And demands 10 billion hryvnias

The agrarian bloc has watered down its stance on Ukraine’s WTO membership. Previously adamantly opposed, now it proposes terms on which it will support the cabinet’s initiative to liberalize foreign trade. In fact, the agrarians are the cabinet’s only implacable opponent on the WTO issue, for the sector is expected to suffer the worst after lifting import barriers. Economy Minister Valery Khoroshkovsky admits that the parliament’s quick passage of the cabinet bills in conformity with WTO standards largely depends on the agrarian lobby. Kateryna Vashchuk, its leader in parliament, told The Day about the possibility of a compromise between the government and the outspoken critics of the WTO membership idea.

What do the agrarians expect in return for accepting Ukraine’s WTO membership?

This membership will give a sharp impetus to domestic market competition, and this could create serious problems for the Ukrainian agricultural producer. Competing with Europe on equal terms requires reaching Europe’s level of the agricultural subsidies by supporting prices for products that are chronically unprofitable in Ukraine. Unless we subsidize meat and milk prices, we will end up overboard. The output level will drop to a critical mark, upsetting the nation’s entire economic balance.

What level do you think such subsidies should reach to soffen the blow of WTO integration to Ukrainian agriculture?

At least 10 billion hryvnias a year. This is our main demand. We will continue to analyze everything in depth. The government must first secure for Ukrainian farmers the same standards according to which their European counterparts live and sell their products and try to compete with them afterward. Otherwise we will find ourselves noncompetitive.

Has the Ministry of the Economy promised the agrarian sector higher subsidies?

This ministry is well aware that the budget can’t afford it, so it’s trying to prove that we can make do with less. That’s wishful thinking, and we’ll certainly lose that way; it means that we won’t have the real picture and will suffer unpleasant effects. I think we will come to terms with the ministry and reduce the prices to a common denominator.

Is it true that your estimates of the economic consequences of Ukraine’s WTO membership disagree with those of the Ministry?

There are quite a few discrepancies. Here everything must be coordinated as well. We are alarmed as we follow the process and urge the government to show a better analysis of the consequences for the countryside. Ukraine is above all an agrarian country. We can’t ignore the 15 million people living in the rural areas where breeding livestock and growing and selling produce is the only way to earn a living; otherwise these people could find themselves jobless before they know what’s happening.

But haven’t the agrarians already decided their stand on Ukraine’s WTO membership?

Of course, we must join that organization but not hastily. WTO membership, like that in the European Union, always has the greatest impact on agriculture. I studied the Polish experience. It took them a very long time, they made careful preparations and held long talks, and they gained a great deal the end. After all, А2 billion worth of subsidies is substantial aid for Polish farmers, considering the size of the country, although they’re still dissatisfied. This is evidenced by changes in the government. The agrarian leaders quit because not all their demands were met when joining the EU.

Are Ukrainian agrarians prepared to follow their example when debating WTO membership terms and conditions?

We will take a firm stand, so that reforms are not only in terms of changing ownership. It is time to concentrate on the system of financing the countryside. Here we have strong demands of principle addressed to the cabinet.