Stamp on the existing order or true
reform?: Common Agricultural Policy post
2013 negotiation process and stakes of
Polish and Dutch governments
Magdalena Domańska
Student number: 1306677
magdalena.domanska@hotmail.com
July 2014, Leiden
__________________________________________________________________________________
Leiden University
Master International Relations
Track European Union Studies 2012-2013
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ir. Gerrit Meester
Table of contents
Stamp on the existing order or true reform?: Common Agricultural Policy post 2013 negotiation
process and stakes of Polish and Dutch governments ............................................................................. 0
Word Count: ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Research problem and methodology ....................................................................................................... 3
1. Structure of Polish and Dutch agricultural sectors .............................................................................. 6
1.1. Polish agriculture and its position in national economy ............................................................... 6
1.1.1. Position of the agricultural sector in Polish economy ........................................................... 6
1.1.2 Structural characteristics and position in Europe ................................................................... 6
1.1.3. Recent transformation of the agricultural sector ................................................................... 7
1.2. Dutch agriculture and its position in national economy ............................................................... 9
1.2.1. Position of the agricultural sector in Dutch economy ........................................................... 9
1.2.2. Structural characteristics and position in Europe ................................................................ 11
1.2.3. Developments in the Dutch agricultural sector ................................................................... 12
1.3. Comparison of the agricultural sectors in Poland and the Netherlands in the light of their
economies .......................................................................................................................................... 13
2. Evolution and current shape of the CAP ........................................................................................... 15
2.1. CAP reforms and evolution of policy paradigm......................................................................... 15
2.2. Theory of the CAP reform process............................................................................................. 19
2.3. Relation between the EU budget and CAP expenditure ............................................................. 20
2.4. State of play 2007 - 2013 and measures proving national differentiation with respect to Poland
and the Netherlands ........................................................................................................................... 21
2.4.1. Support for farmers ............................................................................................................. 21
2.4.2. Common organisation of agricultural markets .................................................................... 23
2.4.3.The CAP financing ............................................................................................................... 23
2.4.4. Rural development .............................................................................................................. 24
3. The CAP decision-making process and the role of the institutions ................................................... 27
3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 27
3.2. Ordinary legislative procedure ................................................................................................... 27
3.3. Trialogues ................................................................................................................................... 28
3.4. Status of the institutions in the CAP decision and reform process ............................................. 29
3.4.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 29
3.4.2. European Commission ........................................................................................................ 30
3.4.3. Council of Agricultural Ministers ....................................................................................... 31
3.4.4. European Parliament ........................................................................................................... 34
1
Student number: 1306677
3.4.5. European Council ................................................................................................................ 36
4. Negotiations on the CAP post 2013 and positions of Polish and Dutch governments ...................... 39
4.1. Commission Communication: The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and
territorial challenges of the future in light of Polish and Dutch government proposals .................... 39
4.1.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 39
4.1.2. Objectives of the future CAP .............................................................................................. 39
4.1.3. Direct payments system....................................................................................................... 41
4.1.4. Market management and intervention ................................................................................. 43
4.1.5. Rural development policy (RDP) ........................................................................................ 43
4.2 From the Commission proposals to political agreement ............................................................. 44
4.2.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.2. Direct payments ................................................................................................................... 44
4.2.3. Horizontal regulation ........................................................................................................... 49
4.2.4. Rural development .............................................................................................................. 50
4.2.5. Single CMO......................................................................................................................... 51
4.3. Reactions of the Polish and Dutch governments to the Commission proposals......................... 52
4.3.1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 52
4.3.2. Direct payments ................................................................................................................... 53
4.3.3. Single CMO......................................................................................................................... 56
4.3.4. Rural development .............................................................................................................. 57
4.3.5. Horizontal regulation ........................................................................................................... 57
4.4. Finalisation of the negotiations and political agreement ............................................................ 58
5. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 59
Annex 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 61
Annex 2 ................................................................................................................................................. 61
Annex 3 ................................................................................................................................................. 61
Annex 4 ................................................................................................................................................. 62
Annex 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 62
Annex 6 ................................................................................................................................................. 63
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................. 63
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 64
2
Student number: 1306677
Word Count:
Main body (without footnotes, bibliography and table of contents): 19 861 words
Bibliography, footnotes and table of contents: 8 661 words
Research problem and methodology
This paper below is devoted to recent reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), its
process, main actors and main policy issues. The negotiation process and its outcome is
analysed in view at the agricultural sector and government positions of two Member States
(MS). Further the paper follows governments' positions before and during the negotiations as
well as the inter-institutional negotiation process. This paper aims at answering two main
questions. What are the main elements of the reform and how the reform was shaped and what
stakes from both government positions appear during the inter-institutional negotiations? An
additional question regards the extent to what the MS have an influence on the CAP policy
process in the circumstances where (as it was till the end of the Irish presidency in June 2013)
there were 27 national interests?
The literature on the CAP reform process is very rich. Numerous valuable accounts on the
previous reforms provide the theoretical basis for this paper. The analysis of the 2013 CAP
reform is interesting, not only because it is a recent process but also and more importantly it is
the first post-Lisbon CAP reform negotiated under the co-decision procedure.
The comparison between Polish and Dutch agriculture serves as an illustration of the different
challenges and interests, which this policy should serve. Poland and the Netherlands are very
different when it comes to its economy, the position of agriculture in the economy, the political
position in the EU and globally, and the history of its integration. It is interesting to analyse, on
the one hand how these aspects shape the view of these countries on the CAP and how this
policy influences the agricultural sector in the MS.
Though it is an important aspect of the decision process, the activities of the pressure groups on
the national and the European levels are not included in this paper because any comprehensive
analysis of their activities seems to exceed the scope of this paper. The focus is on both MS
views and the position in the negotiations against the inter-institutional decision making process.
In addition, a rather general approach covering many issues was adapted in order to enable the
comparisons between the institutions and between Poland and the Netherlands. However, the
author realizes that this can sometimes result in rather superficial approach towards some
3
Student number: 1306677
complex political and economic issues and therefore regards it as the biggest limitation of the
paper.
In this paper the comparative study method is applied. The Dutch- and Polish agricultural
sectors and policy documents are the objects of this research.1 Chapter 1 and part of Chapter 4
are devoted to this subject. Chronological and institutional method are often used in the
studies of the CAP reform.2 Chapter 2 presents the evolution of the CAP and state of play at
the time of the negotiation start and refers to chronological method. Chapter 3 describes the
institutional setting, in which the reform was negotiated and as such it applies institutional
method. Chapters 2 and 3 present also the theories of the EU agricultural policy making
process as well as the positions and usual stakes of the institutions, which are the main actors
of the negotiation process.
The approach adopted in this paper partly refers to the framework of the policy progress
proposed by Schmidt and Radaelli. This framework lists five main factors explaining policy
change in the conditions of the European Union. These factors are:
- policy problems that establish the need for a change (presented in the both members states
and the Commission proposal);
- the policy legacies which may or may not be compatible with the proposed solution (brief
history of the CAP presented in Chapter II);
- policy preferences that may or may not change in the light of the problems and proposed
solutions (In this paper, the needs of the two MS based on their economic situation are
regarded as a part of this factor);
- the capacity of actors to respond to problems and the proposed solutions (Institutions are
regarded as main actors and therefore this issue will be addressed in Chapter III) and finally;
- the discourse that has a power of enhancing the capacity.
Comprehensive description taking into account the position of all the MS and interests
groups, which could be regarded as a legitimate account of the last factor, is beyond the scope
of this paper. 3
1
W. Lawrence Neuman, Social Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 7th edition,
Boston, Pearson, 2011, p. 486.
2
A, Oskam, G. Meester, H. Silvis, EU policy for agriculture, food and policy areas, Wageningen: Wageningen
Academic Publishers, 2010, p. 26.
3
V.A. Schmidt, C.M. Radaelli, Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological
Issues, West European Politics, Volume 27, Issue 2, 2004, p. 186; compare I. Garzon, Reforming the Common
4
Student number: 1306677
Chapter 4 is devoted to the comparison of the negotiation position of the institutions and both
MS. In the conclusions, the presented negotiation process will be put in the theoretical basis
provided in Chapter 2 and 3. Moreover, preliminary assumptions on the potential of the
reform for both MS will be gathered.
In June 2013, I had an opportunity to exchange the views with officials from the Polish and
Dutch Permanent Representations dealing with agricultural dossiers in the Special Committee
for Agriculture. The objective of these interviews was to focus my further research, look
behind the curtain of the decision making process and confirm some theories and assumptions
with practitioners. However, opinions of Andrzej Babuchowski and Frits Thissen quoted in
this paper cannot be interpreted, regarded as- or attributed to the official position of the
governments they are representing and are merely an expression of their personal opinions.
Agricultural Policy: History of Paradigm Change, Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics, New York,
2007, p. 6.
5
Student number: 1306677
1. Structure of Polish and Dutch agricultural sectors
1.1. Polish agriculture and its position in national economy
1.1.1. Position of the agricultural sector in Polish economy
Poland's economy was the only economy in the European Union (EU) to avoid a recession
after 2008-09 economic downturn. However, GDP per capita remains below the EU average
and unemployment is higher than the EU average. GDP purchasing power parity4 in 2012 was
estimated at $814,1 billion. in 2012 GDP growth was 2% and decreased compared to previous
years when it was 4.3% in 2011 and 3.9% in 2010. In 2012, GDP per capita was $20900
which ranked Poland, the 89th place in the world. In 2012, Poland had a negative foreign trade
exchange account balance. Germany and other EU countries are Poland´s most important
trade partners. As for non-EU trade relations, China and Russia are significant importers,
Russia is the fourth partner in terms of Polish exports (2012).5 Quarterly analysis of the
economy in 2013 seems to support the view of the economic slowdown, present in the EU,
reaching Poland.6
As for the position of an agricultural sector in the economy and the employment structure, it
creates 4% of the GDP (2012) and provides employment to 12,9% of the labour force (2010).7
60,9% of the population lives in urban areas (as defined in national terminology). Moreover,
food and live animals constitute 7,6% of the exported commodities in terms of value.8 The
volume of international trade in agricultural products has increased after Polish accession to
the EU and the export volume has been higher than the import volume. The main exported
products are fruit and vegetables as well as tobacco products, sugar and cereals. When it
comes to animal products, meat, meat products and live animals were the main export
commodities.9
1.1.2 Structural characteristics and position in Europe
According to Eurostat data from 2010, there are 1506,5 thousand agricultural holdings in
4
the sum value of all goods and services produced in the country valued at prices prevailing in the United States
in the year noted. (The World Factbook)
5
Central Intelligence Agency (US), The World Factbook, retrieved on 7 September 2013 from
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pl.html.
6
National Polish Bank, Biuletyn Informacyjny, Warszawa, April 2013, p. 1.
7
FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013, World food and agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome 2013, p. 15.
8
Central Intelligence Agency (US), supra note 5.
9
A. Kowalski, Analiza Produkcyjno-Ekonomicznej Sytuacji Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej w 2011 roku,
Edycja 49, Instytut Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej - Państwowego Instytutu Badawczego
Warszawa 2012, p. 239-250.
6
Student number: 1306677
Poland, constituting more than 12% of the total number of agricultural holdings in the entire
EU, making it the third economy in the EU in terms of the number of agricultural holdings
after Romania and Italy. Moreover when it comes to the economic value of the sector it is
among the ten biggest in the EU.10 Utilized agriculture area (UAA) was 14447,3 thousand
hectares, which ranks Poland on the fifth position in the EU. Whereas the average size of the
holding in the EU is nearly 15 hectares, in Poland it is approximately 9,5 hectares. However,
in order to see the real picture of the sector we should take into account that almost eight in
ten holdings are smaller than 10 hectares. Only 8% of the holdings have at least 20 hectares
and as little as 2% of all the holdings have a size of at least 50 hectares (based on own
calculations, Annex 1). Moreover, when it comes to productivity, Polish holding scores less
than the average EU holding (Annex 4).
Last but not least, whereas the average Polish farm is smaller than its EU counterpart and
agriculture in Poland has been traditionally engaging relatively high percentage of the labour
force, it is also important to draw attention to regional differentiation in agriculture. In general
farms in the western and northwest regions are much bigger and more market-oriented,
whereas the farms in the eastern and southeast regions are smaller and focused on a self
subsistence- and social role.11 Agricultural production in Poland is relatively extensive and
low-cost and as a result less efficient than in the EU-15. However, relatively low
accumulation of chemicals in the soil can enable development of organic and ecological
farming.12
1.1.3. Recent transformation of the agricultural sector
1.1.3.A. Structural changes in the agricultural sector
Analysis of the agricultural sector in Poland would not be complete without viewing it in the
context of a transition from the centrally planned economy to market economy and its, still
relatively recent, EU accession. Whereas, the former made the political-, economic- and
social reforms towards the market economy possible, the latter structured them and
10
Eurostat European Commission, Eurostat Pocketbooks, Agriculture, fishery and forestry statistics, Main
results - 2010-11, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2012, p. 24-26.
11
L. Dries, J.F.M. Swinnen, Institutional Reform and Labor Reallocation During Transition: Theory Evidence
From Polish Agriculture, World Development Vol. 30, No. 3, 2002, p. 464; compare: S. Krasowicz, Regionalne
zróżnicowanie zmian w rolnictwie polskim, in: Wybrane elementy Regionalnego Zróżnicowania Rolnictwa w
Polsce, Instytut Uprawy Nawożenia i Gleboznawstwa, - Paṅstwowy Instytut Badawczy w Puławach, Zeszyt 15,
2009 p. 12, 36.
12
Polish agriculture in light of the EE agriculture (Polskie rolnictwo na tle rolnictwa UE) Foundation of
Assistance Programmes for Agriculture FAPA, Agricultural Policy Analysis Unit, Warsaw 2008, p. 3.
7
Student number: 1306677
accelerated their pace.13 One of the developments after 1989 was polarisation in agricultural
sector. This polarisation resulted in gaining economic power by part of the holdings on the
one hand, and a decline of the total number of holdings on the other. In 2002 just 6% of
holdings owned by individuals and of the area bigger than 1 hectare were capable of expanded
reproduction.14 It is moreover estimated that only 17-25% of them had an ability to compete
on the common European market. The great majority of holdings was not even capable of
simple reproduction15 and some of them were forced even to cease production. In this
situation before the EU accession just 1,5% of the holdings were competitive which resulted
in anxiety among the farmers.16
However, 'the accession shock' turned out to be smaller than previously expected. In 2004,
farmers income rose by 135% due to direct payments.17 Nevertheless, the proportion of Polish
farmers' income to their European counterparts was still approximately 1 to 3 in 2009. This
difference is caused by different productivity levels between Polish and European agriculture
on average and lower levels of direct payments.18 Moreover, the opening of the EU market
enabled increased trade in the agricultural products. In the first five years of accession the
export value of the agricultural products increased from four to above 11 billion euro.19 Some
of the holdings used a subsidies mechanism available before and after the EU accession. As a
result, 15-16% of all the holdings were capable of expanded reproduction in 2008 and an
estimated 4% were capable to compete on the EU market.20 Moreover the accession
stimulated the development of the agro-food industry due to the increasing levels of income
and export.21 Between 2000 and 2012 the average price of a hectare of an agricultural area in
A. Kowalski, Wpływ akcesji do Unii Europejskiej na warunki ekonomiczne rolnictwa, in Sytuacja
Ekonomiczna Polskiego Rolnictwa po Akcesji do Unii Europejskiej, edited by J.S. Zegar, Instytut Ekonomiki
Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej - Państwowego Instytutu Badawczego, Warszawa 2009, p. 7.
14
In model of expanded reproduction value of production is higher than the value of production means which
enables to start subsequent cycle of production on the expanded scale; E. Mendel, Marxist Economic Theory,
London: Merlin Press, 1968, p. 324.
15
There is no economic growth if the added value is created, it is spent by the employer/producer on
consumption.
16
Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Zmiany zachodzące w gospodarstwach rolnych w latach 2002-2010, praca
zbiorowa wykonana pod kierunkiem prof. dr. hab. W Jóźwiaka i prof.dr.hab. W. Ziętary. Powszechny Spis
Rolny 2010. Warszawa 2013, p. 9-10.
17
Ibidem, p. 9-10.
18
Z. Floriańczyk, Dochody przedsiębiorców rolnych według rachunków ekonomicznych dla rolnictwa, in
Sytuacja Ekonomiczna Polskiego Rolnictwa po Akcesji do Unii Europejskiej, edited by J.S. Zegar, Instytut
Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej - Państwowego Instytutu Badawczego, Warszawa 2009, p.
84.
19
A. Kowalski, Wpływ akcesji..., supra note 13, p. 17.
20
Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Zmiany zachodzące..., supra note 16, p. 9-10.
21
A. Kowalski, Wpływ akcesji..., supra note 13, p. 19.
13
8
Student number: 1306677
private turnover has increased from 4786 PLN (PLN - Polish zloty; 4786 PLN is
approximately 1144,97€) to 25445 PLN (approximately 6087,32€) in 2012.22
1.1.3.B. Changes in the production structure 1990-2009
Between 1990 and 2009, the structure of crop production has changed from extensive to
intensive. It is however worth noting that in 2009, just one third of the 24-25 million tonnes of
the total crop production ended up on the market, whereas the rest was used for farms needs
proving that the national crop market is still shallow and underdeveloped, especially
compared to the big crop producers, where 70% of the production reaches the market.
Another characteristic of the shift from extensive to intensive farming is a decrease in labour
consuming crops cultivation. For example between 1990 and 2009 potato farming decreased
by two thirds, and at the end of this period it still exceeded the demand and was higher than
the EU average. Sugar beet farming decreased as well and in 2009/10 for the first time Poland
was net sugar importer. This decrease is a consequence of a reform of the sugar sector and
decreasing of the sugar quota, which resulted in decreased- sugar beet price and profitability.
This led to halving the production compared to 1990. Milk production was decreasing in the
beginning of 1990s' as a result of the decreasing number of livestock. Afterwards, it was
compensated because of the improvement in production methods.23
Animal productivity has improved mostly due to changes in the structure of animal
production. The amount of poultry stock has increased whereas the stock of beef cattle has
decreased and pig production remained on more or less same level. This development led to
an increased demand for cereals as production of these livestock groups is dependent on them.
