Mundane and boring, or raising passions? A bit of both, I suppose.
Much of what the European Union institutions do, looks sleep-inducing as soon as you glance at a headline. For example, take:
Commission Decision 2009/427/EC of 3 June 2009 establishing the expert group for technical advice on organic production, just published in the Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU) 5.6.2009 L 139/29.
The Decision is based on Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91, which defines objectives and principles applicable to organic production and lays down basic requirements with regard to production, labelling and control of organic products in the plant, livestock and aquaculture production.
The tasks of the expert group sound innocuous and boring enough:
Article 2
Task
The group’s task shall be to assist the Commission in:
(a) evaluating products, substances and techniques which can be used in organic production, taking into account objectives and principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No 834/2007;
(b) improving existing rules and developing new production rules;
(c) bringing about an exchange of experience and good practices in the field of organic production.
***
On the other hand, there are producers who dedicate their lives to organic production and growing numbers of consumers who swear by it.
Is it boring for them? Are they indifferent to what advice the Commission is getting?
***
There is a strange dichotomy between a general feeling that the tentacles of the European Union reach almost everywhere – among more strident anti-EU campaigners transformed into the assertion that the EU “messes up our daily lives” - and the wide-spread ignorance and lack of interest in even the basics of what the EU is and really does.
The EU has opened up new vistas for individuals to travel and to work across borders, but contrary to some beliefs it has done very little to influence the public services we get at local level (education, health, social services; taxes).
The groups affected are often much smaller.
EU legislation affects some businesses to a high degree, through internal market regulation. It is not necessarily a bad thing that regulation comes from “Brussels”, when the alternative would be to have 30 different sets of red tape from 30 different capitals.
Agriculture and fisheries are common policies, and highly regulated at that. They can almost be called planned economies, although with private producers. Here enterprises, some on a very small scale, bring individuals into direct contact with often intrusive EU regulation: forms to fill, quality requirements, subsidies, inspections etc.
The organic farmer, for instance.
But is it enough for him to know that the Commission is getting expert advice? Who is giving it? What are they saying? Which changes are they contemplating?
In these respects the EU institutions are less than transparent. Council and Commission committees and groups are highly impenetrable. Even the members’ names are guarded as state secrets.
We are still a long way from open and accessible government at European level.
Ralf Grahn
Showing posts with label agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label agriculture. Show all posts
Friday, 5 June 2009
Wednesday, 6 May 2009
European elections: Libertas saving our money?
Someone might see an ironic contradiction in the two announcements we see today on the web pages of Libertas.eu:
1) The European elections begin in some 28 days.
2) Policies: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
***
Waiting for Godot, we turn to what Libertas has on offer regarding the future of Europe and the next five years of legislative work in the European Parliament.
The third core principle of Libertas is:
“Save money: €10 billion in savings to be identified by the Commission in the next financial year.”
Sounds great, doesn’t it? At least until you take a closer look. Let’s do that.
***
Long term budget
The European Union lives by the multiannual financial framework essentially set by the heads of state or government of the member states, currently from 2007 to 2013, although formalised by an agreement between the institutions.
Income and expenditure hover around 1 per cent of gross national income (GNI) annually, far from a federal budget of proportions.
***
Annual budget
The framework is the basis for the expectations of the EU member states and for recipients of EU funds until the end of 2013.
The annual budgets are prepared within this framework by the Commission, and approved by the Council and the Euroepan Parliament.
Based on the existing framework and legitimate expectations, the Commission presented its preliminary draft budget for 2010 on 29 April 2009.
Mainly within the framework constraints, but with new measures towards an economic recovery, the proposed sum total of expenditure grows to € 139 billion. This translates into about 284 euros per EU resident.
How does a radical proposal for savings fit the economic circumstances and the timetable?
Even if the final vote on the budget takes place in December, the financial framework is in place until the end of 2013, and the European Council has given green light to certain recovery measures.
The budget exercise for 2010 is well under way. The Commission will take the opinions of the Council and the European Parliament into account before its final proposal. The Council and the EP will then fix their positions, before having to reconcile their views before final approval.
Nothing tells me that any of these institutions is going to veer off course to heed calls for unspecified budget cuts.
Libertas’ “core principle” is a figment of their imagination, meant to be swallowed by uninformed voters.
***
Who is responsible?
We have to admit that calls for profound change, including budget reform, can be justified even if they have no immediate chance of success. Every reform starts from modest beginnings until it gains acceptance.
What makes Libertas’ call hypocritical and cowardly is that they don’t even try to tell us where to cut. The savings should be identified by the Commission, without Libertas taking any responsibility.
In the realm of sanctimonious bluster, this is worth an Oscar.
The draft budget contains € 59 billion spending on agriculture and € 49.4 billion on structural funds. This is about 78 per cent of the total budget, and it is mainly spent in the member states.
Does Lisbertas want to cut back our dependence on subsidy-driven farming? Do they want to terminate “cohesion” funding in rich member states, or deprive the new member states of their structural funds?
Surely, a new political party with a “pan-European vision” knows where to save and has the guts to tell us(?)
The rest of the proposed budget (about 21.8 per cent) is shared between competitiveness, citizenship, freedom, security and justice, external action and administrative expenditure.
Even if the sums are minor in comparison, we need to be told about possible savings.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. A few observations outside the theme of this post: Libertas has introduced a certain professionalism and dynamic in its campaigning techniques during these last days. They contact people through e-mails and social media. Today there are several additional posts on their central web pages. Behind language barriers activists in different member states seem to be free to concoct wildly diverging messages without much outside notice.
In terms of (inter)active campaigning, the competition is still in the starting blocks. Despite the fact that the policies we have looked at this far have been shown to be populist rubbish, the established Europarties ignore Libertas at their peril.
