Discussion Papers 2008.
Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA) 26-37. p.
6 Agriculture in the Carpathian region
6.1 The situation and the challenges
Agriculture and forestry is still among the most important economic sectors in the
Carpathian region, though its share in GDP and employment is decreasing. Unfor-
tunately, not only the share, but the absolute level of production is also decreasing.
With the exception of Romania and Austria, the volume of agricultural production
is still lower than 18 years ago in all Carpathian countries and regions.
The mountainous character of the area determines the types of land use and ag-
ricultural production:
The share of arable land in the proper mountainous areas is lower than 20 per-
cent. Higher situated areas and steeper slopes are absolutely unsuitable for plant
cultivation. In some areas in Romania and Poland, farmers formed terraces for strip
cultivation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but since then in many areas
cultivation has been abandoned. In the transition areas and in the fore-lands of the
mountains, the share of arable land is, of course, higher.
The next more important type of agricultural land use is grazing on permanent
grassland, a key element of mountain cultures, often serving as a link between
mountain areas, where animals graze in summer, and lowland areas, where they
graze in winter. The share of grassland in land use is about 20-30 percent in the
Romanian and Ukrainian Carpathians, it is less in the higher altitudes of the Slovak
Carpathians.
Permanent crops occupy a substantially smaller share of land in the Carpathi-
ans. On the lower slopes of the mountains in Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and
Ukraine, there are vineyards.
The largest share of land is occupied – as in other mountainous areas – by for-
ests. 66 percent of the mountainous area in the Eastern and Southern Carpathians is
covered by forest. In the Northern Carpathians, this share is even larger: 75%. For-
ests are the most important and valuable resources of the Carpathians. It is espe-
cially true in Ukraine, where nearly 70 percent of the forests of the whole country
are to be found in the Carpathians, which occupy only 4 percent of the area of
Ukraine. It is no wonder that forests are seriously threatened by over-exploitation
and deforestation in this country. In Ukraine, forests were especially endangered in
the 1950s, but the danger is increasing also nowadays.
In the last decade, substantial changes occurred in the land use pattern of the
Carpathians:
− The land covered by forests decreased substantially. Between 1992/93 and
2000/2001 (in less than one decade) the forested area decreased by 5 percent.
This 5 percent decrease is, however) very differentiated according to coun-
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
AGRICULTURE IN THE CARPATHIAN REGION
2
7
tries and regions. The largest decrease can be observed again in Transcarpa-
thia (Ukraine)2 (more than 15 percent) and in Romania (8 percent). This is
mainly due to the changing socio-economic conditions. A large part of agri-
cultural land (and forest) had been distributed among small farmers and in
some years, the only way for survival for these new owners was deforesta-
tion. In addition, the institutions of the protection of forests had been weak-
ened and demoralized.
− Forest area in the Carpathian regions of Slovakia, Poland and Hungary
slightly increased. This increase was partly due to natural processes (in-
creasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 resulting in abundance of
vegetation), partly to institutional conditions. In Poland, most forests re-
mained in state ownership, and generally, land ownership did not change
radically. Anyway, there is a long term tendency in the Polish Carpathians, to
transform pastures into forests. In Hungary, a large part of forests became
private poverty, and clear cutting occurred more frequently than in Poland,
nevertheless, there were also incentives for afforestation and these tendencies
neutralised each other.
− A general tendency in the whole region is the decrease of cropland (arable
area) in the Carpathians. This decrease is quite dramatic in some areas, but
even in average more than 10 percent. It is closely related to the economic
situation of agriculture in the Carpathian countries. In the new competitive
situation a large part of the cultivated area proved to be not competitive and
efficient enough to cultivate. A part of it was transformed to forest or grass-
land but another part has been abandoned and is not cultivated at all. It is a
general phenomenon in these countries, but especially spectacular in the Car-
pathian mountains.
This leads us however to the general situation of agriculture in the Carpathian
countries.
