Trade characteristics of new member states’ agriculture

Abstract

New member states (NMS) joined the European Union (EU) in 2004 or later. They became a part of the common, unified market. Without any trade restrictions, NMS were able to trade with every member state. On the other hand, generous support of the Common Agricultural Policy also boosted their agricultural sector. This paper gives an overview of the OMS’ agricultural performance, followed by a detailed trade analysis. It identifies major export products and the concentration of trade. Agricultural trade will be separated into NMS and old member states (OMS) to reveal differences and similarities in the trade patterns.

Full text

Review on Agriculture and Rural Development 2019 vol. 8 (1-2) ISSN 2677-0792
60
TRADE CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW MEMBER STATES’ AGRICULTURE
TAMAS MIZIK
Corvinus University of Budapest, 1093 Budapest, Fővám tér 8.
tamas.mizik@uni-corvinus.hu
ABSTRACT
New member states (NMS) joined the European Union (EU) in 2004 or later. They became a part of the
common, unified market. Without any trade restrictions, NMS were able to trade with every member state.
On the other hand, generous support of the Common Agricultural Policy also boosted their agricultural
sector. This paper gives an overview of the OMS’ agricultural performance, followed by a detailed trade
analysis. It identifies major export products and the concentration of trade. Agricultural trade will be
separated into NMS and old member states (OMS) to reveal differences and similarities in the trade patterns.
Keywords: New Member States, agricultural production and trade, agricultural chapters
INTRODUCTION
New member states (NMS) joined the European Union (EU) in 2004 or later. They became
a part of the common, unified market. It resulted in new market opportunities as well as
new threats to the agricultural sector as well. It employs 8.55 million people in the EU,
approximately half of them in the NMS (EUROSTAT, 2019). Agriculture contributes to the
Gross Domestic Product and to the trade balance.
Compared to Poland, Hungary and Romania operated with a higher level of support, but
they have not paid enough attention to measures aimed at enhancing competitiveness,
unlike Poland (KIRSCHKE, 2009). In general, the EU accession had a positive impact on the
agricultural productivity and trade performance of the new member states (CSÁKI AND
JÁMBOR, 2009). However, farmers in the NMS had/have to compete with OMS farmers
under a common policy framework (the Common Agricultural Policy).
MATERIAL AND METHOD
Basic agricultural indicators (contribution of agriculture to the GDP, agricultural
employment and size of agricultural production) are based on World Bank’s WDI and
FAO database. Trade data (agricultural export and import, trade balance) is derived from
the WTO database. The major data source of the paper is the World Bank’s World
Integrated Trade Solution (WITS) database at the HS-2 level between 2000 and 2017 on
agricultural products (chapters 1-24). It covers almost four pre-accession years (or even
more for Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia). The last year is the latest available one in the
WITS database. List of the analyzed chapters from live animals (chapter 1) to tobacco and

Review on Agriculture and Rural Development 2019 vol. 8 (1-2) ISSN 2677-0792
61
manufactured tobacco substitutes (chapter 24) can be found in Annex 1. Due to the
marginal share of agriculture, Cyprus and Malta are excluded from the analysis.
Based on the above-mentioned databases, mathematical and statistical calculations were
made (shares, differences, etc.). Trade data was separated both on agricultural chapter and
NMS member state level in order to reveal chapter and country-specific patterns. Extra-
(outside the region) and intra-trade (within the region) were also analyzed. It should be
noted that, for easier comparison, only intra-trade values are represented. For extra-trade
values, this is calculated by 100% minus the percentage share of the intra-trade.
RESULTS
Agriculture is more important in the new member states than in the old ones measured
either in sectoral value added or agricultural employment (Table 1). The EU averages were
1.4% and 4.3% respectively compared to the NMS averages of 3.02% and 7.59% (World
Bank’s WDI, 2019). Among the NMS, Romania has the most significant agricultural
sector which employs almost one-fourth of the total workforce. Romania is followed by
Poland (10.58%) and Lithuania (7.98%).
Table 1. Basic indicators of the NMS’ agriculture, 2016
Agricultural value
added (% of GDP)
Agricultural
employment
Agricultural production
(million USD)
Bulgaria 4.05 6.75 3931
Croatia 3.14 7.60 1600
Czech Republic 2.06 2.90 4571
Estonia 2.09 3.89 678
Hungary 3.87 5.04 6350
Latvia 3.21 7.69 1040
Lithuania 3.08 7.98 2182
Poland 2.38 10.58 19870
Romania 4.06 23.10 14869
Slovak Republic 3.36 2.89 1911
Slovenia 1.88 5.02 888
Average 3.02 7.59 5263
Source: based on World Bank’s WDI (2019) and FAO database (2019)
The contribution of agriculture to both the exports and imports varies between the
countries (Table 2). On the exports side, there are even larger differences from 6.18%
(Czech Republic) to 30.61% (Latvia). Except for Lithuania, this ratio is below 20% in the
other countries. Regarding imports, again Latvia spends the most on agricultural products
(18.63%) followed by Lithuania and Croatia. On the other side, Hungary (7.12%), the
Slovak and the Czech Republic can be found (7.23% and 7.34%, respectively).