1) The European elections begin in some 28 days.
2) Policies: The Libertas programme for a better Europe will be published on this site in the coming weeks.
***
Waiting for Godot, we turn to what Libertas has on offer regarding the future of Europe and the next five years of legislative work in the European Parliament.
The third core principle of Libertas is:
“Save money: €10 billion in savings to be identified by the Commission in the next financial year.”
Sounds great, doesn’t it? At least until you take a closer look. Let’s do that.
***
Long term budget
The European Union lives by the multiannual financial framework essentially set by the heads of state or government of the member states, currently from 2007 to 2013, although formalised by an agreement between the institutions.
Income and expenditure hover around 1 per cent of gross national income (GNI) annually, far from a federal budget of proportions.
***
Annual budget
The framework is the basis for the expectations of the EU member states and for recipients of EU funds until the end of 2013.
The annual budgets are prepared within this framework by the Commission, and approved by the Council and the Euroepan Parliament.
Based on the existing framework and legitimate expectations, the Commission presented its preliminary draft budget for 2010 on 29 April 2009.
Mainly within the framework constraints, but with new measures towards an economic recovery, the proposed sum total of expenditure grows to € 139 billion. This translates into about 284 euros per EU resident.
How does a radical proposal for savings fit the economic circumstances and the timetable?
Even if the final vote on the budget takes place in December, the financial framework is in place until the end of 2013, and the European Council has given green light to certain recovery measures.
The budget exercise for 2010 is well under way. The Commission will take the opinions of the Council and the European Parliament into account before its final proposal. The Council and the EP will then fix their positions, before having to reconcile their views before final approval.
Nothing tells me that any of these institutions is going to veer off course to heed calls for unspecified budget cuts.
Libertas’ “core principle” is a figment of their imagination, meant to be swallowed by uninformed voters.
***
Who is responsible?
We have to admit that calls for profound change, including budget reform, can be justified even if they have no immediate chance of success. Every reform starts from modest beginnings until it gains acceptance.
What makes Libertas’ call hypocritical and cowardly is that they don’t even try to tell us where to cut. The savings should be identified by the Commission, without Libertas taking any responsibility.
In the realm of sanctimonious bluster, this is worth an Oscar.
The draft budget contains € 59 billion spending on agriculture and € 49.4 billion on structural funds. This is about 78 per cent of the total budget, and it is mainly spent in the member states.
Does Lisbertas want to cut back our dependence on subsidy-driven farming? Do they want to terminate “cohesion” funding in rich member states, or deprive the new member states of their structural funds?
Surely, a new political party with a “pan-European vision” knows where to save and has the guts to tell us(?)
The rest of the proposed budget (about 21.8 per cent) is shared between competitiveness, citizenship, freedom, security and justice, external action and administrative expenditure.
Even if the sums are minor in comparison, we need to be told about possible savings.
Ralf Grahn
P.S. A few observations outside the theme of this post: Libertas has introduced a certain professionalism and dynamic in its campaigning techniques during these last days. They contact people through e-mails and social media. Today there are several additional posts on their central web pages. Behind language barriers activists in different member states seem to be free to concoct wildly diverging messages without much outside notice.
In terms of (inter)active campaigning, the competition is still in the starting blocks. Despite the fact that the policies we have looked at this far have been shown to be populist rubbish, the established Europarties ignore Libertas at their peril.
Friday, 28 March 2008
EU TFEU: CAP competition rules and state aid
In principle, the common agricultural policy (CAP) is exempt from the rules on competition and state aid deemed beneficial for the internal market in general. The European Union’s Treaty of Lisbon extends the European Parliament’s power to co-legislate, but changes nothing in substance at the treaty level.
On the other hand, at the level of secondary legislation a more nuanced picture emerges regarding the role of competition and state aid in production of and trade in agricultural products.
***
We arrive at Article 36 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) actually mentions amendments to be made in what becomes the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Here is what the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) has to say (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/53):
48) Article 36 shall be amended as follows:
(a) in the first paragraph, the words ‘the European Parliament and’ shall be inserted before ‘the Council’ and the words ‘and (3)’ shall be deleted;
(b) in the second paragraph, the introductory sentence shall be replaced by the following:
‘The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise the granting of aid:’.
***
Bringing the proposed amendments into context requires a trip to the current Article 36 TEC (found in the latest consolidated version of the existing treaties, OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/55):
Article 36 TEC
The provisions of the Chapter relating to rules on competition shall apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by the Council within the framework of Article 37(2) and (3) and in accordance with the procedure laid down therein, account being taken of the objectives set out in Article 33.
The Council may, in particular, authorise the granting of aid:
(a) for the protection of enterprises handicapped by structural or natural conditions;
(b) within the framework of economic development programmes.
***
The new Lisbon Treaty wording is achieved by inserting the express amendments, adding the context of the provision and taking note of the future renumbering of the Article in question and its referrals (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/207). No horizontal amendments seem to apply, so the amended Article 36 should look like this:
Part Three Policies and internal actions of the Union
Title II (renumbered Title III) Agriculture and fisheries
Article 36 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 42 TFEU
The provisions of the Chapter relating to rules on competition shall apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by the European Parliament and the Council within the framework of Article 37(2) [ToL, renumbered Article 43(2) TFEU] and in accordance with the procedure laid down therein, account being taken of the objectives set out in Article 33 [ToL, renumbered Article 39 TFEU].
The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise the granting of aid:
(a) for the protection of enterprises handicapped by structural or natural conditions;
(b) within the framework of economic development programmes.