Agricultural production is still lower in all Carpathian countries – with the ex-
ception of Austria and Romania – than in 1989–91, in the years of change in the
political and economic system. One of the reasons is the change in the ownership
and farm system. The new farms are very small (less than 1 hectare) so they are not
able to produce efficiently. They lack the necessary capital, and – in many cases –
also the knowledge to modernize their farm (Figure 2).
The other reason is the market problem. In most cases the marketing system
which would help to sell the agricultural products of small farmers to the domestic
and external (EU and other) markets is missing. At the same time, the more effi-
cient and better marketed food and other agricultural products of the EU15 coun-
2 Interestingly, in the other Carpathian regions of Ukraine (Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk region),
deforestation is much more limited.
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
28
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
tries had already captured a significant part of the domestic markets of new mem-
ber states. In the case of Poland, there were years in the last decades when it be-
came net importer of agricultural products, but at the end of the period it had a
slight surplus in exports (Figure 3–4).
Romania which had a balanced trade in agricultural products at the end of the
1970s, became a large net importer of agricultural products in the last 2-3 decades
(Figure 5).
The former Czechoslovakia was always a net importer of agricultural and food
products, but in the last decades the gap between imports and exports increased
(Figure 6).
And, finally, Austria, a country, which has been always a net importer of food
and other agricultural products, succeeded in 2004, to achieve a balanced trade in
agricultural products and ceased to be a net importer. The geographical conditions
of Austria are much less favourable to achieve this balance than in any of the other
Carpathian countries. Therefore, to achieve a better balance is not a matter of geo-
graphic conditions but of structural change in the economy (Figure 7).
Figure 2
Agricultural production in the Carpathian countries 1978–2004
(1989–1991=100)
140
120
100
Austria
Czech Republic
80
Hungary
Poland
60
Romania
40
Slovakia
Ukraine
20
0
78/81
89/91
91/2001
2003
2004
Source: FAO Yearbook.
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
AGRICULTURE IN THE CARPATHIAN REGION
2
9
Figure 3
Agricultural imports and exports of Hungary, million USD
Agricultural imports and exports of Hungary million USD
4000
3500
3000
2500
imports
2000
exports
1500
1000
500
0
1979-81
1989-91
1999-2001
2003
2004
Source: FAO Yearbook.
Figure 4
Agricultural imports and exports of Poland, million USD
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
imports
exports
3000
2000
1000
0
1979–1981
1989–1991
1999–2001
2003
2004
Source: FAO Yearbook.
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
30
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
Figure 5
Agricultural imports and exports of Romania, million USD
2500
2000
1500
imports
exports
1000
500
0
1979–1981
1989–1991
1999–2001
2003
2004
Source: FAO Yearbook.
Figure 6
Agricultural imports and exports of Czechoslovakia (until 1991) and of the
Czech Republic and Slovakia (after 1993), million USD
6000
5000
4000
imports
3000
exports
2000
1000
0
1979–1981
1989–1991
1999–2001
2003
2004
Source: FAO Yearbook.
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
AGRICULTURE IN THE CARPATHIAN REGION
3
1
Figure 7
Agricultural imports and exports of Austria, million USD
8000
7000
6000
5000
imports
4000
exports
3000
2000
1000
0
1979–1981
1989–1991
1999–2001
2003
2004
Source: FAO Yearbook.
The volume of agricultural exports of Austria amounted to 7,5 billion € in 2004,
which is substantially more than the export of the other countries with larger agri-
cultural area and more favourable natural conditions. In the same year the volume
of Polish agricultural exports was 6,7 billion, the exports of Hungary 3,6 billion, of
Romania 0,75 billion, one tenth of the Austrian figure, while the territory of Roma-
nia is three times larger than that of Austria.
Therefore, the reorganisation of the markets of mountain agriculture should be
among the prime objectives of any development policy of mountainous regions.
Within this objective, the main tasks are: the protection and promotion of mountain
food products, and the reorganisation of their domestic and external markets.
