consumers, while ensuring a decent standard of living for farmers” (European Commission, “Agriculture”).
Spain adopted succeeding CAP revisions. In 2008, for example, Spain adopted the CAP targets of ensuring food security, developing the rural areas, and protecting the environment through sustainable practices (Azcarate). The European Commission (“Spain” 1-2) also identified several CAP initiatives in 2013 that applied to Spain. CAP revisions involved an inflow of €45 billion to Spain to address the aspects of “employment, sustainability, modernization, innovation and quality”. Spain exercised the prerogative of identifying priority areas that address the specific needs of farmers and the broader environmental and rural development issues. To achieve a more balanced budget allocation, direct payments are for new active farmers and new agricultural entrepreneurs. Existing farmers have to apply for eligibility for support programs. Support for farmers who adopt measures to achieve sustainable agricultural production and address climate change existed. This involved 30% direct payments for the three eco-friendly practices of “crop diversification, maintaining permanent grassland and conserving 5% of areas of ecological interest or measures considered to have at least equivalent environmental benefits” (European Commission, “Spain” 1). CAP also supported measures to enhance the influence of farmers in the food supply chain. These measures included the organization of farmers into groups and establishment of networks between farmers’ groups and other parties in the food supply chain. In the area of rural development, CAP supported 18 rural development initiatives, which included 1 national rural development initiative and 17 regional rural development initiatives for each of the Autonomous Communities in Spain. A total of €8.3 billion went to programs that ensure the competitiveness of agriculture through the “sustainable management of natural resources and climate action” and “balanced territorial development of rural economies” (European Commission, “Spain” 2). Fund allocation to help farmers with credit problems was also underway. CAP also involved measures to encourage environment-friendly farming practices, such as “cultivation along the contour line, minimum tillage, cover crops, maintenance of terraces, organic production” (Lefebvre et al. 54).
The EU’s influence on Spain’s agricultural policy is significant. Adoption of the CAP by Spain was a condition of accession. Spain had to implement adjustments to its largely decentralized system of governance in order to facilitate consolidation into the EU. Generally, EU agricultural policies have strengthened Spain’s economy by facilitating modernization of the agricultural sector and providing standards for agricultural development and rural progress (Ryan 16-17).
However, transferring policy decisions in agriculture to the EU had varying effects on Autonomous Communities in Spain. Dudek (16-18) used the example of Galicia and Valencia Communities to show the varied impact of CAP. Both Autonomous Communities have comparable competencies in agricultural policymaking. EU restrictions on local policymaking had opposite effects on the two regions. In the case of Galicia, EU constraints on policymaking had a strong negative impact on the ability of the local government to determine and implement agricultural policies affecting its key economic activities of fishing, dairy production, and boat construction. Policymaking constraints had the effect of negating the EU goal of facilitating economic development at the local level. In the case of Valencia, the local community flourished by adopting EU agricultural policies. Production of rice, olive oil and citrus fruits grew to address the demand of the larger EU market. As such, Dudek (17-18) concluded that the different impact of the EU policies on Galicia and Valencia indicated several things. One, a uniform agricultural policy for all member states does not stimulate local economies in a similar manner. EU policymaking has a territorial aspect. Second, internal factors intervene in the effect of EU policies on each member state. EU policies, such as the CAP, can affect local economies positively and/or negatively.
CAP facilitated general and specific agricultural outcomes. Implementation allowed member states to exercise flexibility in adopting the policy in a manner that responds to their specific contexts. Spain adopted CAP revisions with a “national character” by complying with the required measures but determining prioritization according to national and local issues (Pispini). Accession revived olive farming in Spain (Lefebvre et al. 53). Spain achieved several CAP goals from 2007 to 2013. One goal is the provision of direct payments to 895,200 recipients. Direct payments had the effect of sustaining agricultural production and maintaining jobs in this sector. Another goal is improvement in the marketing of agricultural products. A large portion of funds went to the marketing of wine, fruits and vegetables. Still another goal is the creation of jobs in rural areas. Apart from maintaining farm jobs, forestry workers also remained employed. Rural employment also grew through the support for new agricultural businesses, modernization of production to decrease cost, and engagement of farms and agricultural businesses in quality improvement and environmental protection practices. (European Commission, “Spain” 2)
Specific impact of the CAP in Spain is apparent in several specific agricultural sectors. The European Commission (“Spain” 3) reported that in the wine sector, Spain moved up from a third to the second largest producer of wine in the EU. This was due to the infusion of €1.2 billion into the Spanish wine sector in 2009 to 2013. Another €1.2 billion for the period 2014 to 2018 should maintain the position of Spain as the second leading wine producer in the EU. The EU has also invested €136 million on the marketing of Spanish wine to the United States, China, Switzerland, Mexico, Japan and Brazil. CAP allocation to the fruits and vegetable sector led to the emergence of the highest number of producer organizations in Spain that are responsible for an annual total revenue of €6.25 million (European Commission, “Spain” 3).