***
The European Convention presented its view in Article III-126 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/52):
Article III-126 Draft Constitution
1. The Section relating to rules on competition shall apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by European laws or framework laws in accordance with Article III-127(2), having regard to the objectives set out in Article III-123.
2. The Council of Ministers, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a European regulation or decision authorising the granting of aid:
(a) for the protection of enterprises handicapped by structural or natural conditions;
(b) within the framework of economic development programmes.
***
European laws or framework laws meant the ordinary legislative procedure, where the Commission makes a proposal and the Council and the European Parliament acts as joint legislators. In the first paragraph the draft Constitution upgraded the European Parliament from being merely consulted.
The second paragraph added the mention that the Council authorises the granting of aid on a proposal from the Commission. But was this a real change, taking Article 37 TEC into account?
***
Article III-230 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was practically the same as the draft Constitution (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/101).
***
In principle, normal EC (EU) competition and state aid rules do not apply to agricultural production and trade within the context of the CAP. On the contrary, examples of state aid which can be authorised are mentioned.
A general search of EC competition policy can start from the Commission’s Competition web page:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html
The reader who desires an introduction to state aid rules could take a look at the Commission’s web page ‘State Aid control – Overview’:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.cfm
‘Vademecum Community rules on state aid’, with a view to Structural Fund operations and last updated 15 February 2007:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/vademecum_on_rules_2007_en.pdf
***
In practice, the common agricultural policy (CAP) is less averse to the competition and state aid rules of European Community (European Union) than the main principle mentioned above would lead one to believe.
Take note of Council Regulation (EC) No 1184/2006 of 24 July 2006 applying certain rules of competition to the production of, and trade in, agricultural products (OJ 4.8.2006 L 214/7):
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:214:0007:0009:EN:PDF
A presentation of state aid rules is found on the Commission’s web page Agriculture and Rural Development ‘State Aid: introduction’:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/stateaid/index_en.htm
The Scadplus pages offer an introduction to ‘State aid in the agricultural sector’:
http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l11082.htm
Ralf Grahn
On the other hand, at the level of secondary legislation a more nuanced picture emerges regarding the role of competition and state aid in production of and trade in agricultural products.
***
We arrive at Article 36 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC). The intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) actually mentions amendments to be made in what becomes the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Here is what the Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) has to say (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/53):
48) Article 36 shall be amended as follows:
(a) in the first paragraph, the words ‘the European Parliament and’ shall be inserted before ‘the Council’ and the words ‘and (3)’ shall be deleted;
(b) in the second paragraph, the introductory sentence shall be replaced by the following:
‘The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise the granting of aid:’.
***
Bringing the proposed amendments into context requires a trip to the current Article 36 TEC (found in the latest consolidated version of the existing treaties, OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/55):
Article 36 TEC
The provisions of the Chapter relating to rules on competition shall apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by the Council within the framework of Article 37(2) and (3) and in accordance with the procedure laid down therein, account being taken of the objectives set out in Article 33.
The Council may, in particular, authorise the granting of aid:
(a) for the protection of enterprises handicapped by structural or natural conditions;
(b) within the framework of economic development programmes.
***
The new Lisbon Treaty wording is achieved by inserting the express amendments, adding the context of the provision and taking note of the future renumbering of the Article in question and its referrals (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/207). No horizontal amendments seem to apply, so the amended Article 36 should look like this:
Part Three Policies and internal actions of the Union
Title II (renumbered Title III) Agriculture and fisheries
Article 36 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 42 TFEU
The provisions of the Chapter relating to rules on competition shall apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by the European Parliament and the Council within the framework of Article 37(2) [ToL, renumbered Article 43(2) TFEU] and in accordance with the procedure laid down therein, account being taken of the objectives set out in Article 33 [ToL, renumbered Article 39 TFEU].
The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may authorise the granting of aid:
(a) for the protection of enterprises handicapped by structural or natural conditions;
(b) within the framework of economic development programmes.
***
The European Convention presented its view in Article III-126 of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/52):
Article III-126 Draft Constitution
1. The Section relating to rules on competition shall apply to production of and trade in agricultural products only to the extent determined by European laws or framework laws in accordance with Article III-127(2), having regard to the objectives set out in Article III-123.
2. The Council of Ministers, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a European regulation or decision authorising the granting of aid:
(a) for the protection of enterprises handicapped by structural or natural conditions;
(b) within the framework of economic development programmes.
***
European laws or framework laws meant the ordinary legislative procedure, where the Commission makes a proposal and the Council and the European Parliament acts as joint legislators. In the first paragraph the draft Constitution upgraded the European Parliament from being merely consulted.
The second paragraph added the mention that the Council authorises the granting of aid on a proposal from the Commission. But was this a real change, taking Article 37 TEC into account?
***
Article III-230 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was practically the same as the draft Constitution (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/101).
***
In principle, normal EC (EU) competition and state aid rules do not apply to agricultural production and trade within the context of the CAP. On the contrary, examples of state aid which can be authorised are mentioned.
A general search of EC competition policy can start from the Commission’s Competition web page:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/index_en.html
The reader who desires an introduction to state aid rules could take a look at the Commission’s web page ‘State Aid control – Overview’:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/overview/index_en.cfm
‘Vademecum Community rules on state aid’, with a view to Structural Fund operations and last updated 15 February 2007:
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/vademecum_on_rules_2007_en.pdf
***
In practice, the common agricultural policy (CAP) is less averse to the competition and state aid rules of European Community (European Union) than the main principle mentioned above would lead one to believe.