Moreover, the export of animal production was stimulated.24 After the accession animal
production increased, whereas crop production stabilised.25
1.2. Dutch agriculture and its position in national economy
1.2.1. Position of the agricultural sector in Dutch economy
The Dutch economy is the sixth-largest economy in the euro-zone. Despite of the contraction
of the economy as a result of the global financial crisis, the unemployment level is still
22
Agriculture in 2012, Central Statistical Office, Agriculture Department, Statistical Publishing Establishment,
Warsaw, p. 133.
23
J. Seremak-Bulge, Relacje Podażowo-popytowe, in Sytuacja Ekonomiczna Polskiego Rolnictwa po Akcesji do
Unii Europejskiej, edited by J.S. Zegar, Instytut Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej Państwowego Instytutu Badawczego, Warszawa 2009, p. 34-36.
24
Ibidem, p. 33-40.
25
Z. Floriańczyk, Dochody przedsiębiorców... , supra note 18, p. 82.
9
Student number: 1306677
relatively low compared to other euro-zone countries. Food processing is one of the important
branches of the industry next to chemical, petroleum and electrical industry. GDP purchasing
power parity in 2012 was estimated at $718.6 billion. As a result of the global financial crisis,
in the last years the economy has been continuing to alternately contract and manifest a slight
growth. In 2012 GDP decreased by 0.9%, whereas in 2011 and 2010 growth was respectively
1 and 1.6%. In 2012 GDP per capita was $42.900, ranking the Netherlands 23rd in the world.
The Netherlands had a positive foreign trade exchange account balance in 2012 and 2011. EU
MS are the most important receivers of the Dutch export regarding the value, with Germany
being the biggest one and receiving more than a quarter of the total Dutch export value. When
it comes to imports, non-MS, like China, Russia and USA are also important partners.
However, Germany is the biggest importer.26
As for the position of an agricultural sector in the economy, the primary sector as such
produces 2.8% of the GDP and employs just 2% of labour force. 83% of the total population
lives in urban areas. However these numbers do not portray the situation accurately, as
Dutch agriculture is very efficient and produces large inputs for the food-processing industry
and for exports. Moreover, Dutch agriculture is innovative and knowledge-based, which can
be supported by the fact that the Netherlands is traditionally in top ten in the world when it
comes to percent of agricultural GDP spent on agricultural research (2006-2010) which
amounts to 4.08%27
Foodstuffs are one of the important commodities when it comes to Dutch participation in the
international trade, making up 20% of its exports.28 The country's advancement in production
and processing makes it the second largest exporter of agricultural products in the world and
the largest in the EU.29 Only the United States has a higher value of agricultural exports.30
Main exported products are: ornamentals and other plants, meat, dairy and vegetables.
In the studies of the Dutch agricultural sector a term agribusiness is used. This term refers to
the agriculture as the primary sector, processing and distribution of agricultural goods as well
as providing products and services necessary to produce agricultural products, like energy,
26
Central Intelligence Agency (US), supra note 5, retrieved on 21 September 2013 from.
FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013, supra note 7, p. 15, 20.
28
Central Intelligence Agency (US), supra note 5.
29
Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit Programmadirectie Gemeenschappelijk
Landbouwbeleid, European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook, retrieved from
http://www.cap2020.ieep.eu/2008/12/22/european-agricultural-policy-2020-the-dutch-outlook on 24 September
2013, p. 5.
30
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Facts and figures 2010, The Dutch agricluster in a global
context, June 2010, p. 43.
27
10
Student number: 1306677
fertilizers, transport and professional services. This sector contributes approximately 10%
both to the GDP and the total employment rate.31 However, the role of the imported raw
materials in the agro industry should be noted. Their processing, supply and distribution
contribute to almost 3,8 % of total GDP, whereas processing of the domestic raw materials
and their production amounts respectively to 3,5% and 1,9% of the total value of the GDP.32
Broader agribusiness sector includes globally operating companies like Unilever, Heineken or
FrieslandCampina.33 Therefore, assessments regarding the importance of the primary sector to
the whole Dutch economy cannot only be based on the primary sector contribution to the
GDP but should be put in the context of the entire agribusiness. As presented earlier, almost a
half of the processing and logistic services are dependent on raw materials imported from
abroad. However, the importance of the domestic primary sector for the entire agribusiness
should not be underestimated because it created a basis on which processing and agro-logistic
companies built their capacity to expand abroad.34
1.2.2. Structural characteristics and position in Europe
There were 72,3 thousand agricultural holdings in the Netherlands according to the Eurostat
data from 2010, which is below one percent of the total EU number, but in the group of the
thirteen MS with less than one million holdings. Utilized agriculture area (UAA) is 1872,4
ha.35 53% (988 000 ha) of this area is used for grassland, 13% (236 000 ha) for fodder cereals,
28% (535 000 ha) for other arable land, 5% for horticulture in the open and 0,5% for
greenhouses.36 The Netherlands is among ten EU MS with the smallest UAA. As for the
average size of the holdings, it is approximately 25 hectares, which is more than 15 hectares
of the EU average. In the light of the comparisons with Poland it is important to mention that
in the Netherlands 42% of all the holdings are smaller than 10 hectares, 42% are at least 20
hectares and approximately 16% have at least 50 hectares. (based on own calculations, Annex
1)
31
P. Berkhout, H. Silvis, I. Terluin, Landbouw-Economisch Bericht 2013, LEI-rapport 2013-041, LEI
Wageningen UR, p. 38.
32
own calculations based on P. Berkhout, H. Silvis, I. Terluin, Landbouw-Economisch Bericht 2013, LEIrapport 2013-041, LEI Wageningen UR, p. 38.
33
Ibidem, p. 48.
34
Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur, Ruimte voor Duurzame Landbouw, Maart 2013, Den Haag. p.
61, 79.
35
Eurostat Pocketbooks, Agriculture, fishery and forestry statistics, supra note 10, p. 26.
36
P. Berkhout, H. Silvis, I. Terluin, Landbouw-Economisch Bericht 2013..., supra note 31: p. 132.
11
Student number: 1306677
1.2.3. Developments in the Dutch agricultural sector
Scale enlarging, a decrease in the number of farms and production intensification are
interlinked processes which characterise Dutch agriculture. The number of farms has been
gradually decreasing over the last decades. The reasons for this decrease are: ageing of farm
owners, farm-succession situation and technical development. The latter enables farming on
the bigger scale and reduces the demand for the workforce in certain sectors. Number of
farms in sectors which are relatively intensive and less land dependent was decreasing
sharper. However, the main reason for the decrease in the number of farms is ''more or less
voluntary finishing of the company activity due to rather modest income perspectives in the
agriculture".37
Dutch agriculture is also characterised by a high and ever rising level of specialisation,
described as the share of production in one sector taking place on the specialised holdings in
the given branch. Dutch holdings have a high level of specialisation which enables farmers to
achieve better results and acquire knowledge necessary to engage in a more complex
production process.38
The process of enlarging of Dutch farms is a very important and controversial development.
There is a number of reasons enabling and stimulating this process to occur. Firstly,
technological development and rising labour productivity enables bigger scale of production.
Secondly, a certain level of mechanisation and farm scale enables reduction of production
costs and gaining competitive advantage. Lastly, small farms disappear because they are not
commercially viable and are being overtaken by subjects that are economically stronger.
Statistics presented below might be an illustration of these three processes.39
The number of the horticultural farms has decreased by 60% over last 30 years, whereas the
total area used for this type of production has remained almost at the same level. In spite of
this process of scale enlarging, Dutch horticulture is still of relatively small scale in hectares
with only less than 5% of all the farms bigger than 100 ha. Floriculture, which is very specific
of the Dutch economy, has undergone this process even more radically. The decrease of the
number of holdings is comparable to horticulture whereas twice as much area is used for this
kind of production currently, compared to 1980. In the greenhouses this process has been
even more extreme. Compared to 1980 the number of the farms has halved and the area
37
Ibidem, p. 122-123.
P. Berkhout, P. Roza, Landbouw-Economisch Bericht 2012, LEI-Rapport 2012, Wageningen UR, p. 133.
39
Ruimte voor Duurzame Landbouw, Maart 2013, supra note 34, p. 44.
38
12
Student number: 1306677
devoted to this branch has increased by 75%. Poultry farms have been demonstrating the
biggest increase in scale of production in the animal husbandry branch. Due to animal
welfare- and public health issues, intensification of the livestock production has been a
subject of criticism.40
Since 2000 employment in the primary sector has decreased from 281 000 to 209 000
persons. Another characteristic development in this area is the decrease of the number of
family members and permanent employees at the cost of the temporary workers in the sector.
Especially for smaller farms, the price of the labour takes a big share in total costs.41
The price of land in 2012 was on average 50 000 euro per hectare but the trade in the
agricultural land was low. The process of enlarging the scale of agriculture is faster in less
land dependent branches. In land dependent branches - like arable farming, horticulture in the
open air and cattle raising - the availability of the land determines the possibility of holding
enlargement. In the milk- and sugar sector, quota determine the possibility of production in
the EU. In Dutch circumstances similar limitations occur in the poultry and pig sector because
producers need special "animal rights" in order to diminish manure surpluses. Like in other
MS, there are also direct payments rights per hectare of agricultural land. All of these
entitlements can be subjects of trade in the Netherlands.42
Highly productive and intensive agriculture has an impact on the environment. The content of
the nitrates in the soil poses an important agri-environmental issue in the Netherlands.
Whereas according to the Nitrates Directive from 1991, 170 kg/year/hectare of this substance
is allowed, in many Dutch regions it exceeds this level. Areas where the level of nitrates is the
highest and reaches more than 300 kg/year/ha due to intensive livestock farms are Overijssel,
Gelderland, North Brabant and Limburg.43
1.3. Comparison of the agricultural sectors in Poland and the Netherlands in the light of
their economies
The Netherlands is one of the founding MS, whereas Poland joined the EU in 2004 and in the
40
P. Berkhout, P. Roza, supra note 38, p. 135.
P. Berkhout, H. Silvis, I. Terluin, supra note 36, p. 123.
42
P. Berkhout, P. Roza, supra note 38, p. 152.
43
Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by
nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC), Annex III; Ruimte voor Duurzame Landbouw, supra note 34, p.
95.
41
13
Student number: 1306677
literature is still addressed as a new MS. This contrary characteristics determine the relation
between Polish and Dutch agriculture and will appear repeatedly in the following summary.
The difference in the contribution of the primary sector to the GDP is not as striking as the
one referring to the percentage of working population active in agriculture. Whereas in the
Netherlands agriculture engages 2% of the labour force, in Poland it engages almost 13%.
However, in Dutch studies of the domestic agriculture its importance is advocated by the fact
that it creates the basis for the agribusiness and the exporting potential of the Netherlands.
Polish export of agricultural products has increased after the EU accession. Another
difference is the character of these products. Contrary to Dutch export, Polish export still
consists mostly of less processed products.
Though, a great deal of the progress has already occurred, Polish agriculture still needs to
develop certain capacities and overcome some structural handicaps. On the other hand, in my
opinion, this comparative advantage in the UAA number could give Poland potential for less
extensive, sustainable production necessary for development of the bio-food industry. The
main structural problem is a big group of the population employed in agriculture and farm
proliferation. Changes in the production structure reflect changing consumer preferences of
the Polish society. Though the EU integration, was awaited by the agricultural community
with a note of anxiety, collected sources support a rather positive outcome of the EU
integration for agricultural population, at least in the first years of integration. Their income
has risen, due to the participation in the direct payments scheme and the export of Polish
agricultural products has risen.
The Netherlands in spite of limited land available for agricultural activity, has an agricultural
sector of remarkable economic size comparable to this of Poland having nine times as much
available UUA.44 This comparison confirms the high productivity of the Dutch agriculture.
The average Dutch holding is 20 times more productive than the European average (Annex
4).45 Dutch agriculture is characterised by increasing specialisation and intensification of
production enabling it to produce more effectively and develop a robust processing sector. On
the other hand, intensive food production has negative consequences for the environment,
animal welfare and food quality.
44
45
Eurostat Pocketbooks, Agriculture, fishery and forestry statistics, supra note 10, p. 26.
compare: Ruimte voor Duurzame Landbouw, supra note 34, p. 59.
14
Student number: 1306677
2. Evolution and current shape of the CAP
2.1. CAP reforms and evolution of policy paradigm
The aim of the following Chapter is to present the main points regarding the reform process of
the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) till 2013. Subsequently the main theories regarding
the reform process of the CAP will be presented in order to bring the background for the
description of the negotiation process in Chapter 4.
CAP has been an inherent part of the European integration. Moreover, from the beginning it
has been characterised by the heavy public expenditure distinguishing it among other
European policies.46 In the post-war period the need for regulating the agricultural market was
reasoned by the food security concerns.47 When the European Communities were emerging,
regulating the ''green pool'' had another very important role - the one of bringing the balance
between "agricultural" France and "industrial" Germany.48 Contrary to the current situation, in
1958 farming population amounted to 20% of the labour force in the founding MS and had a
considerable voting power.49
The treaty of Rome offered three possible solutions for common organisations of agricultural
markets, but the European market organisation was decided for most of them, implying that
the price regulation policy would have a central position within this policy.50 The Council of
Ministers further determined a shape of the policy in the beginning of 1962 by setting out
main three principles of the CAP. First of them, unity of markets resulted in liberalisation of
the market between the MS and introducing common prices for agricultural products.
Agreement on the common price levels for cereals and other products was reached only in
1964 and was close to the German level which was the highest in Europe.51 However, not all
the products were supported by a fixed price level. Complete price support applied to grains,
sugar, milk and beef. Products such as olive oil, durum wheat, oil seeds and tobacco received
only supplementary price support. Products such as poultry, eggs, wine and horticultural
46
N. Nugent, The Government and politics of the European Union, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p.
32.
47
R. Griffiths , Agricultural Development and Agricultural Trade, 1945-1973; in The Economic Development of
the EEC, edited by Richard T. Griffiths, Chelthenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1997, p. 355.
48
D. Dinan, Europe Recast, A History of European Union, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2004, p. 94; S.
Senior Nello, The European Union Economics, Policies & History, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Higher Education,
2012, p. 281; N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 354.
49
S. Senior Nello, The European Union Economics, supra note 48, p. 21.
50
G. Meester, European Integration and its relevance for agriculture, food and rural areas, EU policy for
agriculture, food and policy areas: in EU policy for agriculture, food and rural areas, edited by A, Oskam, G.
Meester, H. Silvis, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2010, p. 31.
51
R. Griffiths, Agricultural Development..., supra note 47, p. 360.
15
Student number: 1306677
products were protected only by a common external tariff. Such organisation of the market
secured mostly the interests of the German, French and Dutch farmers.52 The second principle
is a community preference which eliminated the barriers on trade between the MS and
introduced common tariffs on imports from third countries and export refunds. Each time the
price of a given agricultural product was changing on the global market, the variable entry
tariff for exported products and the level of export subsidy for domestic farmers was adjusted.
These protectionists instruments have been notoriously criticised by the international
community and contributed to ever rising funds devoted to the CAP. The third principle of
financial solidarity was based on newly created European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund enabling common financing of the agricultural policy measures. 53
In the context of this paper, it is worth to mention some stakes of the Netherlands in creation
of the CAP, reflecting its liberal and pro-reformatory role. Firstly, the Netherlands was a
supporter of the inclusion of common policy on agriculture in the common European market.
Secondly, when the negotiations regarding CAP moved to the stage when its form was
discussed, the Netherlands was supporting liberal solutions regarding the participation of the
Six in the world trade in agricultural products. However, these ambitions were not pursued
due to the prevailing 'French' protectionist point of view.54 Finally, the Dutch Minister for
Agriculture, Sicco Mansholt became the Commissioner in charge of implementing CAP. The
structural reform plan presented during his office in 1968 – aimed at resolving the surpluses
and low farmer’s income, was thought to be too radical for his times and its implementation
was reduced.55
Though the main objectives of the policy were fulfilled, the unforeseeable effects of its
measures were very negative, not only for the Community, but also for third countries and
undermined the Community trade relations. Serious surpluses appeared as early as in late
1960s' and were gradually increasing to legendary butter- (1,2 million tonnes of butter in 1985
amounting to half of this year production) and grain- (26,5 million tonnes in 1991 at the total
production of 180 million tonnes that year) mountains. CAP budget amounted to nearly 80%
of the whole Community budget in 1970s' and 80s'.56 Moreover, the policy based on the high
cereal price led to an increase of the food prices affecting the consumer- and taxpayers
52
I. Garzon, Reforming..., supra note 3, p. 23.
S. Senior Nello, The European Union..., supra note 48, p. 283.
54
R. Griffiths , Agricultural..., supra note 47, p. 355-356.
55
S. Senior Nello, The European Union..., supra note 48, p. 288.
56
European Commission, Directorate General for Budget, EU budget 2008 Financial Report, Annex 4.
53
16
Student number: 1306677
welfare.57 Last but not least as the big farmers benefited the most and the production of
certain products like cereals and milk was favoured, the policy resulted in rising inequality
across Europe as well as between small and big producers.58
However, till late 1980s' and 90s' all these negative side effects did not suffice to pursue
serious CAP reform.59 Some authors recognize the significance of quota for the dairy products
and cereal price stability instruments as having potential of introducing relevant changes into
the CAP and resolving these sectoral problems.60
Outside Community pressure facilitated a more radical reform of the CAP.61 General
Agreement on Trade and Tariffs negotiations on tariffs in industry had been taking place since
1947 but only the Uruguay Round started in 1986 had a clear agricultural mandate.62 The
Agricultural Agreement which concluded the Uruguay Round revolved around three main
aspects of trade liberalisation: market access, domestic support and export support. Changes
in domestic support constituted what EU policies researchers often call the CAP paradigm
change. From then on, any sort of production-related public support was considered as trade
distorting and signatories were obliged to reduce it by 20%. This forced the Community to
make cuts in prices for certain products and compensate it to farmers by the animal and
hectare premiums.63 Moreover, a number of 'accompanying measures' like subsidies for
afforestation or an early retirement scheme for farmers were introduced.64 Though the level of
compensation in the form of direct payments outbalanced the benefits of the price cuts for the
EU budget, this reform paved the way for redirection and further market orientation of the
CAP.65
57
D. G. Demeskas, K. Bartholdy, S. Gupta, L. Lipschitz, T. Mayer, The effects of the Common Agricultural
Policy of the European Community: A Survey of the Literature, in: Economic Development of the EEC, edited by
Richard T. Griffiths, Chelthenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1997.