Review on Agriculture and Rural Development 2019 vol. 8 (1-2) ISSN 2677-0792
62
Table 2. Share of agriculture in the trade, 2000-2017
Countries 2000-2005 2006-2011 2012-2017
Exports Imports Exports Imports Exports Imports
Bulgaria 12.72% 6.71% 14.56% 8.87% 17.60% 10.91%
Croatia 14.25% 10.01% 14.82% 10.43% 18.22% 13.85%
Czech Republic 5.58% 6.77% 5.41% 6.85% 6.18% 7.34%
Estonia 14.59% 10.68% 14.87% 12.63% 16.19% 13.17%
Hungary 8.02% 4.76% 8.06% 6.11% 9.68% 7.12%
Latvia 33.82% 14.31% 28.55% 15.91% 30.61% 18.63%
Lithuania 15.02% 10.65% 19.01% 13.11% 21.03% 15.44%
Poland 9.72% 7.90% 11.42% 8.78% 14.10% 10.33%
Romania 6.52% 7.94% 8.40% 8.66% 12.21% 10.70%
Slovak Republic 5.41% 6.86% 5.45% 7.11% 5.28% 7.23%
Slovenia 4.82% 9.17% 6.73% 10.67% 8.08% 11.56%
Source: Calculations based on WTO (2019) database
Based on the size of agricultural exports and imports, agricultural trade balance can be
calculated. It can be seen in figure 1 that 6 out of the 11 NMS has agricultural trade
balance, most notably the size of the Polish surplus earns attention. Taking into
consideration the fact that Poland was a net importer of the agricultural goods before the
accession, it a success story of how to use the financial resources of the Common
Agricultural Policy efficiently (MIZIK ed., 2019). However, even without Poland, the NMS
are self-sufficient as they export more agricultural goods than import.
Figure 1. Agricultural trade of the NMS, 2017 (million current USD)
Source: Data is derived from WTO (2019) database

Review on Agriculture and Rural Development 2019 vol. 8 (1-2) ISSN 2677-0792
63
As the members of the single market, NMS are able to reach the Western markets as well.
That is the reason why “regional” trade is on a relatively low level, it varies between
47.83% and 12.68% (Table 3). Mostly coffee and tea (chapter 9), animal or vegetable fats
and oils (chapter 15) and live animals (chapter 1) are traded among the new member states.
Except for the latter one, the two other chapters contain processed products. On the other
side lac; gums, resins and other vegetable saps and extracts (chapter 13), cereals (chapter
10) and aquatic products (chapter 3) can be found. Compared to the other highlighted
chapters, chapter 13 has an insignificant trade value. Overall, 26.76% of the total
agricultural exports are traded within the NMS.
Table 3. Major characteristics of NMS’ agricultural exports, 2017
HS codes Total agricultural
exports (million USD)
NMS’ agricultural
exports (million USD)
Share of NMS
(%)
09 1328770 635537 47.83%
15 2569479 1061222 41.30%
01 1978736 773924 39.11%
11 1049784 410050 39.06%
17 2232750 834530 37.38%
22 4240728 1480756 34.92%
04 6124879 2061000 33.65%
23 3782565 1244903 32.91%
21 4535377 1413769 31.17%
08 2289652 692966 30.27%
14 12533 3723 29.71%
20 2590217 760361 29.36%
19 4629927 1347256 29.10%
16 3119607 883346 28.32%
18 3113574 848826 27.26%
07 2132512 556800 26.11%
02 7604599 1898986 24.97%
06 472596 91507 19.36%
12 4311248 778960 18.07%
05 539173 91899 17.04%
24 6334182 1048214 16.55%
03 2727409 381757 14.00%
10 8606055 1137115 13.21%
13 113753 14423 12.68%
Together 76440107 20451830 26.76%
Source: Calculations based on World Bank’s WITS (2019) database
Taking a closer look at the agricultural trade, more details can be revealed (Table 4). The
major grain producers (Poland and Romania) sell most of their cereals to other than NMS
countries. It explains its low regional share. The high Croatian extra-trade of aquatic