Take note of Council Regulation (EC) No 1184/2006 of 24 July 2006 applying certain rules of competition to the production of, and trade in, agricultural products (OJ 4.8.2006 L 214/7):
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:214:0007:0009:EN:PDF
A presentation of state aid rules is found on the Commission’s web page Agriculture and Rural Development ‘State Aid: introduction’:
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/stateaid/index_en.htm
The Scadplus pages offer an introduction to ‘State aid in the agricultural sector’:
http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l11082.htm
Ralf Grahn
Monday, 24 March 2008
EU TFEU: Common agriculture and fisheries policy
The common agricultural policy (CAP), including the fisheries policy, of the European Community (European Union) is one of the most conspicuous features of European integration.
Naturally, each farmer and fisherman is a stakeholder, but so is every consumer and taxpayer in the European Union. In short, every citizen of the EU should know the legal and political basics of the CAP.
Here we begin by looking at the fundamental provisions as they stand when the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
***
Were the European leaders worried enough by the flagging spirits of the so called Eurosceptic anti-EU crowd to devise this supporting action to keep them going and to stimulate recruitment?
Not only was the ‘constitutional concept’ abandoned, but all pretence at plain English (as well as Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish).
Anyway, arriving at a new Title we find the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) true to its form. Although very little actual change takes place, the master communicators of the IGC 2007 fully used the opportunity to make the reading experience of the amending Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) as unrewarding as possible, requiring the concurrent perusal of the existing treaties to make any sense.
Here is what the Lisbon Treaty has to say at the beginning of the new Title of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), becoming the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/53):
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
46) In the heading of Title II, the words ‘AND FISHERIES’ shall be added.
47) Article 32 shall be amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph 1, the following new first subparagraph shall be inserted:
‘1. The Union shall define and implement a common agriculture and fisheries policy.’, the current text of paragraph 1 shall become the second subparagraph.
In the second subparagraph, the word ‘, fisheries’ shall be inserted after ‘agriculture’ in the first sentence and the following sentence shall be added as the last sentence of the subparagraph: ‘References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term “agricultural”, shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector.’
(b) in paragraph 2, the words ‘and functioning’ shall be inserted after the word ‘establishment’.
(c) in paragraph 3, the words ‘to this Treaty’ shall be deleted.
***
We have been sent off to fetch the current Article 32 TEC (found in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, OJ 29.12.2006 C 321/53-54):
TITLE II
AGRICULTURE
Article 32 TEC
1. The common market shall extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products. ‘Agricultural products’ means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products.
2. Save as otherwise provided in Articles 33 to 38, the rules laid down for the establishment of the common market shall apply to agricultural products.
3. The products subject to the provisions of Articles 33 to 38 are listed in Annex I to this Treaty.
4. The operation and development of the common market for agricultural products must be accompanied by the establishment of a common agricultural policy.
***
The materials are now at the plant. Assembly can start. This is what appears at the end of the assembly line after joining the numbering of the Tables of equivalences with the express amendments and horizontal amendment 2(g), thrice replacing the ‘common market’ by ‘internal market’:
PART THREE – POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS OF THE UNION
Title II (renumbered Title III) Agriculture and fisheries
Article 32 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 38 TFEU
1. The Union shall define and implement a common agriculture and fisheries policy.
The internal market shall extend to agriculture, fisheries and trade in agricultural products. ‘Agricultural products’ means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products. References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term “agricultural”, shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector.
2. Save as otherwise provided in Articles 33 to 38 [ToL, new numbering Articles 39 to 44 TFEU], the rules laid down for the establishment and functioning of the internal market shall apply to agricultural products.
3. The products subject to the provisions of Articles 33 to 38 [ToL, new numbering 39 to 44 TFEU] are listed in Annex I.
4. The operation and development of the internal market for agricultural products must be accompanied by the establishment of a common agricultural policy.
***
For easy comparison with the prior phases of the treaty reform process, here are the relevant provisions of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, as proposed by the European Convention. Section 4 Agriculture and fisheries would have been placed away from the Titles on free movement, in Chapter III Policies in other specific areas (after Chapter I Internal market and Chapter II Economic and monetary policy) (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/51):
SECTION 4
Agriculture and fisheries
Article III-121 Draft Constitution
The Union shall define and implement a common agriculture and fisheries policy.
‘Agricultural products’ means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products. References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term ‘agricultural’, shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector.
Article III-122 Draft Constitution
1. The internal market shall extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products.
2. Save as otherwise provided in Articles III-123 to III-128, the rules laid down for the establishment of the internal market shall apply to agricultural products.
3. The products listed in Annex I (*) shall be subject to Articles III-123 to III-128.
4. The operation and development of the internal market for agricultural products must be accompanied by the establishment of a common agricultural policy.
[* The asterisk indicated that Annex I had to be drawn up.]
***
The IGC 2004 took over the draft text in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/99-100):
SECTION 4
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
Article III-225 Constitution
The Union shall define and implement a common agriculture and fisheries policy.
‘Agricultural products’ means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products. References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term ‘agricultural’, shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector.
Article III-226 Constitution
1. The internal market shall extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products.
2. Save as otherwise provided in articles III-227 to III-232, the rules laid down for the establishment and functioning of the internal market shall apply to agricultural products.
3. The products listed in Annex I shall be subject to Articles III-227 to III-232.
4. The operation and development of the internal market for agricultural products must be accompanied by a common agricultural policy.
***
The Constitutional Treaty took over the wording of the draft Constitution with minimal adjustments. The referrals to Articles were adjusted technically, and in the second paragraph ‘and functioning’ was added to the internal market, while ‘the establishment of’ a common agricultural policy was deleted in paragraph 4 of Article III-226.
The Lisbon Treaty merges the Articles of the Constitution and shifts the sentences without altering the contents.