58
L. Hubbard and C. Ritson, The reform of the CAP, in: Economic Development of the EEC, edited by Richard
T. Griffiths, Chelthenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1997, p. 399; S. Senior Nello, The European
Union..., supra note 48, p. 292.
59
Ibidem, p. 39.
60
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is een Boerendozijn: Onderhandelingen in de Raad van Ministers van Landbouw over
hervormingen van het Europese Landbouwbeleid, Eburon Delft, 1997, p. 16-200.
61
A. Cuhno, A. Swinbank, Exploring the Determinants of CAP Reform: A Delphi Survey of Key DecisionMakers, Journal of Common Market Studies, 2009 Volume 47. Number 2, p. 259.
62
R. Huige, R. Lappere, G. Stanton, The WTO context; in: A, Oskam, G. Meester, H. Silvis, EU policy for
agriculture, food and policy areas, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2010, p. 91.
63
S. Senior Nello, The European Union..., supra note, 48, p. 297.
64
A. Swinbank, CAP Reform, 1992, Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 31, No. 3, September 1993, p.
363.
65
S. Senior Nello, The European Union..., supra note 48, p. 297-298.
17
Student number: 1306677
Agenda 2000 indeed followed this path and conditioned the receipt of the full amount of
direct payment on the compliance with certain environmental requirements. A voluntary
possibility of the cutting the amount of the direct payments - modulation- was also introduced
but initially it had a limited implementation. Moreover, rising awareness regarding the multifunctionality of agriculture and environmental concerns as well as structural and economic
challenges of agricultural areas led to the creation of CAP pillar II aimed at development of
rural areas. Last but not least the reform of common market organisation for certain products
took place. In case of both last reforms changes were also reasoned by the 2004-2007
enlargement of the EU.66 Extending rules, which were in force in 15 MS, to the states with
which the EU had association agreements was politically and probably economically
impossible. In Central and Eastern European countries (CEEC) agriculture was still an
important and, compared to the 15 MS, unmodernised economic sector. Therefore, EU budget
for the CAP would inevitably increase huge redistribution between old and new MS. Though,
the Mid-term Review (also called the Fischler Reform) further decoupled payments from
production, the policy itself rather preserved the state-assisted paradigm of the CAP.67
Integration of the 12 states in 2004 with agricultural sectors with very specific needs even
more contributed to the fourth, unwritten principle of the CAP: allowance for national
variations. In order to face various needs of the agricultural sectors, illustrated in the previous
chapter by the example of Poland and the Netherlands, more flexibility and discretion is
enabled in the policy making process.68 As can be seen for example in the Polish response to
the reform proposals, sometimes the broadening of the scope of this flexibility is being
interpreted as renationalisation of the CAP. Nevertheless, as Frits Thissen said, the policy
decision process is different among the 28 MS currently, than it was among six MS.
Therefore, what is needed in current CAP setting, given the very diverse economic and
agricultural circumstances, to make it feasible, acceptable and pertinent, is a balance
between the common European framework and the flexible elements. A strong common
European framework is needed to ensure a level playing field. Andrzej Babuchowski, supports
this view and adds that common elements dominate the CAP. In his opinion, the CAP consists
66
Ibidem, p. 297-298.
C, Daugbjerg, Sequencing in public policy: the evolution of the CAP over a decade, Journal of European
Public Policy 16:3, April 2009, p. 406.
68
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 363; E. Rabinowicz, EAAE Presidential Address,
Redesigning the CAP to meet the challenges of EU enlargement and the WTO: what can agricultural economic
research contribute?, European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 26 (3) (1999))p. 265.
67
18
Student number: 1306677
of the strong pan-European legal framework and facultative measures which the MS can
introduce according to their domestic circumstances.
2.2. Theory of the CAP reform process
According to Garzon, the CAP is characterised by incremental policy development and can be
described as path dependent policy. This implies a causal relationship between subsequent
decisions giving direction to the policy and developing its shape.69 In line with this theory,
after introducing certain measures in a given direction, following the same direction is more
probable than shifting to another one. In addition it seems that the CAP fulfils almost all
criteria which make given policy prone to path dependency. These are: collective nature of the
policy, a high number of institutions involved in the decision making, power asymmetries
resulting from political authority of certain actors, the complexity and opacity of policy, the
short time horizons of politicians and the status quo bias of political institutions.70 In my
opinion in chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this paper, the comprehensive evidence is provided
confirming the above listed characteristics of CAP and its decision making.
Daugbjerg came up with a modification of this theory. Contrary to the path dependency,
called by him a self-reinforcing sequencing, the reactive sequencing does not imply further
policy making to follow the same direction. It emphasises the fact that the policy reform
results also in counter- reactions, which do not have the effect of reinforcing policy in a given
direction but set in motion a chain of reactions. This approach brings us to the theory of
cumulative change.71
Following the framework adopted by Garzon, path dependency does not exclude policy
paradigm change as a result of cumulative changes happening over time. The latter is
especially likely to change in multi-level, multi-issue and multilateral policy framework,
which CAP definitely is. Garzon reviews studies of CAP aiming at singling out precise
variables leading to the paradigm change. Finally, she concludes that these have certain limits
69
for broader account on the path dependency: P. Pierson, When effect becomes cause - Policy feedback and
political change, World Politics, Volume 45 No 4, 1993; P. Pierson, Increasing returns, path dependence and
the study of politics, American Political Science Review, Volume 94 No 2, 2000; A. Kay, Path dependency and
the CAP, Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 10 No 3, 2003; C. Daugbjerg, Policy feedback and
paradigm shift in the EU agricultural policy: The effects of the MacSharry reform on future reform, Journal of
European Public Policy, Volume No 3, 2003) .
70
I. Garzon, Reforming..., supra note 3, p. 9-10.
71
C. Daugbjerg, Sequencing in public..., supra note 67, p. 398, 407.
19
Student number: 1306677
in describing the CAP reform process and tends to support Coleman's view stating that the
CAP is a result of a gradual negotiated process conducted over a number of years.72
Finally, there are many interesting studies demonstrating the sorts of pressures influencing the
direction of the CAP reform. In the beginning CAP represented the agricultural policy
network excluding other considerations and interest.73 Moreover, due to its complexity, CAP
was not included in the mainstream political agenda.74As the negative side effects of the
policy occurred international trade, environment, consumers and new farmers interests groups
of farmers started to be vocal. This feedback led to transformation of CAP from mono-issue
to multi-issue policy, engaging various interests groups. Food scares and for example recent
European-wide horse meat scandal are reminders that all European citizens are dependent on
agribusiness and farmers as the producers of raw materials. This phenomenon of agriculture
societalisation, next to the food related concerns, includes also environmental and rural spatial
concerns.75 Though the reasoning behind providing the assistance to farmers has changed
from price support to conditioning the part of the payment on the delivering environmental
services, the CAP still rests on agricultural exceptionalism. According to this notion, qualities
and goods produced and delivered by the farming sector are not marketable or they should not
be left to the market forces in order to maintain their high quality and value. Therefore,
farmers need incentives and support in order to be able to deliver these goods and values and
in consequence state-assistance is inevitable.76 On the other hand, it is hard to deny that policy
has evolved towards more liberal set of measures. According to Grant and in line with
findings of De Groot, the most important reason behind introducing the more market-oriented
approach can be the enlargement.77
2.3. Relation between the EU budget and CAP expenditure
The share of the budget devoted to the CAP in the end of 1970s was amounting to 80% of the
total Community budget. Till the 1990s the Community expenditure was a result of the
agricultural decision-making and not the other way around.78 The introduction of the
72
I. Garzon, Reforming..., supra note 3, p. 9-12.
Ibidem, p. 27.
74
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is..., supra note 60, p. 14.
75
European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook, supra note 29, p. 2.
76
C. Daugbjerg, A. Swinbank, An introduction to the 'new' politics of agriculture and food, Policy and Society
31, (2012), Elsevier, p. 262.
77
W. Grant, Economic patriotism in European agriculture, Journal of European Public Policy 19:3 (2012), p.
433.
78
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is..., supra note 60, p. 14.
73
20
Student number: 1306677
Multiannual Financial Framework in 1988 might be seen as a successful undertaking to
reverse this process.79
According to Article 312 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), the
Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is established for a period of at least 5 years and
determines the amounts of the annual ceiling on commitment and payment appropriations.
The categories of expenditure, limited in number, shall correspond to the Union's major
sector of activity. This rule ensures resources for the long-term projects and guarantees the
consistency and continuation of policy priorities.80 According to Article 310 TFEU, all the
revenues and expenditures are entered into the budget and the destination of the expenditure
should not be earmarked according to the source of revenue. The MFF is adopted
unanimously by the Council subject to the consent of the EP.81 The annual budget of the EU
should comply with the MFF.82
In 2007-2013 the expenditure devoted to the CAP amounted to €371 244 billion and 43% of
the total expenditure. The expenditure for the first pillar (direct payments and market
regulation) constituted almost 79% of the CAP spending. The biggest share of the total
expenditure was devoted to cohesion policy.83 Nevertheless, the discussions regarding the
efficiency of agricultural spending are inherent part of the MFF negotiations.
2.4. State of play 2007 - 2013 and measures proving national differentiation with respect
to Poland and the Netherlands
2.4.1. Support for farmers
In 2003, the single payment scheme (SPS) replaced most of the previously existing coupled
payments and its aim was to guarantee farmers stable income, regardless of sort and amount
of production, and to align their production with market demands. It was applied in old MS,
Slovenia and Malta. The amount of payment entitlement was based on the reference period
from 2000 to 2002.84 The amount was the three-year average of the total amounts of
79
M. Bos, The EU budget, in EU policy for agriculture, food and rural areas, edited by: A. Oskam, G. Meester
and H. Silvis, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2010, p. 87; N. Nugent, The Government and
politics..., supra note 46, p. 367.
80
S. Senior Nello, The European..., supra note 48, p. 271.
81
Article 312, Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2010 O.J. C 83/53.
[hereinafter TFEU].
82
Article 314, TFEU.
83
Annex I, Council of the European Union, Financial Perspective 2007-2013, Brussels, 19 December 2005,
15915/05.
84
Article 38, Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for
direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for
21
Student number: 1306677
payments, which a farmer was granted under the support schemes, divided by the number of
hectares used by the farmer.85 Support was granted to a farmer on the condition that each
payment entitlement was corresponding to the amount of eligible agricultural area, meaning
that the support is not automatic but dependent on the declaration of the eligible land and
entitlements. The payment entitlements were subject to trade, lease and issuance by the MS
government.86 The SPS in the Netherlands operated according to these rules.
A simplified version, the single area payment scheme (SAPS), was introduced in all the new
MS, except the above mentioned Slovenia and Malta. In this system, there is no need of
declaring the payment entitlements. The Commission established an annual financial
envelope for the new MS and these funds were subsequently divided by utilized agricultural
area. The 12 MS where SAPS was applied were envisioned to transfer to the single payment
scheme in 2013.87 In both SPS and SAPS the eligibility for direct payments was conditioned
on fulfilling the standards of cross-compliance in the areas of public animal- and plant health,
the environment and animal welfare.88
As the direct support was introduced as a compensation for farmers receiving production
support in old MS, the new MS were initially to be excluded from the payments. This unequal
treatment raised fierce criticism in candidate countries. A compromise was a system
according to which direct payments would phase in new MS from 25% in 2004 to 100% in
2013 of the level negotiated before the accession.89 Nevertheless, the differences in the direct
payments levels between new and old MS are still significant. In 2008 farmers in Poland
received €210 per hectare, whereas in the Netherlands it was €460.90 Whereas in Poland all
the farmers receive the same amount of premium, in the Netherlands the situation was bit
more complex and direct payments were dependent on the level of production in reference
farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No
1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and
(EC) No 2529/2001 [hereinafter Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003].
85
Article 37, Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.
86
Factsheet: The Single Payment Scheme, retrieved from the European Commission Agriculture and Rural
Development website on 16.01.2013, p. 1.
87
Ibidem.
88
Article 5, Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for direct
support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for
farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No 247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003. [hereinafter Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009].
89
S. Senior Nello, The European Union..., supra note 48, p. 299-300.
90
Agricultural Policy Perspectives Briefs, Brief no 2, January 2011, European Commission Agriculture and
Rural Development, p. 5.
22
Student number: 1306677
period. Therefore, payments varied from above €1000 per hectare (for some farmers in the
veal meat sector) to even no payment at all in horticulture and permanent crops sectors.91
2.4.2. Common organisation of agricultural markets
Due to gradual liberalisation of the CAP market organisation measures in the period between
2007 and 2013 are very modest compared to the mechanisms which used to be available to
the farmers in the past. Certain market intervention- and production limitation measures were
available. Firstly, buying-in under public intervention and supporting private storage of
cereals, rice, sugar, olive oil, table wine, beef , milk products, pig meat, sheep meat and goat
meat are the elements of the price support system . Exceptional market support measures in
beef and veal; milk and milk products; pig meat; sheep meat and goat meat; eggs or poultry
meat sectors might be adopted in case of animal disease. Under certain conditions special
measures are also allowed in the cereals and rice sectors. Secondly, in order to limit
production, a quota system for sugar and milk is in place. Finally, special aid schemes are
applicable for certain groups of products or activities, e.g. promoting milk consumption
among school children.92
Regarding the trade with third countries, the levying of any charge having equivalent effect to
a custom duty and application of any quantitative restriction or measure having equivalent
effect are prohibited as prescribed in the Agricultural Agreement concluding Uruguay Round.
The commission can require import licences for certain groups of products. Import licenses
are issued by MS. Similarly to import, export of certain products can be a subject to export
licences. Moreover, for cereals, rice, some sugar products, beef and veal, milk and milk
products, pig meat, eggs poultry meat and some other groups of products, there was a
possibility of granting an export refund to compensate the farmer for the gap between the
world- and European price of these products.93
2.4.3.The CAP financing
Currently, expenditure is managed through two agricultural funds. In 1962, the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund was created to fund the CAP expenditure. Since
the financial perspective 2007-2013 the management of the CAP two pillars is split between
91
R. Jongeneel et al, Bedrijfstoeslagnen na 2013 Omgaan met dalende bedragen, LEI-rapport 2011-062,
November 2011, Wageningen UR, Den Haag, p. 18.
92
Articles 6, 44, 47, 55, 102, Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common
organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products [hereinafter
Single CMO Regulation].
93
Articles 128, 131, 161, 162, Single CMO Regulation; R. Huige, R. Lappere, G. Stanton, The WTO context...,
supra note 62, p. 92.
23
Student number: 1306677
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) for pillar I and European Agricultural Fund
for Rural Development (EAFRD) for pillar II.94
Pillar I expenditure is wholly covered by the EAGF whereas the expenditure for the pillar II is
only co-financed by the EAFRD.95 The co-financing rule in second pillar is derived from the
structural policy and is also a manifestation of stricter financial discipline. It means that only a
part of the projects is financed from the EAFRD and another part is complemented by public
resources at national level or by the beneficiaries themselves. This rule was introduced to
render the MS and beneficiaries more cost-conscious and, as a result bring more efficiency in
using European funds for rural development.96
2.4.4. Rural development
Objectives of the rural development policy in period 2007 - 2013 were:
a) improving the competitiveness of agriculture and forestry by supporting restructuring,
development and innovation;
b) improving the environment and the countryside by supporting land management;
c) improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of economic
activity.97 Partnerships between MS and relevant and competent regional-, local-, economicand social partners should be a base of cooperation towards implementation of the policy
measures.98 Each MS was supposed to submit its national strategy plans defining the potential
for development, chosen strategy, priorities for rural development as well as indicative
EAFRD resource allocations.99
Application of rural development measures in Poland and the Netherlands
Policy measures were grouped around four axes. Three of them corresponded to the rural
development policy objectives listed above and the fourth, Leader, was designed to contribute
to all three objectives by means of bottom-up approach. Representatives of the private-, non-
94
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 126.
Ibidem.
96
M. Bos, The EU budget..., supra note 79, p. 85.
97
Article 2, Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by
the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), [hereinafter Council Regulation No
1698/2005]
98
Article 6, Council Regulation No 1698/2005.
99
Article 11, Council Regulation No 1698/2005.
95
24
Student number: 1306677
governmental- and public sector were supposed to create Local Action Groups (LAG) which
chose projects realised at given area.100
Regarding the measures in the first axis Poland concentrated on improving its unspecialised
and underinvested agricultural holdings. Measures supporting young farmers and encouraging
earlier retirement were introduced in order to re-parcel land and transfer it to effective
holdings. Activities aimed at enhancing the human capital concentrated on improving farmers
skills in the areas of competitiveness, pro-environmental and modern farming as well as food
quality.101 In the Netherlands measures from the first axis were aimed at enabling agricultural
holdings to respond themselves to the market situation. Measures were aimed at bringing not
only production- but also environmental performance and adjusting the agricultural sector to
the expectation of the top segment of the market.102 Regarding the second axis, in Poland
areas threatened by marginalisation and abandonment and agri-environmental program were
given priority.103 Polish environment and biodiversity are in relatively good condition
therefore the measures within the second axis were directed mainly at conservation of the
natural resources. In the Netherlands the environmental needs are more pressing and the focus
was on the agri-environmental measures. 104 Poland wanted to use the measures from the third
axis to transfer the ineffectively used human potential from agriculture to other sectors,
employing measures aimed at diversification of economic activities. However, the most
resources from this axis were devoted to improvement of the rural infrastructure and
conservation of natural and cultural heritage.105 On the contrary, the unemployment on the
rural areas is not the major problem in the Netherlands. Hence, the measures were devoted
mainly to enhancing the social cohesion between rural and urban areas as well as the
preservation of landscape quality.106 Polish and Dutch rural areas pose different challenges. In
Poland the unemployment and weak infrastructure are the biggest handicaps, whereas the
Dutch countryside faces great environmental challenges. As described above, the second
pillar offers enough flexibility to address these different needs.
100
compare: The Republic of Poland, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, National Strategic Plan
for 2007-2013 Rural Development, p. 38 [hereinafter Polish NSP for Rural Development]; Nederlandse
Plattelandsstrategie 2007-2013, p. 55.
101
Polish NSP for Rural Development, supra note 100, p. 35.
102
Netherlands’ Rural Development Strategy 2007-2013, p.