Review on Agriculture and Rural Development 2019 vol. 8 (1-2) ISSN 2677-0792
64
products (85.31%) resulted in a low regional share (14.69%). High intra-trade shares can
be found in the Czech and the Slovak Republic due to their tight, historical and
geographical connection. It explains the relatively high Baltic shares as well. Basically, the
list of the top least and most regionally traded products highly overlapped with the export
structure of the most significant regional producer, as well as exporter, Poland. Due to its
size, Poland is not able to sell its products on this relatively small market, which resulted in
the lowest regional intra-trade shares.
Table 4. TOP3 shares of NMS’ extra- and intra-trade, 2017 (%)
Countries TOP3 extra-trade chapters TOP3 intra-trade chapters
Bulgaria 0.00 (14) 8.13 (24) 8.70 (10) 64.42 (9) 44.60 (18) 38.50 (22)
Croatia 10.78 (10) 11.42 (12) 14.69 (3) 92.38 (14) 51.81 (7) 51.77 (17)
Czech
Republic
10.18 (13) 14.70 (24) 16.39 (10) 80.63 (16) 79.11 (7) 78.94 (8)
Estonia 0.53 (14) 1.32 (18) 2.87 (6) 62.27 (11) 60.45 (4) 53.99 (1)
Hungary 10.16 (24) 10.72 (5) 19.06 (12) 74.26 (11) 67.65 (9) 52.75 (6)
Latvia 8.88 (22) 9.24 (10) 11.42 (12) 87.48 (24) 85.32 (9) 81.91 (8)
Lithuania 1.48 (6) 4.41 (14) 9.95 (3) 84.30 (1) 65.84 (17) 65.63 (15)
Poland 3.19 (10) 4.72 (3) 9.33 (5) 43.33 (15) 28.47 (22) 26.83 (9)
Romania 4.75 (10) 5.65 (7) 6.19 (14) 66.70 (17) 47.05 (9) 46.95 (18)
Slovak
Republic
23.14 (6) 37.85 (10) 49.21 (4) 99.42 (14) 97.96 (3) 93.75 (16)
Slovenia 4.16 (13) 5.92 (1) 6.74 (10) 71.95 (23) 71.17 (3) 65.24 (24)
Source: Calculations based on World Bank’s WITS (2019) database
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the analysis above, the following conclusions can be made:
 Although it shows a decreasing trend, agriculture still plays a more important role
in the NMS than in the OMS, especially in Romania.
 Agricultural export significantly contributes to foreign earnings, it gives more than
30% of the total export revenues in Latvia. The import side shows smaller
differences, it varies between 18.63% (Latvia) and 7.12% (Hungary).
 6 countries out of the analyzed 11 have a trade surplus and Poland is by far the
greatest producer of the region. One of its major reason was the EU accession.
 Except for live animals, processed foods are traded between the NMS, while cereals
are the most significant extra-traded commodities in terms of exports value.
 extra trade is high in Poland due to its high production and export capacity. Intra-
trade is important among the Slovak and the Czech Republic, as well as in the
Baltic countries due to some similar reasons like historic connection and
geographical closeness.

Review on Agriculture and Rural Development 2019 vol. 8 (1-2) ISSN 2677-0792
65
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office
under grant number 119669, “Competitiveness of Agriculture in International Trade: A
Global Perspective”. The author gratefully acknowledges the financial support.
REFERENCES
CSÁKI, CS., JÁMBOR, A. (2009): The diversity of effects of EU membership on agriculture
in new member states. Policy Studies on Rural Transition No. 2009-4, FAO Regional
Office for Europe and Central Asia, Budapest.
KIRSCHKE, D. (2009): EU membership and agricultural transition. Keynote Lecture,
MACE Green Week Scientific Conference, January 14-15, 2009, Berlin, Germany
MIZIK, T. ed. (2019): Success factors in the agriculture - the case of the new member states:
The way New Member States achieve trade surplus in agriculture. Lambert Academic
Publishing (LAP), Saarbrücken.
Internet based sources:
Eurostat (2019): LFS series - detailed quarterly survey results (from 1998 onwards).
Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/lfs/data/database (Last accessed: 30th April
2019)
FAO (2019): FAO database. Last downloaded: 3rd April, 2019 Available at:
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data
World Bank’s WITS (2019): World Integrated Trade Solutions. Last downloaded: 3rd
April, 2019 Available at: https://wits.worldbank.org/
World Bank’s WDI (2019): WDI database. Last downloaded: 3rd April, 2019 Available at:
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators
WTO (2019): WTO database. Last downloaded: 3rd April, 2019 Available at:
http://stat.wto.org/StatisticalProgram/WSDBStatProgramHome.aspx?Language=E
Annex 1. Description of the agricultural chapters
HS code Product description
01 Live animals
02 Meat and edible meat offal
03 Fish and crustacean, mollusc and other aquatic invertebrates
04 Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not
elsewhere specified or included
05 Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included
06 Live tree and other plants; bulb, roots and the like; cut flower and ornamental
foliage

Review on Agriculture and Rural Development 2019 vol. 8 (1-2) ISSN 2677-0792
66
07 Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers
08 Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons
09 Coffee, tea, maté and spices
10 Cereals
11 Products of the milling industry; malt; starches; inulin; wheat gluten
12 Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit, industrial
or medicinal plants, straw and fodder
13 Lac; gums, resins and other vegetable saps and extracts
14 Vegetable plaiting materials; vegetable products not elsewhere specified or
included
15 Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their cleavage products; prepared edible
fats; animal or vegetable waxes
16 Preparation of meat, fish or crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates
17 Sugars and sugar confectionery
18 Cocoa and cocoa preparations
19 Preparation of cereal, flour, starch or milk; pastrycooks’ products
20 Preparation of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants
21 Miscellaneous edible preparations
22 Beverages, spirits and vinegar
23 Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder
24 Tobacco and manufactured tobacco substitutes
Source: World Bank WITS database (2019)