***
Here are the contents of Annex I – the List referred to in Article 32 TEC as presented in the latest consolidated version (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/183-185, where it is presented as an easier to read table). The numbers of chapters and positions refer to the Brussels nomenclature and the following text describes the products:
ANNEX I
LIST
referred to in Article 32 of the Treaty
Chapter 1 Live animals
Chapter 2 Meat and edible meat offal
Chapter 3 Fish, crustaceans and molluscs
Chapter 4 Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey
Chapter 5
05.04 Guts, bladders and stomachs of animals (other than fish), whole and pieces thereof
05.15 Animal products not elsewhere specified or included; dead animals of Chapter 1 or Chapter 3, unfit for human consumption
Chapter 6 Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage
Chapter 7 Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers
Chapter 8 Edible fruit and nuts; peel of melons or citrus fruit
Chapter 9 Coffee, tea and spices, excluding maté (heading No 0903)
Chapter 10 Cereals
Chapter 11 Products of the milling industry; malt and starches; gluten; inulin
Chapter 12 Oil seeds and oleaginous fruit; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; industrial and medical plants; straw and fodder
Chapter 13
ex 13.03 Pectin
Chapter 15
15.01 Lard and other rendered pig fat; rendered poultry fat
15.02 Unrendered fats of bovine cattle, sheep or goats; tallow (including ‘premier jus’) produced from those fats
15.03 Lard stearin, oleostearin and tallow stearin; lard oil, oleo-oil and tallow oil, not emulsified or mixed or prepared in any way
15.04 Fats and oil, of fish and marine mammals, whether or not refined
15.07 Fixed vegetable oils, fluid or solid, crude, refined or purified
15.12 Animal or vegetable fats and oils, hydrogenated, whether or not refined, but not further prepared
15.13 Margarine, imitation lard and other prepared edible fats
15.17 Residues resulting from the treatment of fatty substances or animal or vegetable waxes
Chapter 16 Preparations of meat, of fish, of crustaceans or molluscs
Chapter 17
17.01 Beet sugar and cane sugar, solid
17.02 Other sugars; sugar syrups; artificial honey (whether or not mixed with natural honey); caramel
17.03 Molasses, whether or not decolourised
17.05 Flavoured or coloured sugars, syrups and molasses, but not including fruit juices containing added sugar in any proportion
Chapter 18
18.01 Cocoa beans, whole or broken, raw or roasted
18.02 Cocoa shells, husks, skins and waste
Chapter 20 Preparations of vegetables, fruit or other parts of plants
Chapter 22
22.04 Grape must, in fermentation or with fermentation arrested otherwise than by the addition of alcohol
22.05 Wine of fresh grapes; grape must with fermentation arrested by the addition of alcohol
22.07 Other fermented beverages (for example, cider, perry and mead)
ex 22.08
ex 22.09
Ethyl alcohol or neutral spirits, whether or not denatured, of any strength, obtained from agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty, excluding liqueurs and other spirituous beverages and compound alcoholic preparations (known as ‘concentrated extracts’) for the manufacture of beverages
ex 22.10 Vinegar and substitutes for vinegar
Chapter 23 Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder
Chapter 24
24.01 Unmanufactured tobacco, tobacco refuse
Chapter 45
45.01 Natural cork, unworked, crushed, granulated or ground; waste cork
Chapter 54
54.01 Flax, raw or processed but not spun; flax tow and waste (including pulled or garnetted rags)
Chapter 57
57.01 True hemp (Cannabis sativa), raw or processed but not spun; tow and waste of
true hemp (including pulled or garnetted rags or ropes)
***
Adding fisheries to the Title heading and the text of the Article takes account of existing practice.
Aware of the highly regulated and protectionist nature of the common agriculture and fisheries policy as well as the massive support mechanisms, the reader may be astonished to find out that in principle the rules for the establishment and functioning of the internal market apply to agricultural products.
The concept of first-stage processing is important, as is Annex I listing the products.
Ralf Grahn
Naturally, each farmer and fisherman is a stakeholder, but so is every consumer and taxpayer in the European Union. In short, every citizen of the EU should know the legal and political basics of the CAP.
Here we begin by looking at the fundamental provisions as they stand when the Lisbon Treaty enters into force.
***
Were the European leaders worried enough by the flagging spirits of the so called Eurosceptic anti-EU crowd to devise this supporting action to keep them going and to stimulate recruitment?
Not only was the ‘constitutional concept’ abandoned, but all pretence at plain English (as well as Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish).
Anyway, arriving at a new Title we find the intergovernmental conference (IGC 2007) true to its form. Although very little actual change takes place, the master communicators of the IGC 2007 fully used the opportunity to make the reading experience of the amending Treaty of Lisbon (ToL) as unrewarding as possible, requiring the concurrent perusal of the existing treaties to make any sense.
Here is what the Lisbon Treaty has to say at the beginning of the new Title of the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), becoming the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (OJ 17.12.2007 C 306/53):
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
46) In the heading of Title II, the words ‘AND FISHERIES’ shall be added.
47) Article 32 shall be amended as follows:
(a) in paragraph 1, the following new first subparagraph shall be inserted:
‘1. The Union shall define and implement a common agriculture and fisheries policy.’, the current text of paragraph 1 shall become the second subparagraph.
In the second subparagraph, the word ‘, fisheries’ shall be inserted after ‘agriculture’ in the first sentence and the following sentence shall be added as the last sentence of the subparagraph: ‘References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term “agricultural”, shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector.’
(b) in paragraph 2, the words ‘and functioning’ shall be inserted after the word ‘establishment’.
(c) in paragraph 3, the words ‘to this Treaty’ shall be deleted.
***
We have been sent off to fetch the current Article 32 TEC (found in the latest consolidated version of the treaties, OJ 29.12.2006 C 321/53-54):
TITLE II
AGRICULTURE
Article 32 TEC
1. The common market shall extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products. ‘Agricultural products’ means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products.