103
Polish NSP for Rural Development, supra note 100, p. 36.
104
Netherlands’ Rural Development Strategy 2007-2013, p. 50.
105
Polish NSP for Rural Development, supra note 100, p. 37.
106
Netherlands’ Rural Development Strategy 2007-2013, p. 53-54.
25
Student number: 1306677
Entire Poland was covered by the convergence objective for the least developed MS and
regions and enjoyed high level of EAFRD contribution up to 75% for the measures in axis 1
and 3 and 80% for axis 2. Whereas the Netherlands could receive up to 50% for the measures
in axis 1 and 3, and up to 55% in axis 2.107 Appropriation for 2007 - 2013 for Poland was € 13
billion and for the Netherlands it was €486 million.108 This difference in level of support
reflects the differences between the development of rural areas in both MS.
107
Article 70, Council Regulation No 1698/2005.
Annex, Commission Decision of 12 September 2006 fixing the annual breakdown by Member State of the
amount for Community support to rural development for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013
(2006/636/EC).
108
26
Student number: 1306677
3. The CAP decision-making process and the role of the institutions
3.1. Introduction
The legislation of the CAP reform is conducted according to the ordinary legislative
procedure called also co-decision procedure and within "the Community method". The
Community method is based on the cooperation between the three EU institutions: the
European Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. Therefore
explaining their role in the policy process is key to understanding the policy development.
The European Council does not formally participate in the process. Nevertheless, its influence
on the recent reform is beyond question, therefore its position in the negotiation process also
deems to be presented. Firstly, the ordinary legislative procedure will be described and
secondly the role of the institutions and their traditional stakes in the CAP negotiation process
will be analysed.
3.2. Ordinary legislative procedure
Formerly known as the co-decision procedure, the ordinary legislative procedure puts the EP
on the equal position as the Council. The EP has a power to veto the legislative proposals,
which strengthens its bargaining power in the decision process.109 Authors argue that this
procedure opens the EU policy networks to the broader spectrum of interests.110
The first stage of the co-decision procedure is the proposal of the Commission to the Council
and the EP. After the first reading, the EP adopts an opinion with or without the amendments.
Subsequently, the Council examines the amendments made by the EP and it has a possibility
to adopt the approved text or reject the amended text and adopt the common position. In case
of the latter, a second reading in the EP is conducted within three months. The EP can act four
ways. Firstly and secondly, it can either adopt the common position or not take any action on
it. In both cases the proposal is adopted after the second reading. Thirdly, it can reject the
common position by an absolute majority of its members, which leads to the proposal not
being adopted. Finally, by an absolute majority of its members, the EP can propose
amendments to the common position. If this happens, the Commission delivers opinion on
amendments and within three months the second reading in the Council is conducted. During
109
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 181-182.
A. Greer, T. Hind, Inter-institutional decision-making: The case of the Common Agricultural Policy, Policy
and Society 31 (2012) Elsevier, p. 335.
110
27
Student number: 1306677
this reading the Council can approve the EP amendments taking into account the
Commission’s opinion, in which case the proposal is adopted. 111
If the Council does not approve the EP amendments the Conciliation Committee is convened
and has to act within 6 weeks. The Conciliation Committee is composed of an equal number
of the EP and Council members. At this final stage, the proposal still cannot be adopted if the
Conciliation Committee fails to agree on a joint text or if the approved joined text will not be
adopted by the EP and the Council separately. If, the EP and the Council adopt the joint text
of the Conciliation Committee, the proposal is adopted.112
Another dimension of the co-decision procedure are the informal contacts between the
representatives of the EP and the Council. Therefore it is very difficult to ascertain what is the
influence of the EP exercised via informal channels and what it is due to formal acts of
approving, rejecting and amending legislative proposals.113 It might be expected that for the
policy areas where trialogues are used the informal contacts are of even bigger importance.
3.3. Trialogues
In pursue for the efficiency and effectiveness of the co-decision procedure, the practice of
concluding the early stage agreements arose. Trialogues are meetings between Members of
Parliament, Council and Commission, which aim at reaching compromise. A trialogue is
opened after a positive vote of the responsible committee determining mandate and the
composition of the negotiating team. This mandate should consist of a report adopted in the
committee or where the committee responsible considers it justified the negotiations can be
entered into, before the adoption of a report in the committee.114 Nevertheless, the conditions
for this justification are not specified.
Most often, trialogues take place during the first reading but they can take place at different
stages even before the first reading in the Parliament and the Council. The Council and the EP
are the main sides of the negotiations with the Commission having a role of a broker.
Trialogues aims at reaching an agreement between the EP and the Council before they adopt
formal opinions. Informal negotiations have an important role in this process. There is only
narrow group of MEPs and COREPER I staff familiar with the negotiation status quo, which
leads to the situation that the responsible EP Committee and the whole EP at the Plenary
111
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 316-319.
Ibidem, p. 316-319.
113
Ibidem, p. 183.
114
Rule 70, Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, 7th parliamentary term, July 2013
112
28
Student number: 1306677
Session, as well as the Council are confined to a de facto yes or no vote.115 According to Rule
70, members of the responsible EP committee are informed about the progress
Some claim that this procedure undermines the standards of the democratic accountability and
transparency. Controversially, the documents or drafts from the trialogues are not public.116
Firstly, there is a fear that larger MS would use this to manipulate the legislation in a nonaccountable and non democratic manner.117 Secondly, MEP and Ministers not taking part in
the trialogue are not up to date with the actual state of negotiations118 . Frits Thissen noted
that during the final stage of the CAP-post 2013 negotiations, the Irish Presidency was
submitting oral reports to the Council of Ministers of Agriculture (CoAM) and Special
Committee for Agriculture. In his opinion at this occasion the trialogues practice within the
CAP was just forming and it is difficult to judge if in the future, the reports should not take
written form. However, he admits that reports in written form if revealed to Parliament bring
the risk of protracting the negotiation process.
3.4. Status of the institutions in the CAP decision and reform process
3.4.1. Introduction
The CAP decision making used to be dominantly intergovernmental. An increasing number of
MS and formal as well as procedural complexity of the CAP required more coordination on
the European level.119 Moreover, as the process of inclusion of the new topics and interests
groups strengthened, the CAP policy-making process evolved from compartmentalised dealing with a limited number of topics and driven by relatively coherent interests and values
to decompartmentalised - in which different values need to be balanced at various stages of
the decision process. Decompartmentalisation is linked to the notion of multifuncionality of
agriculture and it enabled the societalisation of the CAP, which was discussed in chapter 2.120
However, task division and the role of the institutions in the policy decision process is not so
clear-cut. The role of a network of more or less formal groups, committees and organisations
in close environment of the institution should be realised. Even if they do not have a formal
115
H. Farrell, A. Heritier, The Invisible Transformation of Co-decision: Problems of Democratic Legitimacy,
Report No. 7, June/2003, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies, Stockholm, p. 4, 7, 8.
116
Ibidem, p. 1.
117
H. Farrell, A. Heritier, The Invisible..., supra note 115, p. 8.
118
T. Bunyan, State watch Viewpoint Secret trilogues and the democratic deficit, available on
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-64-secret-trilogues.pdf (viewed on 02.01.2013), p. 3.
119
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is een Boerendozijn..., supra note 60, p. 42.
120
C. Daugbjerg, A. Swinbank, An introduction..., supra note 82, p. 261-264.
29
Student number: 1306677
role in the decision process, they work as a system of early warning and information.121 An
example of this might be a special relationship between the CoAM, DG Agriculture and Rural
Development (Agri) and Special Committee for Agriculture.122
3.4.2. European Commission
The European Commission (further Commission) consists of the College of Commissioners
and supporting administrative staff divided into Directorate Generals.123 Next to the DG
Agriculture and Rural Development, the Directorate Health and Consumers (SANCO),
Environment (ENVI) and Trade (TRADE) also have been playing a role in the agricultural
policy as the issues, they are dealing with, have been included in the agricultural policy.124
In the field of the CAP the Commission has a crucial role. The CoAM and EP in their
decisions are limited to the Commission proposals as the Commission has an exclusive right
of initiative.125 Under the ordinary legislative procedure it seems that the current powers
balance can be described as the Commission proposes and the Council and Parliament codispose. 126 Moreover, it delivers an opinion on the EP amendments if the latter does not adopt
the common position during the second reading and maintains the role of the policy package
broker between the EP and the Council.127
In order to fulfil this role possibly impartially, the Commissioners shall be completely
independent and shall neither seek or take instruction from any government or other
institution, body, office or entity.128 A Commissioner responsible for the given policy attends
the meetings of the Council in respective field.129 The Health check negotiation process can
be taken as an example of the importance of the Commissioner negotiation skills for the
success of the Commission legislative proposal. 130
The proposal after the internal deliberation in the DG and approval from the Commissioner is
directed to interservice consultation with other DG’s interested in the matter.131 Before the
121
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 129.
A. Greer, T. Hind, Inter-institutional..., supra note 110, p. 332.
123
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 117.
124
G. Kunst, EU institutions and decision-making processes in: EU policy for agriculture, food and rural areas
edited by: A. Oskam, G. Meester, H. Silvis, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2010, p. 52.
125
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 136.
126
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is een Boerendozijn..., supra note 60, p. 12.
127
Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, N. p. 316; A. Greer, T. Hind, Inter-institutional...,
supra note 110, p. 332.
128
Article 17, Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, 2010 O.J. C 83/53 [hereinafter: TUE].
129
I. Garzon, Reforming..., supra note 3, p. 19.
130
S. Senior Nello, The European Union..., supra note 48, p. 19.
131
G. Kunst, EU institution..., supra note 124, p. 53.
122
30
Student number: 1306677
document becomes an official proposal, it is adopted by the whole College of Commissioners
or on their behalf by the most interested Commissioners or by 'written procedure'. According
to Andrzej Babuchowski, Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Dacian
Cioloş tried to avoid the decrease of the CAP budget. Therefore, the greening measure can be
seen as a sort of compromise between Commissioner Cioloş and other Commissioners who
resigned from budget decrease provided the CAP would be greener and aimed at the
fulfilment of the non-productive role of agriculture.
Regarding the Commission’s power in the CAP legislative process, there are interesting
processes to be noted. In general, the Commission has been losing its power in the decision
process at the costs of the EP and the Council. On the other hand, there are some prerequisites
supporting the view, that the Commission position in the CAP legislative process is still
strong. The Commission, compared to the Council and the European Parliament, has bigger
administrative resources enabling it to consult the experts in different policy areas.132 The
process of the CAP decompermentalisation included non-agricultural organisations. Contrary
to the Council gathering mainly agricultural interest, the Commission networks with these
organisations.133 In the past the Commission has been using this asset and manipulating
exclusively possessed information in order to secure desired direction of reforms, as for
example during the Mac Sharry reform.134 The Commission has to maintain its credibility on
the international forum and as a governor of the budget, thus it was eager to introduce the
policy reforms enabling it to maintain its negotiating position.135 The Commission and
especially the European Commissioner for Agriculture, is seen as an the engine of progress
and reform in the decision making- and policy process.136
3.4.3. Council of Agricultural Ministers
The Council was established as the main decision making institution of the EU, but its
legislative discretion is limited to the Commission proposal. Nowadays the Council shares its
legislative and budgetary power with the European Parliament. The council is composed of
132
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 121-122.
I. Garzon, Reforming..., supra note 3, p. 18.
134
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is een Boerendozijn..., supra note 60, p. 211.
135
C, Daugbjerg, Sequencing in public policy..., supra note 67, p. 399.
136
A. Cuhno, A. Swinbank, Exploring the Determinants..., supra note 61, p. 259.
133
31
Student number: 1306677
the MS representatives on the ministerial level and its ten compositions address different
areas of EU policies.137
The Council of Agricultural Ministers (CoAM) is just one of the Council formation called
Agriculture and Fisheries and it meets most months. In the past, access to the Council
deliberation was guaranteed only to the Ministers or State Secretaries and few officials, who
in this small company were more likely to attain compromise.138 After the Lisbon Treaty, the
Council meets in public when it deliberates and votes on a draft legislative act.139 Besides the
formal Council framework, ministers have informal meetings, usually in the country of the
Presidency. These meetings enable ministers to learn each other' views without being
pressured to take decisions.140 The Treaty obligation rendering the Council to meet in public
was reasoned by the transparency issues. On the other hand, the meeting in public creates the
risk of policy making process protraction and hindrance as the Ministers might be reluctant to
take decision which would cause major concessions in relation to their national positions.
During the final stage of recent negotiations the President as well as rapporteurs from
COMAGRI were invited to the informal Council. Frits Thissen admitted that as during the
trialogue the Irish presidency represented the CoAM, the informal Council was a rare
occasion for all the Ministers to confront the MEPs. In opinion of Andrzej Babuchowski this
enabled to identify the sticking points between the EP and CoAM.
Ministers of Agriculture are only the tip of the iceberg in the Council organisational structure
and the role of the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER - Comité des
Representatives Permanents) should be explained. MS have their diplomatic representatives Permanent Representations in Brussels. They consists of staff seconded from national
diplomatic services and ministries whose role is to prepare the meetings of the Council.141
Due to the complexity of the CoAM subject matter its meetings are prepared by the separate
Special Committee of Agriculture (SCA). Moreover, in the area of agriculture, there are
around 25 working groups carrying the analyses of the Commission proposals.142 COREPER
or SCA and its working groups decide on almost 90% of the issues and delegate only the most
137
N. Nugent, The Government and..., supra note 46, p. 141-142, compare to
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/council/council-configurations?lang=en, retrieved on 27.12.2013.
138
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is een Boerendozijn..., supra note 60, p. 34.
139
Article 16 TEU.
140
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 144.
141
Ibidem, p. 144.
142
the complete list can be consulted in: List of Council preparatory bodies, General Secretariat of the Council,
5581/13, retrieved from www.register.consilium.europa.eu, on 27.12.2013.
32
Student number: 1306677
important or sensitive issues to the Council.143 However, both according to Frits Thissen and
Andrzej Babuchowski during the negotiation on the CAP due to the gravity of the issue in
question, most of the decisions were taken at ministerial level.
The Council is presided by the rotating Presidency. Subsequent MS take upon the Presidency
of the Council for a period of six months. In order to strengthen the continuity and
cooperation between presidencies, MS exercising three following Presidencies cooperate and
set common objectives. Ministers of the MS exercising the Presidencies are chairing their
sectoral Councils for periods of six-months.144
Among the three ways of voting in the Council, the qualified majority is currently used during
the ordinary legislative procedure.145 It is based on the weights distributed to the MS
according to their population. Total weight of the votes in the EU-28 is 352. The vote of the
Dutch minister weighs 13 points and the Polish one 27, whereas the biggest countries
(Germany, France, Italy and United Kingdom) have 29 and the smallest one - Malta - 3
points. In order to take a decision at least 260 votes in favour are needed. These votes needs to
come from at least 15 MS. Additionally on the request of the MS it can be checked if the
population of the MS accounts for at least 62% of the EU population. These rules are in force
until November 2014.146 MS pay attention to the fact if the balance between small and big
countries is well reflected. 147 Though the majority of the policy areas are decided by the
qualified majority voting, there is a tendency in the Council to reach a consensus. Therefore,
the qualified majority voting is often not conducted in cases where it applies.148 However, the
CoAM is one of the Council formations using it the most.149
Regarding the power of the Council in the legislative process it has lost its exclusive
legislative power due to the EP veto right. 150 Another interesting development is the fact that
the decision making in the Council used to be intergovernmental and transformed into
supranational. This is a result of increasing number of the MS demanding more coordination
143
S. Senior Nello, The European..., supra note 48, p. 50.
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 147.
145
Ibidem, p. 154.
146
G. Kunst, EU institutions..., supra note 124, p. 50; weights applying currently to majority voting are available
on the voting calculator on the Council official website: www.consilium.europa.eu.
147
S. Senior Nello, The European Union..., supra note 48, p. 54.
148
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is een Boerendozijn..., supra note 60, p. 36; S. Senior Nello, The European Union...,
supra note 48, p. 65.
149
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 366; G. Kunst, EU institutions..., supra note 124,
p. 50.
150
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 316.
144
33
Student number: 1306677
on the European level and as described in the previous paragraph requiring the use of the
qualified majority voting in more areas of the policy.151
The situation of the farmers differ across the MS but in general they have a clear interest in
keeping the state-assisted paradigm of the CAP. Therefore we can agree with Greer that the
CoAM as a supporter of the state-assisted paradigm in negotiation rounds to date is
channeling the interest of the farmers groups in the MS.152 Therefore, the CoAM used to be
status quo minded, being rather an obstacle than a supporter of the reform.153According to De
Groot, the CoAM represented the incremental code which can be summarised as: we are
going to reform but not too much.154
3.4.4. European Parliament
Since 1979 the European Parliament (EP) is the only institution, which is formed in direct
elections. Recently its powers have strengthened, as the co-decision procedure, in which it has
a shared legislative power, was extended to many areas of EU policy including the CAP. 155
Before the Lisbon Treaty, the European Parliament had only an advisory role in the area of
CAP and the CoAM was in position to bluntly speaking, ignore its opinion.156 Before the codecision procedure was extended to the CAP there was a fear for the EP to prolong the
legislation in this area.157 In opinion of Frits Thissen this protraction indeed occurred during
the CAP post 2013 negotiations and but for EP, the policy negotiation process would have
been much shorter as it used to be during previous rounds of reforms. According to Frits
Thissen on the other hand, democratic legitimization is the benefit of this prolonged
negotiating process.
The EP during the CAP post-2013 negotiations had 736 members. Their seats are allocated
between the MS according to the principle of digressive proportionality, meaning that the
number of the citizens per MEP increases as the size of the MS increases. Currently one
German MEP represent 830 thousand citizens whereas the Maltese one represents 82
151
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is een Boerendozijn..., supra note 60, p. 42.
A. Greer, T. Hind, Inter-institutional..., supra note 110, p. 332.
153
C, Daugbjerg, Sequencing in public..., supra note 67, p. 399.
154
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is een Boerendozijn..., supra note 60, p. 204.
155
S. Senior Nello, The European Union..., supra note 48, p. 55,58.
156
T.C. de Groot, Dertien is een Boerendozijn..., supra note 60, p. 33; G. Kunst, EU institutions..., supra note
124, p. 58.