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
32
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
6.2 Policy recommendations for the agriculture of the Carpathian area
6.2.1 The cooperation of Carpathian countries and regions in the field
of agriculture
The Carpathian countries have very different endowments for agricultural produc-
tion. While the plains are more suitable for plant production, mountain areas offer
opportunities for animal husbandry and wood production. Areas with different
endowments are relatively close to each other, enabling the exchange of goods with
relatively small transport costs. These opportunities were efficiently utilised within
the framework of the large empires (Habsburg, Russian, German) until the begin-
ning of the 20th century. After World War I, however, the new countries pursued a
protectionist agricultural policy, and the old agricultural trade linkages weakened
substantially or totally disappeared. This protectionist agricultural policy survived
for a very long time, just until the accession of the countries to the European Union
in 2004. It happened, despite the fact that in 1992, the Visegrad countries estab-
lished the Central European Free Trade Agreement (CEFTA), which provided
measures also for the liberalisation of trade in agricultural products among the
countries. Unfortunately, these provisions were not observed consequently. If a
particular agricultural product in a partner country faced serious market problems,
protectionist measures were frequently applied though they were not reconcilable
with the treaty.
The application of such instruments was not any more possible after the acces-
sion of most Carpathian countries to the EU. Trade in agricultural products be-
tween the countries increased very dynamically. Nevertheless, opportunities for
further increase are still very large.
There are opportunities for the division of labour and for the exchange of prod-
ucts not only within countries but also between regions. Before the centrally
planned socialist system, the centres of agricultural trade were the small and me-
dium – sometimes larger – towns at the foot of the mountains. Highlanders came
down to the town-markets and sold their products there or exchanged for the prod-
ucts of the plain or industries. Agricultural market was one of the main functions of
these towns and cities. Under socialism the purchase and procurement of agricul-
tural products became the function of large state enterprises which skipped these
small town-markets and practised central distribution of food products.
Maybe, these farmers’ markets were not the most efficient and modern ways of
food trade, but certainly more efficient than state food procurement. Suitable or-
ganisation and enterprises and revitalisation of the exchange of mountain and plain
products could re-establish the market function of these towns and cities.
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
AGRICULTURE IN THE CARPATHIAN REGION
3
3
6.2.2 The protection and promotion of Carpathian mountain food products
It is true, that the Carpathian mountain areas are less suitable for mass agricultural
(plant) production than plain areas. To cope with this disadvantage, mountain areas
should specialize in those products, for which they have better conditions. Some
dairy products produced in the Carpathian Mountains were well known and famous
for centuries in the larger Carpathian area. Ewe milk and goat milk are traditional
products of the Carpathians. Even more important are the different types of cheese
(like Cas Afumat, Brinza in Coaja de Brad, Brinza in Basica, Brinza de Burduf,
Cheag, Urda, Dulle, Sarata in Romania, the drink “Zinzica”, the cheese types of
“Ostiepky”, “Parenica”, “Korbaciky” in Slovakia).
The same is true for the gathering of different berries (like cranberry, blueberry,
whortleberry) and mushrooms, which are to be found only in the forests of moun-
tain areas. For many poor people in the mountains their gathering is an important
source of income and living.
In order to promote the production and markets of authentic mountain products,
the European Parliament proposed the preparation and adoption of a Charter to
protect mountain food products in Europe. The European Charter for Mountain
Quality Food Products was signed on 11 December 2005 in Strasbourg.
The Charter defines first, what can be regarded as Mountain Quality Product.
Five qualities should be fulfilled:
− Raw materials must be derived from a mountain region
− Processing must be carried out in a mountain region
− Production must take into account concerns relating to sustainable develop-
ment;
− Production must attempt to maintain the biodiversity and heritage of moun-
tain regions;
− Producers must be able to guarantee at all times the transparency of informa-
tion to consumers.