2. Save as otherwise provided in Articles 33 to 38, the rules laid down for the establishment of the common market shall apply to agricultural products.
3. The products subject to the provisions of Articles 33 to 38 are listed in Annex I to this Treaty.
4. The operation and development of the common market for agricultural products must be accompanied by the establishment of a common agricultural policy.
***
The materials are now at the plant. Assembly can start. This is what appears at the end of the assembly line after joining the numbering of the Tables of equivalences with the express amendments and horizontal amendment 2(g), thrice replacing the ‘common market’ by ‘internal market’:
PART THREE – POLICIES AND INTERNAL ACTIONS OF THE UNION
Title II (renumbered Title III) Agriculture and fisheries
Article 32 TFEU (ToL), renumbered Article 38 TFEU
1. The Union shall define and implement a common agriculture and fisheries policy.
The internal market shall extend to agriculture, fisheries and trade in agricultural products. ‘Agricultural products’ means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products. References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term “agricultural”, shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector.
2. Save as otherwise provided in Articles 33 to 38 [ToL, new numbering Articles 39 to 44 TFEU], the rules laid down for the establishment and functioning of the internal market shall apply to agricultural products.
3. The products subject to the provisions of Articles 33 to 38 [ToL, new numbering 39 to 44 TFEU] are listed in Annex I.
4. The operation and development of the internal market for agricultural products must be accompanied by the establishment of a common agricultural policy.
***
For easy comparison with the prior phases of the treaty reform process, here are the relevant provisions of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, as proposed by the European Convention. Section 4 Agriculture and fisheries would have been placed away from the Titles on free movement, in Chapter III Policies in other specific areas (after Chapter I Internal market and Chapter II Economic and monetary policy) (OJ 18.7.2003 C 169/51):
SECTION 4
Agriculture and fisheries
Article III-121 Draft Constitution
The Union shall define and implement a common agriculture and fisheries policy.
‘Agricultural products’ means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products. References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term ‘agricultural’, shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector.
Article III-122 Draft Constitution
1. The internal market shall extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products.
2. Save as otherwise provided in Articles III-123 to III-128, the rules laid down for the establishment of the internal market shall apply to agricultural products.
3. The products listed in Annex I (*) shall be subject to Articles III-123 to III-128.
4. The operation and development of the internal market for agricultural products must be accompanied by the establishment of a common agricultural policy.
[* The asterisk indicated that Annex I had to be drawn up.]
***
The IGC 2004 took over the draft text in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (OJ 16.12.2004 C 310/99-100):
SECTION 4
AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES
Article III-225 Constitution
The Union shall define and implement a common agriculture and fisheries policy.
‘Agricultural products’ means the products of the soil, of stockfarming and of fisheries and products of first-stage processing directly related to these products. References to the common agricultural policy or to agriculture, and the use of the term ‘agricultural’, shall be understood as also referring to fisheries, having regard to the specific characteristics of this sector.
Article III-226 Constitution
1. The internal market shall extend to agriculture and trade in agricultural products.
2. Save as otherwise provided in articles III-227 to III-232, the rules laid down for the establishment and functioning of the internal market shall apply to agricultural products.
3. The products listed in Annex I shall be subject to Articles III-227 to III-232.
4. The operation and development of the internal market for agricultural products must be accompanied by a common agricultural policy.
***
The Constitutional Treaty took over the wording of the draft Constitution with minimal adjustments. The referrals to Articles were adjusted technically, and in the second paragraph ‘and functioning’ was added to the internal market, while ‘the establishment of’ a common agricultural policy was deleted in paragraph 4 of Article III-226.
The Lisbon Treaty merges the Articles of the Constitution and shifts the sentences without altering the contents.
***
Here are the contents of Annex I – the List referred to in Article 32 TEC as presented in the latest consolidated version (OJ 29.12.2006 C 321 E/183-185, where it is presented as an easier to read table). The numbers of chapters and positions refer to the Brussels nomenclature and the following text describes the products:
ANNEX I
LIST
referred to in Article 32 of the Treaty
Chapter 1 Live animals
Chapter 2 Meat and edible meat offal
Chapter 3 Fish, crustaceans and molluscs
Chapter 4 Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey
Chapter 5
05.04 Guts, bladders and stomachs of animals (other than fish), whole and pieces thereof
05.15 Animal products not elsewhere specified or included; dead animals of Chapter 1 or Chapter 3, unfit for human consumption
Chapter 6 Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage
Chapter 7 Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers
Chapter 8 Edible fruit and nuts; peel of melons or citrus fruit
Chapter 9 Coffee, tea and spices, excluding maté (heading No 0903)
Chapter 10 Cereals
Chapter 11 Products of the milling industry; malt and starches; gluten; inulin
Chapter 12 Oil seeds and oleaginous fruit; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; industrial and medical plants; straw and fodder
Chapter 13
ex 13.03 Pectin
Chapter 15
15.01 Lard and other rendered pig fat; rendered poultry fat
15.02 Unrendered fats of bovine cattle, sheep or goats; tallow (including ‘premier jus’) produced from those fats
15.03 Lard stearin, oleostearin and tallow stearin; lard oil, oleo-oil and tallow oil, not emulsified or mixed or prepared in any way
15.04 Fats and oil, of fish and marine mammals, whether or not refined
15.07 Fixed vegetable oils, fluid or solid, crude, refined or purified
15.12 Animal or vegetable fats and oils, hydrogenated, whether or not refined, but not further prepared
15.13 Margarine, imitation lard and other prepared edible fats
15.17 Residues resulting from the treatment of fatty substances or animal or vegetable waxes