157
G. Kunst, EU institutions..., supra note 124, p. 58.
152
34
Student number: 1306677
thousand.158 Poland has 51 Members of the European Parliament, whereas the Netherlands
has 26.159
The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development (COMAGRI) is responsible for
preparing the report on this area for the plenary session. At the preparatory stage, interested
committees can prepare their positions. Among the members of the Committee the rapporteur
is appointed, who is responsible for the report. This document forms a basis for discussion
and amendments in the committee. Vote on the amended report is taken during the Plenary
Session. In the event of negotiations with the Council, the rapporteur and Committee chair
are representing the EP.160
The EP ability to virtually realize the position which is prescribed to it in the area of the CAP
depends on time and resources devoted to this policy. COMAGRI has a many members with
agricultural background and does not lack technical expertise but might lack a procedural
experience regarding the co-decision procedure.161
None of the Dutch MEPs was a Member of COMAGRI during the post-CAP negotiations.
Two Dutch MEPs were substitute Members. Poland had three Members and two substitute
Members.162 Moreover, often if a Minister of Agriculture fails to pursue some issue in the
Council, the EP is seen as a last resort institution to secure the national interests. In opinion
of Andrzej Babuchowski if the MEP has strong position, many years of experience in the
Committee and backing from the big political group, he does not have difficulties in pursuing
his position and as a result it becomes the position of the Committee and further also of the
EP.
Nevertheless, according to Andrzej Babuchowski, compared to the Ministers of Agriculture,
the MEPs, are rather ill-equipped to take well informed policy decisions and often it is very
difficult to assess to what extent the MEPs voice the interests of lobbying groups. Some
amendments made by the EP, like the one regarding the level of coupled support, raised the
question regarding the real sources of these amendments. The EP vulnerability to the
lobbying groups affects the coherence and consistency in its positions and therefore makes it
the negotiation party which is sometimes difficult to predict.
158
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 190-191; compare the EP website.
European Parliament official website, visited on 29 January 2014.
160
G. Kunst, EU institutions..., supra note 124, p. 56-57.
161
A. Greer, T. Hind, Inter-institutional..., supra note 110, p. 336.
162
European Parliament website, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/, retrieved on 12 December 2013.
159
35
Student number: 1306677
Greer provides us with four scenarios which can describe the EP role in the inter-institutional
balance in the CAP decision process. The first of them is the status quo position. According to
which the EP is not able to use its formal power in practice and actual CAP decision-making
still fulfils just old "the Commission proposes and Council disposes". Second scenario is the
Council-EP axis and marginalisation the Commission. According to the third option, the
Commission has a potential to use its resources and the position of the honest broker and
marginalise the other two institutions. The fourth possibility refers to the results of the policy
and envisions two possibilities of the policy results becoming more status quo minded as a
result of the collective indecision, or agricultural bias in COMAGRI.163According to Frits
Thissen, the Commission has been rather withdrawn during the negotiation process in the
CoAM and contrary to its predecessors, Commissioner Cioloș was not the one leading the
debate during the negotiations in the CoAM. In his opinion, especially during the trialogues,
the Commission was in much stronger position as the institution with the most knowledge. It
has a lot to do with the personal charisma and involvement of Simon Coveney, the Irish
Minister for Agriculture Food and the Marine and former Member of the European
Parliament (2004-2009), President of the CoAM during the Irish presidency in the Council,
that the Council came out of the negotiations successful. Therefore, it can be claimed that
Greer's second scenario has been realised. When it come to result of the policy process, it also
seems at least partly realised. At least regarding the market regulation, the position of the
Parliament has proved to be status quo minded. Andrzej Babuchowski maintains that this
change in balance simply stems from the Commission role in the co-decision procedure. In
his opinion, if during the negotiations between the Council and EP, the proposal is not
radically changed, the Commission does not interfere. Moreover, by rejecting the Council
MFF proposal the EP proved that it would not be a passive player.
3.4.5. European Council
The European Council was created and institutionalised in 1974 in response to the need of
stronger leadership.164 This gathering of Head of States and Governments was not supposed to
involve in the details of the policy but provide the Union with the necessary impetus for its
development and shall define the general political directions and priorities.165 The President
of the EC and after the Lisbon Treaty the European Council President are also attending these
163
A. Greer, T. Hind, Inter-institutional..., supra note 110, p. 335-338.
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 162.
165
Article 15, TEU
164
36
Student number: 1306677
exclusive meetings but they cannot cast a vote.166 In order to guarantee possibly broad
acceptance and adherence of the MS to the general policy directions and developments most
of the decisions in the European Council are made by consensus.167
Contrary to the wording of the TFEU cited above, the European Council has been engaging in
the shape of the sectoral policies and CAP among them. Firstly, since 1999 the European
Council has been increasingly involved in determining the size and shape of the multi-annual
financial framework. Taking into account the share of the resources devoted to the CAP and
relation between the latter and the EU budget (addressed in chapter 2, point 4 of this paper)
the influence of the European Council on the CAP has also increased. Secondly, the CAP as a
policy dealing with highly sensitive issues, sometimes requires the resolution on the highest
level of authority. Nevertheless, the Council does not participate in the formal legislative
process.168
Regarding the remarks devoted to the position of this institution it is necessary to add that its
growing importance has had an influence on other institutions. Formally, the EC wields the
power of policy initiation exclusively, but there is an overlap with the European Council
power to give the direction of the European policies. Nugent notices that the Council of
Ministers has also been increasingly referring unresolved issues to the European Council, but
he does not assume it as a major shift in the power division between these two institutions.169
During the MFF negotiation, at various stages the formally negotiating parties - the EP, the
Commission and especially the Council proceeded with the legislative proposal but the
political elements of the proposal were left to the decision at the Head of States or
Governments level.170 The final shape of the CAP in turn was dependent on the financial
decisions in the MFF.171
When it comes to the role of the European Council in the CAP reform process to date, its
influence seemed to be the most significant during 1999 reform when the Agenda 2000 was
decided.172 In addition, this reform was a part of broader package which enabled the European
Council to make cross-sectoral deals. However, according to findings of Daugbjerg and
Swinbank, an example of Agenda 2000 shows that when the CAP reform is a part of a
166
Article 235, TFEU.
Article 15, TEU.
168
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 174-177.
169
Ibidem, p. 174-178.
170
Special report on EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) negotiations, European Council official website,
www.consilium.europa.eu, retrieved on 5 May 2014.
171
Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), European Council official website,
www.consilium.europa.eu, retrieved on 5 May 2014.
172
A. Cuhno, A. Swinbank, Exploring the Determinants..., supra note 61, p. 245, 254.
167
37
Student number: 1306677
broader package and therefore necessitates the involvement of the European Council, it leads
to less significant reform. 173
173
C. Daugbjerg, A. Swinbank, The Politics of CAP Reform: Trade Negotiations, Institutional Settings and
Blame Avoidance, Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 45. Number 1, p. 5, 19.
38
Student number: 1306677
4. Negotiations on the CAP post 2013 and positions of Polish and Dutch governments
4.1. Commission Communication: The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural
resources and territorial challenges of the future in light of Polish and Dutch
government proposals
4.1.1. Introduction
The Republic of Poland Government Position regarding the future of the Common
Agricultural Policy after 2013 was adopted in June 2009 after conducting stakeholders
consultation and further considerations in three workgroups. These workgroups devoted to:
direct payments, intervention measures on the agricultural markets and development of the
rural areas based on the initial document adopted in 2008. The process leading to the Dutch
government position was commenced by an initial document adopted in April 2008 regarding
the priorities in the EU budget and the government's response to the Commission regarding a
"Health check" for the CAP. Moreover, the advisory report of the Council for the Rural Area Public Interests Central and the recommendations of the Social and Economic Council of the
Netherlands - Values of Agriculture gave additional sources for the government's official
position entitled European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook.174
At the EU level, policy-making process was initiated by the Commission in 2010 when it
issued the Communication: The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and
territorial challenges of the future. It was preceded by the European-wide poll and public
debate regarding the future of the CAP. Simultaneously the Council and EP were discussing
the issue. The following considerations approach the main ideas included in this
Communication and point out common points as well as the main differences between it and
positions of the Dutch and Polish governments issued before the Commission
Communication.
4.1.2. Objectives of the future CAP
According to the Commission the CAP should remain a strong common policy based on two
pillars. Moreover, in the course of the public debate three main aims of the future policy
crystallized. Firstly, the CAP should guarantee food security for European citizens and
respond to the global food demand. Secondly it should render agriculture to supply Europeans
with quality food produced sustainably. Lastly, European agriculture should contribute to
174
European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook, supra note 29, p. 1.
39
Student number: 1306677
maintenance of the vibrant rural areas which provide the society with social, environmental
and territorial benefits.175
In addition, the measures contributing to greater competitiveness of European agriculture
should be strengthened. Importantly, the Communication makes a clear link between the
support for farmers and the return to society. Next to food security and quality and balance on
the rural areas, an important challenge posed for the CAP is mitigation of the environment
degradation and climate change.176
The first objective of the future CAP would be viable food production. This included the
postulate of maintaining stable income for farmers, comparable with these in other sectors of
the economy. Moreover, agriculture should be more competitive and its position within the
supply chain should be strengthened in order to be competitive on the global scale. The
second objective referred to sustainability and environmental issues. Agricultural production
should be sustainable and ensure the contribution of the public goods to the society. Green
growth should be realized through the introduction of innovation and new technologies. The
third objective was balanced territorial development. It included maintaining the viable rural
communities and promotion of diversification both in the farming systems and practices as
well as in the rural economy as a whole, understood as diverging from the farming activities
to other forms of economic activities.177
Regarding these general objectives, both governments in their positions recognized the scale
of challenges which are posed for the CAP and the fact that only the policy created and
managed on the supranational level has a potential to face them. Both governments criticised
as well the direct payments system based on the historic references and suggested that farmers
should be assisted if they are really to contribute to the targets of the CAP. The Dutch
government put special emphasis on specifying these targets as contributing to broader
appreciated socially recognized values like: eco-services and sustainable production of high
quality food, as well as the modernisation of production processes.178 Polish emphasis was on
creating a level playing field between more and less prosperous MS and opposition to any
175
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural
resources and territorial challenges of the future, Brussels, 18.11.2010, COM (2010) 627 final, p. 2-3
[hereinafter: Communication The CAP towards 2020].
176
Ibidem, p. 3-6.
177
Ibidem, p. 7.
178
Republic of Poland Government Position regarding the future of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013,
[hereinafter: RP position on the future of the CAP] p. 2; European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook,
supra note 29, p. 2.
40
Student number: 1306677
steps towards renationalisation of the policy, which would further differentiate the position of
farmers from different MS on the common EU market.179
In general Polish government supported maintaining the current three elements of the CAP:
common market regulation and the development of rural areas and pointed out some
shortcomings of the current policy. It called for maintaining the CAP budget on at least an
equal level. Moreover, and not surprisingly, the Polish government called for the levelling of
the direct payments in the whole EU, explaining that only this way all farmers act in the same
competitive situation and have a possibility to attain the whole potential necessary to respond
to the European and global food demand. Finally, the Polish government underlined the need
for support for family farms, which contribute to the multi-functionality of agriculture.180
On the contrary, the Dutch Outlook called for a profound reform and offered a coherent and
innovative vision regarding the future CAP differing in many points from the Polish position.
It stressed the need of facing the global and societal challenges like global food security,
biodiversity, climate change, the need for the international trade liberalisation the effect of
agriculture on the environment and landscape.181 This difference in attitude compared to the
Polish position was not surprising bearing in mind high advancement of the Dutch agriculture
and international position of the sector. Regarding the financing of the policy, more room is
envisioned for the national and regional level adjustment policy measures and national cofinancing in order to contribute to greater responsibility. This system would have to be
complemented by a European framework ensuring a level playing field for all MS. The share
of the CAP in the total EU budget would be determined in the light of broader European
policies and priorities. Therefore, the financing of the policy in the period between 2014 and
2020 should be determined in relation to priorities of other EU policies.182
4.1.3. Direct payments system
According to the Communication, the direct payments system should be better targeted and
redesigned to be more transparent and understandable to the taxpayer. Support should be
assigned according to the economic and environmental criteria. The system proposed to all
active farmers in all MS and regions should have two components. The first one would be a
fixed basic payment uniform in one MS or region, based on agricultural area owned and
179
Ibidem, p. 3.
Ibidem, p. 13.
181
European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook, supra note 29, p. 5.
182
Ibidem, p. 2-3.
180
41
Student number: 1306677
conditional on cross-compliance. An upper ceiling for large farmers should be introduced.
The second component, reflecting the greening of the CAP, would be available only for
farmers introducing certain environmental measures which, uniform for the whole EU.
Moreover, additional direct payments should be planned for farming on the areas with natural
constraints as well as coupled support for production in certain regions where production of
the given product is an important part of the local economy. Small farmers would be covered
by the simplified scheme.183
According to the Polish government, direct payments should remain the CAP measure
responsible for: support and stabilisation of the farmer's income; maintenance of agricultural
land in good agricultural condition; compensation of the costs borne due to compliance with
the EU requirements; assuring the equal competition conditions. A new system of payments
should refer to the utilised agricultural area, realise environmental requirements and support
the agriculture on less-favoured areas. According to the Polish government a system based on
a flat rate in the whole EU, better serves the realisation of the current and future CAP targets
and reiterates its appeal for abandoning the direct payments system based on the historic
reference and more level-playing field on the agricultural market at many occasions
throughout the whole document.184
In the view of the Dutch government, the European agriculture should be based on the
innovation and knowledge to render farmers to have a income without state assistance.185
Direct payments should be transformed into a system of a market targeted payments available
for farmers modernising towards sustainable and competitive production or exercising
agricultural activities that contribute to the socially desirable values (societalisation of the
CAP186). Therefore the agricultural payment system should be divided into three main sorts of
payments:
1. Improvement of competitiveness and sustainability (including innovation and risk
management).
2. Maintaining basic quality in areas with handicaps.
183
Communication The CAP towards 2020, supra note 175, p. 8-9.
Republic of Poland Government Position regarding the future of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013,
p. 5.
185
European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook, supra note 29, p. 2-3.
186
compare: Advies Waarden van de Landbouw, uitgebracht aan de Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en
Voedselkwaliteit, Publicatienummer 5, 16 mei 2008, Sociaal-Economische Raad, p. 27, not present in English
abridged version of the document: Advisory Report, CAP Reform and Public Services of Agriculture, July 2008.
184
42
Student number: 1306677
3. Extra remuneration for socially desirable performance and support for public services.187
Public or collective services are activities aimed at maintaining collective goods, namely
environment and water management and go beyond the externalities of agricultural
production.188 The Dutch government advocates this system as socially legitimate because it
would be based on the visible and accountable results.189
4.1.4. Market management and intervention
According to the Commission, market management measures have proved to be necessary in
crisis situations. However, they should be simplified and streamlined. These measures should
however be used only as a safety net in case of a price crisis and market disruption. The
removal of the dairy and sugar quota was planned for respectively 2015 and 2014/15.
Moreover, the position of the agriculture in food supply chain needs to be improved and better
balanced vice versa the position of the food industry, wholesale and distribution.190
In the view of both Polish and Dutch government, due to the opening of the common market
to the outside competition, current instruments of the market intervention should be kept in
place as they constitute just a safety net which is activated only in situation of serious market
disruption. Poland stresses further that this safety net is inevitable for further existence of
some sectors, which have a special role for the environment or the economy of certain
regions.191
4.1.5. Rural development policy (RDP)
According to the Commission, the rural development policy should focus on contribution to
the competitiveness of agriculture, sustainable management of natural resources and balanced
territorial development. These objectives should be achieved with the view to the
environment, mitigating the climate change and innovation. The Commission intended to
maintain a broad range of instruments and try to better link them.192
The Polish government stress the role of the RDP as a set of measures enabling it to catch up
and modernise its agricultural and rural infrastructure. Therefore, a strong rural development
187
European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook, supra note 29, p. 2-3, 12-13.
Advisory Report, CAP Reform and Public Services of Agriculture, July 2008, p. 16.
189
European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook, supra note 29, p. 2-3.
190
Communication The CAP towards 2020, supra note 175, p. 10.
191
Republic of Poland Government Position regarding the future of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013,
p. 4; European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook, supra note 29, p. 2-3.
192
Communication The CAP towards 2020, supra note 175, p. 10-11.
188
43
Student number: 1306677
policy should be maintained after 2013.193 According to the Dutch government, one
agricultural fund should be responsible for financing all the targets of the CAP and thus the
distinction between the current pillars of the CAP should no longer be relevant. 194 In addition,
non-agricultural activities contributing to the rural economy should no longer be targeted by
the CAP but by cohesion policy measures.195
4.2 From the Commission proposals to political agreement
4.2.1. Introduction
In October 2011, the Commission issued proposals for regulations shaping the CAP in the
period 2014 - 2020. The EP adopted its reports regarding four main regulations in May and
June 2012. Subsequently, the Council of Minsters adopted its negotiations position - General
Approach - in March 2013. Below, the Commission proposals will be presented and the main
sticking points between the three institutions and the final outcome of the negotiations will be
outlined as stated in the political agreement from June 2013 finalising the trialogues.
4.2.2. Direct payments
One of the points of criticism towards the direct payment system 2007 - 2013 was the fact that
legal framework and the definition of the farmer in the Regulation 73/2009 enabled the big
landowners to receive great sums of support from EAGF.196 Therefore, the Commission
sharpened the criteria of the farmer definition and conditioned it on the fact that the certain
activities are exercised on the agricultural area.197 This wording was different from the
previous one which defined the agricultural activity as at least maintaining the land in good
agricultural and environmental condition.198 Moreover according to the Commission, the
direct payments should not be paid to the farmers whose income share from agricultural
activity does not attain a certain threshold in their entire income or whose agricultural areas
are mainly areas naturally kept in state suitable for grazing and cultivation. 199 The EP tabled
amendments which went further and wanted explicit list of sorts of subjects which are
193
Republic of Poland Government Position regarding the future of the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013,
p. 7.
194
European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook, supra note 29, p. 2-3.
195
European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch outlook, supra note 29, p. 11.
196
N. Nugent, The Government and politics..., supra note 46, p. 357.
197
Article 4, European Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common
agricultural policy, Brussels, 19.10.2011 COM (2011) 625 final/2 2011/0280 (COD) [hereinafter Proposal on
direct payments].