The Charter has two main objectives: an economic development objective and a
policy objective:
The economic development objective aims to provide better identification of
quality mountain products in the market and to avoid counterfeits and misinterpre-
tation that would be detrimental to producers and consumers.
The policy objective is to recognise and promote the role of farmers and enter-
prises that produce benefits for society in the mountain areas of Europe and defend
their interests. It would serve the objective to maintain the population in the
mountains.
The definition of mountain quality food products helps to ensure accurate label-
ling and better protection of a niche in the European food market.
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
34
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
Another – and older – measure of the European Union is to ensure protection to national spe-
ciality foods. It is not restricted to mountain foods, but – obviously – mountain food products
should utilise also this opportunity.
To get EU protection for a given national speciality, the application must be submitted to the
European Commission. The Commission has one year for scrutinizing the application. They can
ask questions from the national authorities concerning the preparation of the food to be protected.
After one year, they publish the description of the food and its preparation in the Official Journal.
Other countries can remonstrate against it in the next six month. If there is no serious remon-
strance, the food will be registered as protected. If there is remonstrance against it, the two respec-
tive countries have to negotiate about it.
Old member countries of the EU have more than 100 registered and projected types of moun-
tain food each. New members are just starting to apply for registration. So far, the Czech Republic
achieved substantial progress, because they succeeded to include into the Accession Treaty the
protection of several types of food, among them most types of Czech beer. Slovakia, Poland and
Hungary made the first applications just recently and Romania did not yet apply so far for regis-
tering its food specialities. Unfortunately, there are very few mountain products among those
which were submitted for protection.
Submitted applications for EU protection of foods (only those in the Carpathian regions of the
respective countries)
Country
Already registered
Application under
Submitted by na-
and protected
investigation
tional authorities, but
still not investigated
Czech Republic
Stramberk “ears”
Niva cheese,
Pohorelice carp, Old-
(sweet wafer)
Olomouc tvargle,
Brno beer, Brno beer,
Moravian-Silesian
Znojmo beer
sauerkraut,
Hungary
–
–
Apricots of Gönc
Poland
Podhale ewe’s cheese Oscypek smoked
Korczin bean, Carp
cheese
of Zator
Slovakia
Skalicky trdelník
Parenica, bryndza,
(pastry horn)
ostiepok smoked
cheese
According to the table, Carpathian countries still have to make serious efforts to register and
protect their special mountain food products.
6.2.3 Flexibility of EU CAP and national regulations in the Carpathian Area
In 2004 Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, in 2007 Romania became a member
of the European Union and they became eligible for the EU CAP support. Despite
several similarities, the agricultural and farm structure of the Carpathian countries
is much differentiated. Therefore EU intervention and regulations must be flexible
to consider these important differences.
Some important indicators of agriculture in the Carpathian countries (Table 3).
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
AGRICULTURE IN THE CARPATHIAN REGION
3
5
Table 3
Main agricultural indicators (2004)
Austria
Czech
Hungary
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Republic
Share of agriculture in em-
5
4
7
18
38
5
ployment, %
Average farm size ha
20
134
26
12
2
143
Number of farms
137,000
26,400
155,400
1,082,700 1,211,800
12 900
EU agricultural support
9,117
7316
10,298
28,269
13,524
3 892
2007–2013 million €
Of which 1. pillar (inter-
vention and direct pay-
57
62
63
53
41
49
ments), %
Of which 2. pillar (restruc-
turing and rural develop-
43
38
37
47
59
51
ment), %
Source: Eurostat.
The share of agricultural employment is 4–7 percent in Austria, Czech Repub-
lic, Slovakia and Hungary, while it is 38 percent in Romania and 18 percent in
Poland. The average farm size is about 140 ha in the Czech Republic and Slovakia,
while it is 10–20 ha in Austria, Poland and Hungary and only 2 ha in Romania. It
has to be added that in mountainous areas the share of agricultural employment is
everywhere higher and farm size is everywhere smaller than the respective national
averages.