Chapter 16 Preparations of meat, of fish, of crustaceans or molluscs
Chapter 17
17.01 Beet sugar and cane sugar, solid
17.02 Other sugars; sugar syrups; artificial honey (whether or not mixed with natural honey); caramel
17.03 Molasses, whether or not decolourised
17.05 Flavoured or coloured sugars, syrups and molasses, but not including fruit juices containing added sugar in any proportion
Chapter 18
18.01 Cocoa beans, whole or broken, raw or roasted
18.02 Cocoa shells, husks, skins and waste
Chapter 20 Preparations of vegetables, fruit or other parts of plants
Chapter 22
22.04 Grape must, in fermentation or with fermentation arrested otherwise than by the addition of alcohol
22.05 Wine of fresh grapes; grape must with fermentation arrested by the addition of alcohol
22.07 Other fermented beverages (for example, cider, perry and mead)
ex 22.08
ex 22.09
Ethyl alcohol or neutral spirits, whether or not denatured, of any strength, obtained from agricultural products listed in Annex I to the Treaty, excluding liqueurs and other spirituous beverages and compound alcoholic preparations (known as ‘concentrated extracts’) for the manufacture of beverages
ex 22.10 Vinegar and substitutes for vinegar
Chapter 23 Residues and waste from the food industries; prepared animal fodder
Chapter 24
24.01 Unmanufactured tobacco, tobacco refuse
Chapter 45
45.01 Natural cork, unworked, crushed, granulated or ground; waste cork
Chapter 54
54.01 Flax, raw or processed but not spun; flax tow and waste (including pulled or garnetted rags)
Chapter 57
57.01 True hemp (Cannabis sativa), raw or processed but not spun; tow and waste of
true hemp (including pulled or garnetted rags or ropes)
***
Adding fisheries to the Title heading and the text of the Article takes account of existing practice.
Aware of the highly regulated and protectionist nature of the common agriculture and fisheries policy as well as the massive support mechanisms, the reader may be astonished to find out that in principle the rules for the establishment and functioning of the internal market apply to agricultural products.
The concept of first-stage processing is important, as is Annex I listing the products.
Ralf Grahn
Friday, 16 November 2007
CAP reform camp
The vast majority of EU citizens, the consumers and taxpayers, have few friends among the member states’ governments. The UK House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee spoke of a well-established core group of reform-minded countries (UK, Denmark, Netherlands and Sweden). The Committee welcomes the accord signed with Italy on the future of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Not much to go on in a European Union of 27 member states.
Still, democracy should be about valid reasons and informed debate leading to accountable policies for acceptable results.
Some of the conclusions of the Committee bear repeating, because they challenge the governments in the anti-reformist camp to think through their stance and improve their justifications and, ultimately, their positions:
“Further reform of the CAP is both necessary and inevitable.”
“The only long-term justification for future expenditure of taxpayers’ money in the agricultural sector is for the provision of public goods. Payments should represent the most efficient means by which society can purchase the public goods – environmental, rural, social – it wishes to enjoy. For these payments to remain publicly acceptable, it is essential that they relate directly to the public goods provided and that, in turn, these public goods are measurable and capable of evaluation.”
“The objectives of the CAP have remained unchanged for the last 50 years and now seem dated. European agricultural policy has moved on since then, encompassing issues such as rural development, protection of the environment and animal welfare. The UK Government should begin negotiating, at the earliest opportunity, for a redrafting of the existing Article which lays out the objectives of the CAP – Article 33(1) – with the new text reflecting the wider context of modern rural policy.”
“Some of the key issues the UK Government must address in devising and pursuing such a rural policy for the EU should include:
· The prioritisation of objectives (for example, between environmental and rural development considerations)
· The degree of subsidiarity embodied in the new policy
· The relative advantages and disadvantages of financing such a policy – at least to some extent (i.e. co-financing) – at the Member State level
· How much of the current expenditure on the CAP would be required to fulfil the policy objectives chosen
· How best to manage the transition from the current CAP to this new ‘Rural Policy for the EU’
· The extent to which this new rural policy can contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”
***
The Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty is going to be as unreformed, and anachronistic, as ever concerning the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (although fisheries are added under the same heading). The earliest opportunity seems to be in a distant future.
For an outsider the Committee made a puzzling choice in leaving out consumers’ interests from its discussion altogether and relating to taxpayers mostly indirectly, as the logically necessary payers for and receivers of the public goods mentioned. If the interests of the voters as a whole do not concern the governments of the status quo group inordinately, they could be seen as potential allies and beneficiaries of the pro reform camp’s agenda.
Since the Commission Green Paper for the CAP review 2008 promises to be little more than a health check without serious diagnosis or treatment, the importance of the overall budget review 2008/9 grows.
The December 2005 European Council and, formally, the inter-institutional agreement in May 2006 invited the Commission to undertake “a full, wide-ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending, including the Common Agricultural Policy, and of resources, including the United Kingdom rebate, and to report in 2008/9”.
This promise might have been a joke for Jacques Chirac, but it is extremely important for the citizens of Europe.
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: The UK Government’s “Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy”; Published on 23 May 2007
Interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management; Official Journal 14.6.2006, C 139/1
Still, democracy should be about valid reasons and informed debate leading to accountable policies for acceptable results.
Some of the conclusions of the Committee bear repeating, because they challenge the governments in the anti-reformist camp to think through their stance and improve their justifications and, ultimately, their positions:
“Further reform of the CAP is both necessary and inevitable.”