198
Article 2 and 6, Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, supra note 88.
199
Article 9, Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197.
44
Student number: 1306677
reckoned as not exercising genuine agricultural activity and should be therefore excluded
from the scope of the basic payment scheme.200 This negative list was in fact included in the
final political agreement.201
SPS and SAPS were proposed to be replaced by the basic payment scheme. Each MS would
have a national ceiling comprising of the total value of entitlements allocated to farmers.202
MS would have a choice to apply the ceilings on the regional level.203 The Council wanted a
smooth transition from the SPS and SAPS to the new system. Finally, according to the
political agreement in the new MS, the SAPS system should be extended until 2020.204
Moreover, the Commission proposed bigger payments for the first hectares for farmers,
reasoned by the fact that unlike bigger farms, the small ones cannot build on the economies of
scale. As a result this provision was taken into the political agreement.205
This reform was proclaimed to make the CAP fairer, therefore a convergence scheme was
proposed. According to the Commission proposal, all the payments on the national or regional
level were supposed to have the same value the latest in 2019.206 The EP wanted a slower
pace of the internal convergence and introduced a provision allowing the payments to still
vary by 20% from the average in 2019, which will decrease the reductions for farmers to a
maximum of 30%.207 The Council also supported only a partial convergence by 2019 and this
option was taken to the political agreement.208 Regarding external convergence, the
Commission proposed that MS with direct payments lower than 90% of the EU average
should have direct payments increased by the one third of this difference.209 The EP wanted a
200
Amendment 31, European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Rapporteur: Luis
Manuel Capoulas Santos, Draft Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the
common agricultural policy (COM(2011) 0625final/2 – C7-0336/2011 – 2011/0280(COD)) [hereinafter: EP
report on direct payments].
201
European Commission, Memo 13/621, CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements, Brussels, 26 June
2013, [hereinafter: CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements], p. 3.
202
Article 6, Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197.
203
Article 20, Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197.
204
CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements, supra note 201, p. 1.
205
Reform of the Common agricultural policy (CAP) - Main elements of the Council position, Council of the
European Union, Brussels, 27 March 2013, 8005/13 (OR. en) PRESSE 137 p. 3.
206
Article 22, Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197.
207
Amendment 53, EP report on direct payments, supra note 200.
208
Main elements of the Council position, supra note 205, p. 3; CAP Reform - an explanation of the main
elements, supra note 201, p. 2.
209
Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197, p. 9.
45
Student number: 1306677
mechanism which would contribute to more decisive direct payments levelling between the
MS.210
Moreover, the Commission proposed the system of reductions of the direct payments for
beneficiaries receiving the highest amounts of support. The reductions in payment would start
from any sum in excess of € 150 000 per year and in effect would cap the direct payments at
the amount of €235.211 The EP suggested introduction of even bigger reductions but capping
only at the level of €300.212 The Council proposed that the MS were free to decrease the
capping as to allow for maximum of € 150 000 per year.213
The Commission allowed also more flexibility between the pillars. MS were allowed to move
up to 10% of the resources for direct payments available for rural development measures.
Moreover, seven new MS (excluding Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta)
as well as Spain, Portugal, Sweden and United Kingdom would be able to move the resources
the other way round, namely up to 5% of the amount allocated for rural development made
available for direct payments.214 The EP wanted to broaden the scope of transfer and saw
unused resources from greening component and areas with natural constraints being
potentially moved to pillar II. However, the volume of transfer should not be higher than 20%
of the national ceiling.215 The Council also supported an even greater scope of transfers - up
to 15% and additional 10% for MS, in which the direct payments are lower than 90% of the
EU average.216
This reform was proclaimed to make the CAP greener. Therefore, farmers entitled to a
payment received under the basic payment scheme would be required to comply with three
agricultural practices. 30% of the MS national or regional ceiling would be used to finance
greening measures. Firstly, if a farmer had at least 3 hectares of arable land not entirely used
for grass production, he would be obliged to have at least three different crops. Any of these
sorts of crops must not cover less than 5% and more than 70% of the arable land. Secondly,
farmers should maintain permanent grassland. Lastly, farmers should ensure that at least 7%
210
Amendment 8, 9, EP report on direct payments, supra note 200.
Article 11, Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197.
212
Amendment 35 - 36, EP report on direct payments, supra note 200.
213
Main elements of the Council position, supra note 205, p. 2.
214
Article 14, Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197.
215
EP report on direct payments, supra note 200, p. 67.
216
Main elements of the Council position, supra note 205, p. 2.
211
46
Student number: 1306677
of their eligible area is covered by so called ecological focus area (for example left fallow or
afforested).217
The EP wanted to broaden the catalogue of the greening measures by three new elements.
Firstly, areas covered by agro-environmental measures would automatically fulfil the
greening measure. Secondly, there should be a possibility of environmental certification of
farms. Thirdly, on certain conditions permanent crops should also be regarded as a criterion
confirming the eligibility for the greening payment component.218 Moreover, the EP called for
exclusion of double financing for the compliance with the greening and agro-environmental
measures under pillar II. The EP also wanted the introduction of measures encouraging the
group of farmers to establish the joint ecological focus areas (biodiversity corridors) by
decreasing the percentage to 5% on the farm level if the group of farmers wanted to establish
this area together.219 The Council wanted the introduction of equivalent greening practices,
which would have the same environmental benefit. In addition, it wanted the ecological focus
area to be constructed in a way which would not have excluded the area from the cultivation.
Last but not least, some exemptions from the obligations of the greening practices were
proposed by the Council. 220
According to the political agreement, complying with the greening practices is obligatory and
non-compliance can be punished beyond the green part of the payment. Regarding, the crop
diversification, there are thresholds of 10 and 30 hectares for cultivating respectively 2 or 3
permanent crops and one main crop covering the maximum of 75% of arable land. The
obligation of maintaining an ecological focus area will apply to the farms bigger than 15
hectares. The list of equivalent measures which were in place before the greening was
introduced, was also put in place as one of the measures entitling for payment.221 To sum up,
the criteria for greening implementation has been significantly compromised due to the
pressure from the EP and the CoAM. In its original form the requirement regarding ecological
focus area would result in actual income decreases and therefore was difficult to accept.
According to Swinbank, above provisions granting the support only to active farmers
producing for the market can be interpreted by the international partners as in fact
conditioning the support on production. Therefore they have a potential to run counter to the
217
Article 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197.
EP report on direct payments, supra note 200, p. 68.
219
Amendments 69, 84, EP report on direct payments, supra note 200.
220
Main elements of the Council position, supra note 205, p. 5.
221
CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements, supra note 201, p. 3.
218
47
Student number: 1306677
EU international trade obligations and as such they constitute the backtrack in the CAP
liberalisation process of and Commissioners MacSharry and Fischler's legacy.222
Moreover according to the Commission proposal, special schemes were envisioned for two
groups of farmers who were entitled to a payment under the basic payment scheme. Firstly,
the MS had a possibility to devote up to 5% of the national ceiling to farmers whose holdings
are situated in areas with natural constraints. Secondly, farmers younger than 40 years old
establishing a farm would be eligible for special scheme for young farmers. This support
scheme, according to the Commission should be obligatory in all MS and they should not use
more than 2% of their national ceiling for it.223 The Council preferred to see this scheme
voluntarily introduced by the MS.224 In the final agreement the Commission version was
maintained and the additional support was granted to young farmers as compulsory in all the
MS.225
Interestingly, according to the Commission proposal, the MS would be able to decide to
introduce voluntary coupled support up to 5% of their annual national ceiling or in the MS
where it was higher than 5% in the period between 2010 and 2013 the coupled support can
amount to 10% of the national ceiling. These coupled payments would be available for certain
group of products in MS and regions where specific types of farming or specific agricultural
sectors undergo certain difficulties and are particularly important for economic and/or social
and/or environmental reasons.226 The EP wanted to broaden the catalogue of these products
and recognize the employment in the given area as a reason allowing for coupled support.227
Moreover, the EP in its negotiation mandate adopted on 13 March 2013 proposed to increase
the level of coupled support from 10% to 15%.228 The Council wanted the level of coupled
support increased to even 7% as a rule and to 12% if the MS ''fulfils special conditions".229
222
A. Swinbank, Another reform? Proposals for the post-2013 Common Agricultural Policy, World Agriculture
Vol.3 No. I, Summer 2012, p. 36-37.
223
Article 34-37, Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197.
224
Main elements of the Council position, supra note 205, p. 5.
225
CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements, supra note 201, p. 2.
226
Article 38, Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197.
227
Amendment 93, 94, EP report on direct payments, supra note 200.
228
Amendment 19, European Parliament decision of 13 March 2013 on the opening of, and on the mandate for,
inter-institutional negotiations on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common
agricultural policy (COM(2011)0625/3 – C7-0336/2011 – COM(2012)0552 – C7-0311/2012 – 2011/0280(COD)
– 2013/2528(RSP)), P7_TA(2013)0084, retrieved from www.europarleuropa.eu.
229
Main elements of the Council position, supra note 205, p. 4.
48
Student number: 1306677
Finally, according to the political agreement, these maximums were agreed as respectively
8% and 13% of national ceilings.230
Commission proposed the possibility for small farmers can to opt for participation in a
simplified scheme and be excluded from the greening requirement. According to this measure
farmers would receive a fixed amount of support a year (between €500 and €1000).231
According to the Commission proposal this scheme should be obligatory, whereas according
to the EP and the Council, the MS should have discretion in deciding if they set up this
scheme.232 Moreover, the Commission wanted this scheme to consume up to 10% of the
national ceiling, whereas the EP wanted it to be maximum 15%.233 In the end this scheme was
introduced to the political agreement as optional.234
On numerous occasions, the Parliament opposed to the Commission's right to lay down
different definitions and criteria in the delegated acts. It was justified explicitly by the EP will
of confirming its budgetary powers and position in the co-decision procedure and ensuring
more flexibility and discretion to the MS.235
4.2.3. Horizontal regulation
The Commission proposed to maintain the two-pillar structure of the CAP, based on two
agricultural funds, with the EAGF financing the whole support within the first pillar and the
EAFRD co-financing the projects of beneficiaries in the second pillar. Moreover, the rules on
cross-compliance and the penalty for not adhering to its rules were described in this proposed
regulation. In general, provisions of this regulation aimed at streamlining the rules regarding
the cross-compliance, accounts clearance, management and control system, common
monitoring and evaluation framework as well as common monitoring and evaluation
framework.236 Amendments tabled by the Parliament demonstrate the pursue for more
proportional rules on checks and penalties.237
230
CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements, supra note 201, p. 2.
Article 47, 49, Proposal on direct payments, supra note 197.
232
Amendment 101, EP report on direct payments, supra note 200; Main elements of the Council position, supra
note 205, p. 4.
233
Amendment 106, EP report on direct payments, supra note 200.
234
CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements, supra note 201, p. 2.
235
Ibidem, Amendments 24, 25, 26, 29, 33,.
236
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the
financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy {SEC(2011) 1153} {SEC(2011)
1154}, Brussels, 19.10.201, COM(2011) 628 final/2, 2011/0288 (COD), p. 7.
237
Amendment 62, 70, European Parliament, Committee on Agriculture and of the Council on the financing,
management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (COM(2011)0628 – C7-0341/2011 –
2011/0288(COD)), Rapporteur: Giovanni La Via.
231
49
Student number: 1306677
4.2.4. Rural development
According to the Commission proposals, the rural development policy should contribute to
achieving general CAP objectives: the competitiveness of agriculture; the sustainable
management of natural resources, and climate action; and balanced territorial development
of rural areas.238 There is more emphasis on the competitiveness and knowledge transfer and
innovation, but detailed objectives and measures very much correspond to the ones from
previous programming period.
The Commission proposed to give the MS a possibility to introduce four thematic subprograms aimed at young farmers, small farms, mountain areas and short supply chains. The
axis structure is abolished. Special payments should be granted for farmers in the mountain
areas and the areas with natural and other specific constraints.239
The cooperation in various forms takes a prominent place in the Commission proposal. First
of all, the measures from pillar II should be part of the Common Strategic Framework
including also cohesion policy instruments. Secondly, LEADER should be continued
according to its bottom-up modus operandi. Lastly, the Commission proposes an introduction
of new structure based on the cooperation fostering innovative projects. European Innovation
Partnership on Agricultural Productivity and Sustainability should focus on implementation of
innovative projects.240
Regarding the EP amendments regarding with respect to the proposal on rural development
The EP wanted the introduction of a special loan mechanisms for young farmers in order to
stimulate generation change in the agriculture.241 Moreover, the EP proposed maintenance of
the retirement payment for farmers who transfer their holdings to another farmer.242
According to the EP, there would be a risk that the new greening component of the direct
payment from pillar II would be granted for the activities which were covered by the agrienvironmental measures. Therefore, in order to avoid double-compensation for the same
activity, the EP wanted clarification that payments granted under agri-environmental
measures by EAFRD would be granted only for the activities beyond what was envisioned
238
Article 4, European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) {SEC(2011)
1153} {SEC(2011) 1154}, Brussels, 19.10.2011, COM(2011) 627 final/2, 2011/0282 (COD).
239
Articles 5, 8, 32, Ibidem.
240
Ibidem, p. 7.
241
European Parliament, Draft report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
(COM(2011)0627 – C7-0340/2011 – 2011/0282(COD)), Rapporteur: Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, p. 47
[hereinafter: EP report on rural development].
242
Amendment 24, Ibidem.
50
Student number: 1306677
under the greening measures. 243 However, the Council wanted to keep double compensation
in this case as an exception from the general rule of no-double compensation for the same
practice which would be compensated from the EAFRD as an agri-environmental measure
and from the EAGF as a greening measure.244 In addition, regarding the EAFRD co-financing
rates for the agri-environmental measures, the EP wanted their rates to be higher than what
the Commission proposed. They should be risen from 60% to 90% in less-developed regions
and from 50% to 65% in the rest of the regions.245 In general terms, the political agreement
did not differ a lot from the Commission proposals.246
4.2.5. Single CMO
According to the Commission there is a need to maintain the existing instruments of market
intervention, simplify and streamline provisions regarding: the public intervention, private
storage, emergency measures and producers and branch organisations. Sugar quota as well as
the wine planting ban are proposed to be removed.247 However, according to the EP, there is a
need for special attention for these sectors. Additional mechanism should be put in place
regarding the milk and sugar sector in case of market tensions and disruptions. The wine
planting ban should be maintained as according to EP, it does not prevent the farmers to
adjust to the market situation.248 The Council went even further, proposing extension of the
quota system for the sugar sector.249 In the end, the sugar quota system was extended and
would expire in 2017 and milk quota was already decided to be phased out in 2015.250
The proposed regulation should establish the common market organisation (CMO) for more
than 20 groups of products. The proposed reference prices for the cereals, paddy rice, white
and raw sugar, butter, skimmed milk powder and pig meat were proposed to be set at the
same level as in 2007-2013. Buying of cereals, paddy rice, beef and veal, butter and skimmed
milk powder should remain under public intervention scheme. Other products like white
sugar, olive oil, pig meat, sheep meat and goat meat could be supported by aid for private
243
Ibidem, p. 48.
Main elements of the Council position, supra note 205, p. 9.
245
EP report on rural development, supra note 241, p. 48.
246
CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements, supra note 201, p. 6.
247
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing
a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) {SEC(2011) 1153}
{SEC(2011) 1154}, Brussels, 19.10.2011 COM(2011) 626 final/2, 2011/0281 (COD), [hereinafter Proposal on
Single CMO Regulation], p. 7.
248
European Parliament, Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, 2011/0281 (COD) Draft Report on
the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation
of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation) Rapporteur: Michel Dantin, p. 296.
249
Main elements of the Council position, supra note 205, p. 5.
250
CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements, supra note 201, p. 4.
244
51
Student number: 1306677
storage. Special aid schemes should be created in order to supply fruit and vegetables as well
as milk products to schools.251 Import barriers and export support should remain in similar
form compared to the period 2007-2013.252
With some reservations, the Council position was in line with the Commission proposal.253 In
general, the EP agreed on maintaining of the safety net for the producers of agricultural
products and regarding some group of products supports maintaining the "protective"
measures to the extent bigger than the Commission does. Moreover, it proposed introducing
changes with the intention to strengthen the position of farmers organisations in the foodsupply chain. Except from extending the sugar quota system, the political agreement
incorporates most of the measures in unchanged form compared to the Commission
proposals.254
4.3. Reactions of the Polish and Dutch governments to the Commission proposals
4.3.1. Introduction
Both governments issued documents summarising their reaction to the Commission proposals
in the period preceding adoption of the EP reports.
Poland was rather critical towards the shape of the future CAP as proposed by the
Commission. The Polish government expected a radical reform of the CAP towards the set of
measures ensuring food security in Europe and globally, simplification of the CAP, and
creating fair CAP providing for equal position of the producers across the Europe. According
to the Polish government, the Commission failed to satisfy all three above expectations. Main
criticism was directed at the insufficient level of the direct payment convergence between the
old and new MS and insufficient break from the historical references in the direct payments
system.255 Instead, the measures introduced should have greater link to actual targets of the
policy. Moreover, according to the Polish government new components in the direct payments
system (greening, young farmers component) only blurred the division between the two
pillars.
251
Article 1, 7, 10, 16, 21 and 24, Proposal on Single CMO Regulation, supra note 247.
Article 117, Ibidem; Main elements of the Council position, supra note 205, p. 7.
253
Main elements of the Council position, supra note 205, p. 5.
254
CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements, supra note 201, p. 5-6.
255
Ogólna ocena i założenia do stanowiska rządu RP do pakietu legislacyjnego Komisji Europejskiej w Zakresie
Wspólnej Polityki Rolnej na lata 2014-2020, przyjęta w dniu 2 kwietnia 2012r. retrieved from
http://www.minrol.gov.pl/pol/Informacje-branzowe/WPR-po-2013-roku/Aktualnosci-WPR-po-2013roku/Informacja-na-temat-stanowiska-rzadu-w-sprawie-WPR-po-2013r, on 03-03-2014, [hereinafter General
evaluation reform package - Poland], p. 1.
252
52
Student number: 1306677
The Dutch government presented more moderate position and was more tempered in its
criticism. Greening, with some reservations was assessed rather positively. However, when it
comes to the external convergence, in the view of the government, the Dutch farmers were
unfairly heavier burdened than farmers from other countries that used to enjoy high
payments.256 Below the assessment by the both governments of different elements of the
proposals will be presented.