Different is also the structure of EU support. In Austria, Czech Republic and
Hungary, about 60 percent of it is used for direct payments and intervention (Pillar
1), this percentage is about 50 percent in Poland and Slovakia and 40 percent in
Romania. The share of Pillar 2 (restructuring and rural development) has, accord-
ingly, a reversed ranking.
Generally, the type of EU agricultural support is different in the old and new
member states. New member states did not have those statistics and documentation
which would be necessary to apply the system and measures of support of the old
member states. Therefore in all new member states (with the exception of Slove-
nia) a simplified system is applied the so called “Single Area Payment Scheme”
(SAPS). It means that the quantity of EU support depends exclusively on the size
of agricultural area cultivated by the farmer.
The other specific feature of the agricultural support system of the new member
states is that, considering the relatively low level of EU support in the first years of
membership, national governments are entitled to pay a complementary support to
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
36
VISIONS AND STRATEGIES IN THE CARPATHIAN AREA (VASICA)
their farmers which has to be gradually reduced during a 10 years transition period.
At the end of the 10 years, farmers of the new member states will enjoy the same
EU support than farmers of EU15. The name of this national support is “Compen-
satory National Direct Payments” (CNDP).
Though SAPS might have several advantages, it is disadvantageous for the
mountainous regions, because animal husbandry and its need for support are totally
disregarded. Animal husbandry is anyway a shrinking sector of Central European
agriculture: if disregarded in support schemes, it will certainly further decline. Na-
tional support schemes (CNDP) therefore consider livestock of the farms and sup-
port is paid accordingly.
Recent experiences, however, had shown that this type of support favours first
of all the large farms with large herds of animals in the plain regions and much less
mountain areas. Therefore, a new solution has to be found for the problem. Several
experts and institutions suggest that support for animal husbandry in new member
states should be coupled with the so called LFA (Less Favoured Areas) support,
paid in areas with unfavourable natural conditions for agriculture. This scheme
would help to concentrate special animal husbandry support to areas with some
natural or economic drawbacks. It would be part of the CNDP and of EU support
system as well.
Simultaneously, LFA support design should be revised as well. In old member
states 35 percent of LFA support goes to mountain areas, while the respective per-
centage in new member states is only 28 percent, though mountainous agricultural
areas represent as high percentage of agricultural area as in old member states.
Another policy proposal refers to the distribution of dairy production quotas.
Dairy production is the branch of agriculture where production and procurement is
most strictly controlled and restricted in the EU. Nevertheless, production and pro-
curement quotas are sometimes quite mechanically allocated to regions and farms,
disregarding the geographic conditions. Mountain areas, where dairy production is
one of the most important – if not the “most important” – branch of agriculture,
should be preferred by the allocation of quotas. The same is true for livestock
limitations. The number and size of livestock is related to the size of cultivated
area. In mountain areas, however, this relationship is specific and cannot be com-
pared to the farms in the plain areas.
Illés, Iván : Agriculture in the Carpathian Region.
In: Visions and Strategies in the Carpathian Area (VASICA)
Pécs: Centre for Regional Studies, 2008. 26-37. p. Discussion Papers, Special
AGRICULTURE IN THE CARPATHIAN REGION
3
7
6.2.4 Diversification of mountain economy
Beyond all these policy proposals, improving the conditions of mountain farms, the
basic problem is agricultural overpopulation and over employment in some, first of
all mountainous areas. This is the basic obstacle of increasing productivity,
efficiency and competitiveness of Carpathian agriculture. In some regions of the
Polish and Romanian Carpathians, 40–50 percent of the working force is employed
in agriculture and the farm area per one employed is extremely small. In some
areas, “agricultural employment” even increased in the last one and half decade,
because agriculture had to absorb those people who have lost heir job in mining
and industry. The only solution is – disregarding emigration – to establish non-
agricultural jobs and diversify the economy in these areas. These possibilities will
be dealt with in the chapters on industry and tourism.