“The only long-term justification for future expenditure of taxpayers’ money in the agricultural sector is for the provision of public goods. Payments should represent the most efficient means by which society can purchase the public goods – environmental, rural, social – it wishes to enjoy. For these payments to remain publicly acceptable, it is essential that they relate directly to the public goods provided and that, in turn, these public goods are measurable and capable of evaluation.”
“The objectives of the CAP have remained unchanged for the last 50 years and now seem dated. European agricultural policy has moved on since then, encompassing issues such as rural development, protection of the environment and animal welfare. The UK Government should begin negotiating, at the earliest opportunity, for a redrafting of the existing Article which lays out the objectives of the CAP – Article 33(1) – with the new text reflecting the wider context of modern rural policy.”
“Some of the key issues the UK Government must address in devising and pursuing such a rural policy for the EU should include:
· The prioritisation of objectives (for example, between environmental and rural development considerations)
· The degree of subsidiarity embodied in the new policy
· The relative advantages and disadvantages of financing such a policy – at least to some extent (i.e. co-financing) – at the Member State level
· How much of the current expenditure on the CAP would be required to fulfil the policy objectives chosen
· How best to manage the transition from the current CAP to this new ‘Rural Policy for the EU’
· The extent to which this new rural policy can contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change”
***
The Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty is going to be as unreformed, and anachronistic, as ever concerning the objectives of the Common Agricultural Policy (although fisheries are added under the same heading). The earliest opportunity seems to be in a distant future.
For an outsider the Committee made a puzzling choice in leaving out consumers’ interests from its discussion altogether and relating to taxpayers mostly indirectly, as the logically necessary payers for and receivers of the public goods mentioned. If the interests of the voters as a whole do not concern the governments of the status quo group inordinately, they could be seen as potential allies and beneficiaries of the pro reform camp’s agenda.
Since the Commission Green Paper for the CAP review 2008 promises to be little more than a health check without serious diagnosis or treatment, the importance of the overall budget review 2008/9 grows.
The December 2005 European Council and, formally, the inter-institutional agreement in May 2006 invited the Commission to undertake “a full, wide-ranging review covering all aspects of EU spending, including the Common Agricultural Policy, and of resources, including the United Kingdom rebate, and to report in 2008/9”.
This promise might have been a joke for Jacques Chirac, but it is extremely important for the citizens of Europe.
Ralf Grahn
Sources:
House of Commons, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: The UK Government’s “Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy”; Published on 23 May 2007
Interinstitutional agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline and sound financial management; Official Journal 14.6.2006, C 139/1
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
CAP basics
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is still the biggest area of expenditure in the EU budget. The basic principles of the CAP were written 50 years ago into the Rome Treaty establishing the then EEC. In half a century the world has changed a lot, but not the structure of the CAP.
In 1957 the war was still a living memory, and food scarcity a concern. Today obesity is a greater problem in Europe.
***
According to article 33 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, the objectives of the common agricultural policy shall be:
(a) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour;
(b) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;
(c) to stabilise markets;
(d) to assure the availability of supplies;
(e) to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.
***
The living standards of farmers outweigh the interests of consumers and tax payers.
The Commission runs the CAP along the lines drawn up by the Member States (the Council). The Council makes regulations, directives and decisions; the European Parliament is only consulted.
The European Parliament can only present wishes concerning the agricultural budget, since these expenses are seen as mandatory. (The Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty would extend the powers of the EP by abolishing the difference between mandatory and non-compulsory spending.)
The Commission is soon going to present its views on the CAP review 2008, commonly called the health check.
Leaked information does not promise any radical policy shift. This has implications for the expectations that the 2008/9 review of the whole EU budget could lead to major improvements.
Despite much talk about CAP reform, the 2002 agreement between Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schröder of Germany, later included in the present financial perspective (long term budget), guarantees CAP spending until the end of 2013.
France has been keen enough to defend the present CAP to forego the possibilities offered to European industry and services by a WTO agreement during the Doha development round.
Finland is an interesting case. On the one hand Finnish political leaders stress the opportunities offered by globalisation and the need to enhance European competitiveness by implementing Lisbon strategy reforms. On the other hand they have repeatedly sided with France to shield agriculture from reform and competition pressures.
Ralf Grahn
In 1957 the war was still a living memory, and food scarcity a concern. Today obesity is a greater problem in Europe.
***
According to article 33 of the Treaty Establishing the European Community, the objectives of the common agricultural policy shall be:
(a) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour;
(b) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;
(c) to stabilise markets;
(d) to assure the availability of supplies;
(e) to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.
***
The living standards of farmers outweigh the interests of consumers and tax payers.
The Commission runs the CAP along the lines drawn up by the Member States (the Council). The Council makes regulations, directives and decisions; the European Parliament is only consulted.
The European Parliament can only present wishes concerning the agricultural budget, since these expenses are seen as mandatory. (The Reform Treaty or Lisbon Treaty would extend the powers of the EP by abolishing the difference between mandatory and non-compulsory spending.)
The Commission is soon going to present its views on the CAP review 2008, commonly called the health check.
Leaked information does not promise any radical policy shift. This has implications for the expectations that the 2008/9 review of the whole EU budget could lead to major improvements.
Despite much talk about CAP reform, the 2002 agreement between Jacques Chirac of France and Gerhard Schröder of Germany, later included in the present financial perspective (long term budget), guarantees CAP spending until the end of 2013.
France has been keen enough to defend the present CAP to forego the possibilities offered to European industry and services by a WTO agreement during the Doha development round.
Finland is an interesting case. On the one hand Finnish political leaders stress the opportunities offered by globalisation and the need to enhance European competitiveness by implementing Lisbon strategy reforms. On the other hand they have repeatedly sided with France to shield agriculture from reform and competition pressures.
Ralf Grahn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To Grahnlaw
Posts
All Comments