4.3.2. Direct payments
Poland has been calling for more levelled playing field for the farmers across Europe.
Therefore, insufficient convergence in the direct payments system - according to its
government - undermined the competitiveness between farms across Europe. The system of
direct payments proposed by the Commission does not reflect the objectives of the policy and
is based on the historic production levels. According to Andrzej Babuchowski, before the
Commission proposal it was clear that old MS did not allow radical changes in payments
distributions among the MS. In 2013 Polish farmers were supposed to receive the full amount
of payments to the level assigned to Poland during the accession negotiations. However, the
conviction that this level would have been equalised with the level of the payment in old MS
circulated in Polish public opinion. Interestingly, one of the biggest Commissioner Cioloş
innovations, the greening component is also assessed rather negatively. The 30% of the
payment based on the pro-environmental criteria, as well as young farmer component or small
farms component which are uniform in the whole EU, are slightly speaking perceived as
redundant measures decreasing the national financial envelopes. In the view of the Polish
government it is unfair that the producer in Poland has to comply with the greening criteria,
which are uniform for the whole of Europe, whereas due to the lower financial ceiling he
receives less compensation. Both governments agree that the definition of the active farmer is
rather troublesome and has a potential to cause increased administrative burden. 257 Instead,
both governments, similarly to the European Parliament proposed to create the list of the
objects which should be excluded from the direct payments like for example golf courses or
airports.258
256
Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie, Kabinetsreactie wetgevingvoorstellen
Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid, 28.20.2011 [General evaluation reform package - the Netherlands], p. 4.
257
General evaluation reform package - Poland, supra note 255, p. 3; General evaluation reform package - the
Netherlands, p. 5.
258
General evaluation reform package - the Netherlands, supra note 256, p. 5; Stanowisko Rządu RP dot.
wniosku rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady ustanawiającego przepisy dotyczące płatności
bezpośrednich dla rolników na podstawie systemów wsparcia w ramach wspólnej polityki rolnej
53
Student number: 1306677
The small farmers scheme in the understanding of Polish government resulted in decreasing
the basic payments. On the other hand, it admitted that this measure together with capping
would contribute to fairer distribution of the direct payments in the future among small and
big farms.259 The Dutch government had a different view regarding both, the capping and
small farmer scheme. Regarding, the former, in line with the Dutch Outlook, the Dutch
government reminded that the support for farmers should be targeted at the societal values.
Provided the payments were targeted at innovation, environmental performance and
sustainability, higher support results in greater benefits for society and environment hence it
should not be limited.260 Regarding, the small farmers scheme, the Dutch government did not
agree that small farms should not adhere to the greening rules.261
The Dutch government, though in general it was supporting more levelled playing field in the
direct payments across Europe, pointed out that it was unfairly heavily affected by the
reductions in the direct payments compared to other countries with direct payments level
higher than the EU average. It has been the MS with the highest average direct payments and
as such it was proposed to compromise a part of the payment in order to enable external
convergence. According to Frits Thissen, during the negotiations the Dutch government was
consistently trying to decrease the level of this reduction. Six MS were supposed to reduce
their direct payments per hectare in order to enable more level playing field in this area. In
fact the Netherlands was supposed to reduce the most. He reiterated that the Dutch
government supported the introduction of more level playing field but underlined the need for
more even-handed approach among the MS that had to compromise their payments When it
comes to the internal convergence, according to the Commission proposal in Dutch
circumstances the average level of the payment would decrease but the amount of the area and
number of farmers covered by the direct payments system would increase. Therefore, the
Dutch government supported possibly smooth transition from the historical model towards the
regional model.262
For Poland it was a less relevant issue because on the basis of SAPS system all the farmers
already had equal payments per hectare.263 However, according to Andrzej Babuchowski
[COM(2011)625] przyjęte w dniu 2 kwietnia 2012 r [hereinafter Polish evaluation on direct payments proposal],
p. 3.
259
General evaluation reform package - Poland, supra note 255, p. 3.
260
General evaluation reform package - the Netherlands, supra note 256, p. 7.
261
Ibidem, p. 8.
262
Ibidem, p. 4,5,7.
263
compare: General evaluation reform package - Poland, supra note 255.
54
Student number: 1306677
Polish government hoped that the European Commission would force complete internal
convergence till 2020 which would render the whole system more transparent.
Moreover, as Frits Thissen underlined the Dutch government very much insisted on the
targeted direct payments. Therefore, introduction of greening and linking it to 30% of the
payment is received rather positively by the Dutch government. However, as Frits Thissen
said the implementation of the original Commission proposal on greening raised some
objections. Two of the greening practices, crop diversification and permanent grassland area
provide no added value in the Dutch circumstances. Moreover, the requirement to cover 7%
of the agricultural land by the ecologic focus area was seen as undermining the Dutch
competitive position due to downsizing of its relatively scarce UAA. Instead of the narrow
catalogue of three practices, the Dutch government would prefer the broader menu of
measures including for example investments in the ecological- and more sustainable
production methods.264 Moreover according to Frits Thissen, in the Netherlands non-land
related practices aimed at intensive livestock production would have more added value.
Nevertheless, in my opinion an uniform and relatively narrow catalogue of practices has an
advantage of being relatively easily implementable and controllable in comparison to the
menu of practices differing across Europe and the best tailored for particular circumstances.
On the other hand, the introduction of the green component in the direct payments is an
achievement in its own right and might be regarded, if not as a new CAP paradigm shift, than
at least as a first step on more environmentally oriented path. Frits Thissen underlined the fact
that it is the first time in the CAP history, that the Commission had come up with proposals
with which the payments transferred to the European farmers could be justified to taxpayers.
Therefore despite the rather critical attitude regarding implementation of the green
component, Frits Thissen admitted that sheer introduction of it might be called revolutionary.
Nevertheless, the Dutch government would like to see 100% of the payment spent in a
targeted way towards strengthening of competitiveness, sustainability and innovation.
Regarding the young farmers scheme, the Dutch government would like it to be mandatory in
the first and second pillar.265
Poland would rather see this scheme voluntary for the MS because the measures targeted at
the young farmers should be realized from the pillar II.266 Andrzej Babuchowski further
clarified this point by underlining the pro-investment nature of the second pillar, in which
264
General evaluation reform package - the Netherlands, supra note 256, p. 6.
Ibidem, p. 8.
266
Polish evaluation on direct payments proposal, supra note 258, p. 6.
265
55
Student number: 1306677
farmer would be obliged to present the business plan in order to receive support. In the first
pillar on the contrary, the support would simply be distributed to the beneficiaries fulfilling
the age and the duration of the holding criteria, which they themselves did not have any
influence on. Moreover, Babuchowski underlined the differences in the level of support for the
young farmers in the MS resulting from number of young farmers and the size of the national
envelopes. He questioned if also in this case different level of support do not infringe
competitiveness principle.
Regarding the increased flexibility between the pillars, in general terms both governments
supported it. However, the Netherlands reserved that the transferred resources should be
exempt from the co-financing rule in the second pillar.267Poland reiterated that this measure
might achieve its aim only if the convergence in the level of the direct payment will advance
and cannot be used in order to maintain current differences in the level of the direct payments
and both pillars.268 Both governments perceived the increased coupled support as a undesired
backtrack on the way to liberalisation of the CAP in line with the WTO obligations.269
In general, Andrzej Babuchowski questioned the scope of the reform. In his opinion, the CAP
in 2014 would undergo just cosmetic improvements, but there is a lack of profound reform,
which was heralded by the Commissioner for Agriculture in 2010. Among the most important
failures of the reform round, he listed lack of necessary level of internal and external
convergence and re-coupling of support for farmers.
4.3.3. Single CMO
Both governments were generally positive about the shape of the single CMO proposed by the
Commission but they seemed to interpret it in different ways. The Polish government seemed
to be content with the fact that the market regulation instruments are kept in place at all and
that the scenario envisioning phasing them out has not been realised.270 On the contrary, the
Netherlands seemed to approve, what was according to it, a rather modest scope of market
regulation measures.271
267
General evaluation reform package - the Netherlands, supra note 256, p. 9.
Polish evaluation on direct payments proposal, supra note 260, p. 3.
269
Polish evaluation on direct payments proposal, supra note 260, p. 6; General evaluation reform package - the
Netherlands, supra note 256, p. 8.
270
Stanowisko Rządu RP dot. wniosku rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady
ustanawiającego wspólną organizację rynków produktów rolnych („rozporządzenie o jednolitej wspólnej
organizacji rynków”) [COM(2011)626] przyjęte w dniu 2 kwietnia 2012 r. [hereinafter Polish evaluation on
single CMO regulation], p. 1.
271
General evaluation reform package - the Netherlands, supra note 256, p. 9.
268
56
Student number: 1306677
The abolishing of the milk and sugar quota was perceived negatively by the Polish
government, whereas the Netherlands was supporting phasing out these market distorting
measures.272 Both governments supported the strengthened position of the producers in the
food supply chain. Regarding the export subsidies, the Polish government supported
maintaining them as long as WTO agreements so allows, whereas according to its Dutch
counterpart, a more ambitious attitude requiring a complete phasing out of these measures
should be adopted by the EU.273
4.3.4. Rural development
Financing of pillar II used to increase throughout the previous reforms. Maintaining the
financing devoted to the second pillar on the same level as in the previous financial
perspective, was criticised by the Polish government for two reasons. Firstly, it was regarded
as being insufficient for its new additional objectives and the structural reform which would
need to take place in Poland. 274Secondly, the second pillar measures which were higher in the
new MS were seen as sort of compensation for lower levels of the direct payments.275 Last but
not least, in the view of the Polish government pillar II should remain directed mainly at the
enhancing of the competitiveness of the agriculture. As Andrzej Babuchowski explained
currently the second pillar in the period 2014-2020 is very much dominated by the
environmental issues, by which the CAP addresses the expectations of the whole society but
does not support the farmer and farm investments. The Netherlands, appreciated redirection
towards the innovation and more flexible measures set-up in the pillar II, reflected by the
resignation from the axis's structures.276
4.3.5. Horizontal regulation
Both countries in their evaluation of this proposal for regulation decided to stress different
points. The Netherlands focused on the cross-compliance, whereas the Polish government
protested against excessive administrative burden connected to the system of controls. The
Polish government was very critical towards a decrease of the EU budget.277 As Frits Thissen
272
Polish evaluation on single CMO regulation, supra note 270, p. 2; General evaluation reform package - the
Netherlands, supra note 256, p. 8.
273
Polish evaluation on single CMO regulation, supra note 270, p. 4; General evaluation reform package - the
Netherlands, supra note 256, p 10.
274
Stanowisko Rządu RP dot. wniosku rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w sprawie wsparcia
rozwoju obszarów wiejskich przez Europejski Fundusz Rolny na rzecz Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich
(EFRROW) [COM(2011)627] przyjęte w dniu 2 kwietnia 2012 r, p. 3.
275
General evaluation reform package - Poland, supra note 255, p. 2.
276
General evaluation reform package - the Netherlands, supra note 256, p 10.
277
General evaluation reform package - Poland, supra note 255, p. 3.
57
Student number: 1306677
said, in the final phase of the negotiations - after a change in the political composition of the
government at the end of 2012 - the Dutch government supported not only an actual but also
a nominal decrease of the CAP budget.
***
In addition, in the view of the Polish government too many of the important issues were
proposed to be covered by the delegated acts, which contravened the subsidiarity and
proportionality principles and impaired the Council (and currently Parliament: author's
interpose) legislative powers.278 This issue concerns the articles 290, 291 and 43 paragraph 3
TFEU and the actual balance of powers between the institutions regarding scope of the
delegated and implementing acts as well as fixing prices, levies and quantitative limitations in
the CAP.279 Moreover, it is connected to the scope of flexibility which will be given to the
MS in implementing acts.
4.4. Finalisation of the negotiations and political agreement
Three institutions reached the political agreement as expected before the end of the Irish
Presidency on the 26 June 2013. The main important political issues were included, however,
some of them were left to be discussed at the occasion of the negotiation on the Multiannual
Financial Framework in autumn. The remaining issues were: the scope of the flexibility
between the pillars, the allocation of the envelopes for direct payments among the MS, rates
of co-financing as well as the capping.280 Finalisation of the negotiation was accompanied by
the sense of urgency. According to Andrzej Babuchowski, for the interest of the Council it was
important to finalise the negotiation process during the Irish presidency. Otherwise the final
stage of the negotiations would be continued by Lithuanian presidency, which missed
experience of the negotiations to date. According to the Multiannual Financial Framework
agreed in December 2013, the budget appropriation for the CAP amounted to € 373 179
millions and was € 47,5 millions and 11,3% less than appropriations for the period 20142020.281
278
General evaluation reform package - Poland, supra note 255, p. 3; Polish evaluation on single CMO
regulation, supra note 270, p. 5-7.
279
Articles 290, 291, TFUE.
280
CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements, supra note 201, p. 1.
281
Council of the European Union, Council adopts the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020, Brussels, 2
December 2013 15259/13 (OR. en) PRESSE 439.
58
Student number: 1306677
5. Conclusions
Differences between the positions of the both governments are clear from the first documents
they issued on the future of the CAP. They stemmed from the economic and social situation
of the agricultural sector and areas in both countries. Both governments call for reform but
they wish the CAP to develop in different directions. Whereas the Netherlands appeals for
measures introducing more liberalisation and financial responsibility of MS, Poland strives
for more level playing field and measures enabling its agricultural sector to fill the
infrastructural and economic gap which divides it from old MS. The Dutch government
proposed shared financing between the national and European authorities in more areas of the
CAP, which is in clear contrast with the position of the Polish government for which any such
endeavours are regarded as renationalisation of the CAP resulting in worse competition
position of the Polish farmers on the common European market of agricultural products.
Moreover, since the Netherlands has been a net payer to the EU budget the justification of the
support for agriculture in the EU plays an important role for its government. In order to justify
to the Dutch taxpayer the maintenance of the public assistance to farmers, the government
focused on supporting of the measures aimed at broader societal values and trying to address
the whole society not only the farming population. In Poland the discourse revolved around
the issue of an equal competitive position of Polish producers vice versa the producers from
old MS. Poland has been a net receiver of the EU budget resources but the life standards are
lower than the European average and rural population constitutes a relevant political pressure
group.
Prior to the Lisbon Treaty and according to traditional CAP decision process, the Commission
represented common European interest and pro-reformatory stance, whereas the Council was
transmitting farmers national groups interests adopting a rather pro-status quo position. The
2004-2007 enlargement caused the proliferation and polarisation of the interest in the
Council. Poland and the Netherlands can be the best example of this process. They both
regard a state assisted model of agriculture as necessary , but they differ significantly
regarding the mode of the assistance, depending on their economic situation and the
advancement of the agricultural sector. This leads to the situation in which a compromise on
financial matters cannot be reached in the CoAM and these issues need to be transferred to the
European Council rendering the later to be increasingly involved in the policy creation
59
Student number: 1306677
process. The Commission proposed and finally secured introduction of the greening, which by
itself is a revolutionary change. Nevertheless, the words of Commissioner Fischler - "for us,
the relevant policy question is NOT IF, but HOW to continue support for EU agriculture" said in 2002 seemed to be equally applicable to reflect Commissioner Cioloş attitude during
the recent reform. Therefore we can conclude that the Commission has a pro-reformatory role,
but the Commissioner for Agriculture by trying to keep state assisted paradigm played also a
status-quo role. Regarding, the role of the Parliament in the decision process, it was very
eager to mark its role and it also demonstrated rather pro status quo attitude.
The most important innovation of the recent CAP reform was the introduction of the
greening. For the first time in CAP history, the direct payments are conditioned on the
fulfilling the environmental requirement. Therefore, it can be argued that it constitutes a
paradigm change. Nevertheless, the measures introduced to its end, were regarded as fulfilling
its aim to rather limited extent. Therefore, it can be assumed that the sheer introduction of
greening is a paradigm change. However, the fact that the environmental measures are being
incorporated in existing direct payment system also supports the theory of path dependency.
The most surprising element of recent reform was increasing the level of coupled support
from 10% to 12%. This came due to pressures from the CoAM and the EP and actually
backtracks on the progress regarding decoupling of the direct payments system from the
production. This seems to confirm Daugbjerg theory of reactive sequencing.
When we compare the outcome of the reform and national policy papers we come to the
conclusion that the reform has certain overlap with the content of Dutch policy documents
analysed in this paper. Polish policy positions revolved mainly around the issue of creating
more level playing field between the MS and this was realized to a very limited extent. In
general the above analysis confirm that in the EU, the interests of one MS can be satisfied to
very small extent and the final shape of the policy is dependent on the inter-institutional-, not
intergovernmental negotiations. On the other hand, due to current role of the EP,
representatives of the MS interests have another platform, next to the Council.