The European Commission (“Spain” 3-4) also reported on the positive effects of CAP on specific regions and agricultural production activities. Banana production in the Canary Islands increased due to the establishment of producer organizations and improved marketing networks. Grazing practices, quality of livestock products, and landscape and biodiversity protection improved through the shepherd school in Andalusia. Environmental protection and quality production became part of the operation of dairy farms through modernization programs. Ham production and quality increased in Teruel through better facilities, equipment and techniques. Hydroponic process of growing lettuces succeeded in Canarias.
4. Conclusion
Consideration of the dynamics of the influence of Spain on policy development in agriculture for the entire EU as well as the impact of EU-wide agricultural policy on Spain showed that a sound and responsive agricultural policy requires the balanced reciprocal influence of the EU and Spain. Spain influenced the EU’s agricultural policy through the reconsideration of policy priorities, implementation plan and long-term arrangements for Spain under CAP; making EC member countries reassess their agricultural interest; receiving sizable CAP budget allocation; and introducing a new model of CAP implementation to the EU. EU influenced agricultural policy in Spain through CAP. CAP necessitated the transference of policymaking in agriculture from the Autonomous Communities to the national and EU government. It provided the objectives of agricultural production and priority areas for Spain. Funds supported the accrual of significant benefits to agricultural stakeholders in Spain.
Works Cited
Azcarate, Isabel Bardaji. CAP Reform Profile-Spain. CAP2020, 5 Dec. 2008. Web. 4 May 2016.
Balfour, Sebastian, and Paul Preston. “Introduction: Spain and the Great Powers.” Spain and the Great Powers in the Twentieth Century. Eds. Sebastian Balfour and Paul Preston. London, UK: Routledge, 1999. 1-12. Print.
Basch, G., E.J. Gonzalez-Sanchez, H. Gomez McPherson, and A. Kassam. Opportunities for Conservation Agriculture in the EU Common Agricultural Policy 2014-2020. 2011. Web. 5 May 2016.
Bruckmeier, Karl. Policy Influences on Agricultural and Livestock Systems in Different Regions of the EU: The Example of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Reform’s Agri-Environmental Measures. 2001. Web. 5 May 2016.
Chislett, William. Spain: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013. Print.
Dudek, Carolyn M. EU Accession and Spanish Regional Development: Winners and Losers. Brussels, Belgium: Peter Lang, 2005. Print.
European Commission. Agriculture and Rural Development: The CAP in Your Country. 22 Apr. 2016. Web. 4 May 2016.
---. Spain: Common Agricultural Policy. Brussels, Belgium: DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Unit for Agricultural Policy Analysis and Perspectives, 2014. 1 Apr. 2014. Web. 5 May 2016.
Kolling, Mario, and Cristina Serrano Leal. Spain’s Balancing Act: Net Contributor or Net Beneficiary of the EU Budget. 7 Dec. 2012. Web. 5 May 2016.
Lefebvre, Marianne, Maria Espinosa, and Sergio Gomez y Paloma. The Influence of the Common Agricultural Policy on Agricultural Landscapes. Seville, Spain: European Commission Joint Research Centre, 2012. Web. 5 May 2016.
Lieberman, Sima. Growth and Crisis in the Spanish Economy: 1940-1993. London: Routledge, 1995. Print.
Pispini, Myrto. CAP in Spain: Deciding for the Farmers without the Farmers. Agriculture and Rural Convention, 6 Nov. 2013. Web. 4 May 2016.
Rocamora-Montiel, Beatriz, Sergio Colombo, and Melania Salazar-Ordonez. “Social Attitudes in Southern Spain to Shape EU Agricultural Policy.” Journal of Policy Modeling, 36.1 (2014): 156-171. Print.
Ryan, Christine. The Impact of the European Union on Spain. Pell Scholars and Senior Theses, 1 Apr. 2006. Web. 5 May 2016.