60
Student number: 1306677
Annex 1
Number of holdings by size of the
holding, 2010
0 ha
EU
2 - 4.9
ha
< 2 ha
5 - 9.9
ha
10 19.9
20 - 29.9
ha
11966440 258100 5608460 2407420 1303040 900530
30 - 49.9
ha
50 - 99.9 ha
>= 100 ha
377580
395210
391350
324840
% of the total
100%
2%
47%
20%
11%
8%
3%
3%
3%
3%
the Netherlands
% of the total
for NL
72320
1700
8000
11000
10260
10820
7540
11680
9130
2210
100%
2%
11%
15%
14%
15%
10%
16%
13%
3%
Poland
1506620
7960 355220 468200 334950 218510
59970
35310
16840
% of the total
for PL
100%
1%
24%
31%
22%
15%
4%
2%
1%
(Source: Eurostat Pocketbooks, Agriculture, fishery and forestry statistics, Main results - 2010-11, p. 29; rows with
percentage - own calculation based on the data)
9650
1%
Annex 2
Utilized agricultural area by the type of crops
UAA- total
EU
% of EU
the Netherlands
% of the NL total
Poland
arable land
permanent
grassland and
meadow
kitchen gardens
permanent
crops
171428,5
102949,2
354,8
57572,2
10561,3
100%
60%
0%
34%
6%
1872,4
1022,1
0
813,3
37
100%
55%
0%
43%
2%
14447,3
10797,4
31
3229,2
389,7
% of the PL total
100%
75%
0,21457%
22%
(Source: Eurostat Pocketbooks, Agriculture, fishery and forestry statistics, Main results - 2010-11, p. 34; rows with
percentage - own calculation based on the data)
3%
Annex 3
Livestock units by type of livestock, 2010 (1000 LSU)
total
livestock
cattle
sheep
EU
% of EU
the Netherlands
% of the NL total
Poland
goats
pigs
poultry
other LSU
133994,2
63571,5
9469,3
1200,6
36684,6
20155,4
2912,8
100%
47%
7%
1%
27%
15%
2%
6711,5
2776,6
113
35,3
2496,4
1175,4
114,8
100%
41%
2%
1%
37%
18%
2%
10377,2
4406,2
26,1
10,7
3656,9
2061,7
215,6
% of the PL total
100%
42%
0%
0%
35%
20%
2%
(Source: Eurostat Pocketbooks, Agriculture, fishery and forestry statistics, Main results - 2010-11, p. 34; rows with
percentage value - own calculation based on the data)
61
Student number: 1306677
Annex 4
Economic size
Standard output per holding on average
standard
number of
output in
holdings (1000) millions
EU
standard output in
millions per holding
€
11734,7
269899,3
23000
72,3
18930
261826
the Netherlands
Poland
1506,6
18987
12603
(Source: Eurostat Pocketbooks, Agriculture, fishery and forestry statistics, Main results - 2010-11, p. 26)
Annex 5
Programme balance EAFRD measures
2007 - 2013 Poland
source: The Republic of Poland
National Strategic Plan for 2007 - 2013 Rural Development
Axis 1 Competitiveness
5%
20%
Axis 2 Environment
41%
Axis 3 Quality of life
Axis 4 LEADER
34%
62
Student number: 1306677
Annex 6
Programme balance EAFRD
measures 2007 - 2013 the
Netherlands
source: Netherlands’ Rural Development Strategy 2007-2013
5%
Axis 1 Competitiveness
30%
Axis 2 Environment
35%
Axis 3 Quality of life
Axis 4 LEADER
30%
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Ir. Gerrit Meester for sharing with me his irreplaceable
insights and knowledge of the CAP. Moreover, I owe special acknowledgments to MinisterCounsellor Andrzej Babuchowski, Head of the Agriculture and Fisheries Section in the
Permanent Representation of the Republic of Poland to the EU in Brussels and Counsellor for
Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality Frits Thissen in Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of
the Netherlands to the EU who represent Poland and the Netherlands in the Special
Committee for Agriculture for time devoted to interviews which are used in this paper.
63
Student number: 1306677
Bibliography
Books, chapters in edited books and journal articles:
Berkhout, P., Roza, P., Landbouw-Economisch Bericht 2012, LEI-Rapport 2012, LEI
Wageningen UR.
Berkhout, P., Silvis H., Terluin, I., Landbouw-Economisch Bericht 2013, LEI-rapport 2013041, LEI Wageningen UR.
Bos, M., The EU budget, in: EU policy for agriculture, food and rural areas edited by: A.
Oskam, G. Meester and H. Silvis, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2010.
Bunyan, T., State watch Viewpoint Secret trilogues and the democratic deficit, available on
http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-64-secret-trilogues.pdf (viewed on 02.01.2013).
Cuhno, A., Swinbank, A., Exploring the Determinants of CAP Reform: A Delphi Survey of
Key Decision-Makers, Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 47. Number 2. 2009.
Daugbjerg, C., Policy feedback and paradigm shift in the EU agricultural policy: The effects
of the MacSharry reform on future reform, Journal of European Public Policy, Volume No 3,
2003.
Daugbjerg, C., Sequencing in public policy: the evolution of the CAP over a decade, Journal
of European Public Policy 16:3, 2009.
Daugbjerg, C., Swinbank, A., An introduction to the 'new' politics of agriculture and food,
Policy and Society 31, Elsevier, 2012.
Daugbjerg, C., Swinbank, A., The Politics of CAP Reform: Trade Negotiations, Institutional
Settings and Blame Avoidance, Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 45. Number 1,
2007.
Demeskas, D. G., Bartholdy, K., Gupta, S., Lipschitz, L., Mayer, T., The effects of the
Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community: A Survey of the Literature, in:
Economic Development of the EEC, edited by Richard T. Griffiths, Chelthenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing Limited, 1997.
Dinan, D., Europe Recast, A History of European Union, London: Lynne Rienner Publishers,
2004.
Dries, L., Swinnen, J.F.M., Institutional Reform and Labor Reallocation During Transition:
Theory Evidence From Polish Agriculture, World Development Vol. 30, No. 3, 2002.
Farrell, H., Heritier, A., The Invisible Transformation of Codecision: Problems of Democratic
Legitimacy, Report No. 7, June/2003, Swedish Institute for European Policy Studies,
Stockholm.
Floriańczyk, Z., Dochody przedsiębiorców rolnych według rachunków ekonomicznych dla
rolnictwa (Eng: Agricultural Entrepreneurs Incomes according to economic accounts in
64
Student number: 1306677
agriculture), in: Sytuacja Ekonomiczna Polskiego Rolnictwa po Akcesji do Unii Europejskiej
(Eng: Economic Situation of Polish Agriculture after the EU accession), edited by J.S. Zegar,
Instytut Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej - Państwowego Instytutu
Badawczego, (Eng: Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics
National Research Institute) Warszawa 2009.
Garzon, I., Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy: History of Paradigm Change,
Palgrave Studies in European Union Politics, New York, 2007.
Grant, W., Economic patriotism in European agriculture, Journal of European Public Policy
19:3, 2012.
Greer, A., Hind, T., Inter-institutional decision-making: The case of the Common Agricultural
Policy, Policy and Society 31, 2012, Elsevier.
Griffiths, R., Agricultural Development and Agricultural Trade, 1945-1973; in: The
Economic Development of the EEC, edited by Richard T. Griffiths, Chelthenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing Limited, 1997.
Groot, T.C. de, Dertien is een Boerendozijn: Onderhandelingen in de Raad van Ministers van
Landbouw over hervormingen van het Europese Landbouwbeleid, Eburon Delft, 1997.
Hubbard, L., and Ritson, C., The reform of the CAP, in: Economic Development of the EEC,
edited by Richard T. Griffiths, Chelthenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 1997.
Huige, R., Lappere, R., Stanton, G., The WTO context; in: A, Oskam, G. Meester, H. Silvis,
EU policy for agriculture, food and policy areas, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic
Publishers, 2010.
Jongeneel, R. et al, Bedrijfstoeslagnen na 2013 Omgaan met dalende bedragen, LEI-rapport
2011-062, Wageningen UR, Den Haag, 2011.
Kay, A., Path dependency and the CAP, Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 10 No 3,
2003.
Kowalski, A., Analiza Produkcyjno-Ekonomicznej Sytuacji Rolnictwa i Gospodarki
Żywnościowej w 2011 roku (Eng: Analysis of Production and Economic Situation of
Agriculture in 2011), Edycja 49, Instytut Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej Państwowego Instytutu Badawczego (Eng. Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics
National Research Institute), Warszawa 2012.
Kowalski, A., Wpływ akcesji do Unii Europejskiej na warunki ekonomiczne rolnictwa (Eng:
The impact of accession to the European Union on the economic conditions of agriculture), in
Sytuacja Ekonomiczna Polskiego Rolnictwa po Akcesji do Unii Europejskiej (Eng: Economic
Situation of Polish Agriculture after the EU accession), edited by J.S. Zegar, Instytut
Ekonomiki Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej - Państwowego Instytutu Badawczego
(Eng. Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics National Research Institute), Warszawa
2009.
65
Student number: 1306677
Krasowicz, S., Regionalne zróżnicowanie zmian w rolnictwie polskim (Eng: Regional
differentiation of changes in Polish agriculture), in: Wybrane elementy regionalnego
zróżnicowania rolnictwa w Polsce (Eng: Selected elements of the Regional Diversity of
Agriculture in Poland), Instytut Uprawy Nawożenia i Gleboznawstwa, - Paṅstwowy Instytut
Badawczy w Puławach (Eng: Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation - National
Research Institute in Puławy), Zeszyt 15, 2009.
Kunst, G., EU institutions and decision-making processes in: EU policy for agriculture, food
and rural areas edited by: A. Oskam, G. Meester, H. Silvis, Wageningen: Wageningen
Academic Publishers, 2010.
Lawrence Neuman, W., Social Research Methods, Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,
7th edition, Boston, Pearson, 2011.
Meester, G., European Integration and its relevance for agriculture, food and rural areas in:
EU policy for agriculture, food and policy areas: edited by in A, Oskam, G. Meester, H.
Silvis, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2010.
Mendel, E., Marxist Economic Theory, London: Merlin Press, 1968.
Nugent, N., The Government and politics of the European Union, Hampshire: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2010.
Oskam, A., Meester, G., Silvis, H., EU policy for agriculture, food and policy areas,
Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers, 2010.
Pierson, P., When effect becomes cause - Policy feedback and political change, World
Politics, Volume 45 No 4, 1993.
P. Pierson, Increasing returns, path dependence and the study of politics, American Political
Science Review, Volume 94 No 2, 2000.
Rabinowicz, E., EAAE Presidential Address, Redesigning the CAP to meet the challenges of
EU enlargement and the WTO: what can agricultural economic research contribute?,
European Review of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 26 (3) (1999)).
Schmidt, V.A., Radaelli, C.M., Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and
Methodological Issues, West European Politics, Volume 27, Issue 2, 2004.
Senior Nello, S., The European Union Economics, Policies & History, Berkshire: McGrawHill Higher Education, 2012.
Seremak-Bulge, J., Relacje Podażowo-popytowe (Eng: Supply-demand relations), in Sytuacja
Ekonomiczna Polskiego Rolnictwa po Akcesji do Unii Europejskiej (Eng: Economic Situation
of Polish Agriculture after the EU accession), edited by J.S. Zegar, Instytut Ekonomiki
Rolnictwa i Gospodarki Żywnościowej - Państwowego Instytutu Badawczego (Eng. Institute
of Agricultural and Food Economics National Research Institute), Warszawa 2009.
Swinbank, A., CAP Reform 1992, Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 31, No. 3,
September 1993.
66
Student number: 1306677
Swinbank, A., Another reform? Proposals for the post-2013 Common Agricultural Policy,
World Agriculture Vol.3 No. I, Summer 2012.
EU legislation documents:
Consolidated version of the Treaty on European Union, 2010 O.J. C 83/53.
Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2010 O.J. C
83/53.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for
direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support
schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC)
No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999,
(EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).
Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 of 19 January 2009 establishing common rules for
direct support schemes for farmers under the common agricultural policy and establishing
certain support schemes for farmers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005, (EC) No
247/2006, (EC) No 378/2007 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common
organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural
products.
Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution
caused by nitrates from agricultural sources (91/676/EEC), Annex III.
Council of the European Union, Financial Perspective 2007-2013, Brussels, 19 December
2005, 15915/05, Annex I.
European Commission, Directorate General for Budget, EU budget 2008 Financial Report,
Annex 4.
Commission Decision of 12 September 2006 fixing the annual breakdown by Member State
of the amount for Community support to rural development for the period from 1 January
2007 to 31 December 2013 (2006/636/EC), Annex.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions The CAP towards 2020:
Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future, Brussels,
18.11.2010, COM (2010) 627 final.
European Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the
framework of the common agricultural policy, Brussels, 19.10.2011 COM (2011) 625 final/2
2011/0280 (COD).
67
Student number: 1306677
European Commission, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single
CMO Regulation) {SEC(2011) 1153} {SEC(2011) 1154}, Brussels, 19.10.2011 COM(2011)
626 final/2, 2011/0281 (COD).
European Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural
Development (EAFRD) {SEC(2011) 1153} {SEC(2011) 1154}, Brussels, 19.10.2011,
COM(2011) 627 final/2, 2011/0282 (COD).
European Commission Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy
{SEC(2011) 1153} {SEC(2011) 1154}, Brussels, 19.10.2011, COM(2011) 628 final/2,
2011/0288 (COD).
European Commission, Memo 13/621, CAP Reform - an explanation of the main elements,
Brussels, 26 June 2013.
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, 7th parliamentary term, July 2013.
European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Draft Report on the
proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for
direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common
agricultural policy (COM(2011) 0625final/2 – C7-0336/2011 – 2011/0280(COD)),
Rapporteur: Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos.
European Parliament, Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Draft Report on the
proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing,
management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy (COM(2011)0628 – C70341/2011 – 2011/0288(COD)), Rapporteur: Giovanni La Via.
European Parliament, Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, Draft report on the
proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)
(COM(2011)0627 – C7-0340/2011 – 2011/0282(COD)), Rapporteur: Luis Manuel Capoulas
Santos.
European Parliament, Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, 2011/0281 (COD)
Draft Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO
Regulation) Rapporteur: Michel Dantin.
European Parliament decision of 13 March 2013 on the opening of, and on the mandate for,
inter-institutional negotiations on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament
and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes
within the framework of the common agricultural policy (COM(2011)0625/3 – C7-0336/2011
– COM(2012)0552 – C7-0311/2012 – 2011/0280(COD) – 2013/2528(RSP)),
P7_TA(2013)0084, retrieved from www.europarleuropa.eu.
68
Student number: 1306677
Policy papers:
Governments
Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit Programmadirectie
Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid, European Agricultural Policy 2020: The Dutch
outlook, http://www.cap2020.ieep.eu/2008/12/22/european-agricultural-policy-2020-thedutch-outlook.
Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting,,
Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu, Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, Provincies,
Nederlandse Plattelandsstrategie 2007-2013, 2007.
Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie, Kabinetsreactie
wetgevingvoorstellen Gemeenschappelijk Landbouwbeleid, 28.20.2011.
The Republic of Poland, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, National Strategic
Plan for 2007-2013 Rural Development.
The Republic of Poland Government Position regarding the future of the Common
Agricultural Policy after 2013.
Ogólna ocena i założenia stanowiska Rządu RP do pakietu legislacyjnego Komisji
Europejskiej w zakresie wspólnej polityki rolnej na lata 2014-2020 przyjęta w dniu 2 kwietnia
2012r. (Eng: General evaluation and assumptions of Government the Republic of Poland
regarding the European Commission legislative package on the Common Agricultural Policy
for the period 2014-2020 adopted on 2 April 2012), retrieved from
http://www.minrol.gov.pl/pol/Informacje-branzowe/WPR-po-2013-roku/Aktualnosci-WPRpo-2013-roku/Informacja-na-temat-stanowiska-rzadu-w-sprawie-WPR-po-2013r.
Stanowisko Rządu RP dot. wniosku rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady
ustanawiającego przepisy dotyczące płatności bezpośrednich dla rolników na podstawie
systemów wsparcia w ramach wspólnej polityki rolnej [COM(2011)625] przyjęte w dniu 2
kwietnia 2012 r. (Eng: Republic of Poland Government position regarding proposal for
regulation of European Parliament and Council establishing rules for direct payments to
farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy
adopted on 2 April 2012).
Stanowisko Rządu RP dot. wniosku rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady
ustanawiającego wspólną organizację rynków produktów rolnych („rozporządzenie o
jednolitej wspólnej organizacji rynków”) [COM(2011)626] przyjęte w dniu 2 kwietnia 2012 r.
(Eng: Republic of Poland Government position regarding European Commission, Proposal for
a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common
organisation of the markets in agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)adopted on 2
April 2012.
Stanowisko Rządu RP dot. wniosku rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady w
sprawie wsparcia rozwoju obszarów wiejskich przez Europejski Fundusz Rolny na rzecz
Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich (EFRROW) [COM(2011)627] przyjęte w dniu 2 kwietnia 2012
r. (Eng: Republic of Poland Government position regarding European Commission, Proposal
69
Student number: 1306677
for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural
development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development adopted on 2 April
2012.
Advisory bodies
Raad voor de leefomgeving en infrastructuur, Ruimte voor Duurzame Landbouw, Den Haag
2013.
Foundation of Assistance Programmes for Agriculture FAPA, Agricultural Policy Analysis
Unit, Polish agriculture in light of the EE agriculture (Polskie rolnictwo na tle rolnictwa UE),
Warsaw 2008.
Sociaal-Economische Raad, Advies Waarden van de Landbouw, uitgebracht aan de
Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Den Haag, Publicatienummer 5, 16
mei 2008; Abridged version: Advisory Report, CAP Reform and Public Services of
Agriculture, July 2008.
Statistics:
Central Intelligence Agency (US), The World Factbook,
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pl.html.
Central Statistical Office, Agriculture Department, Statistical Publishing Establishment,
Agriculture in 2012, Warsaw.
Eurostat European Commission, Eurostat Pocketbooks, Agriculture, fishery and forestry
statistics, Main results - 2010-11, Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union,
2012.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013,
World food and agriculture, Rome 2013.
Główny Urząd Statystyczny (Eng: Central Statistical Office), Zmiany zachodzące w
gospodarstwach rolnych w latach 2002-2010 praca zbiorowa wykonana pod kierunkiem prof.
dr. hab. W Jóźwiaka i prof.dr.hab. W. Ziętary. Powszechny Spis Rolny 2010. (Eng: Changes
in agricultural farms in 2002-2010, collective work done under the guidance of prof. dr. hab.
In Jozwiak and prof.dr.hab. W. Ziętary. Agricultural Census 2010) Warszawa 2013.
National Polish Bank, Biuletyn Informacyjny (Eng: Information Bulletin), Warszawa, 2013.
Websites:
Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), European Council official website,
www.consilium.europa.eu.
Special report on EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) negotiations, European Council
official website, www.consilium.europa.eu.
70
Student number: 1306677
List of Council preparatory bodies, General Secretariat of the Council, 5581/13,
www.register.consilium.europa.eu.
European Parliament website, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/.
Miscellaneous:
Council of the European Union, Council adopts the multiannual financial framework 20142020, Brussels, 2 December 2013 15259/13 (OR. en) PRESSE 439.
Council of the European Union, Reform of the Common agricultural policy (CAP) - Main
elements of the Council position, Brussels, 27 March 2013, 8005/13 (OR. en) PRESSE 137.
European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development, Factsheet: The Single Payment
Scheme, retrieved from the website on 16.01.2013.
European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development, Agricultural Policy Perspectives
Briefs, Brief no 2, January 2011.
Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food quality, Facts and figures 2010, The Dutch
agricluster in a global context, June 2010.
71
Student number: 1306677