No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
II AGRICULTURE
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 January 2008
Extract
Agriculture continues to maintain a very high profile in the Community, notwithstanding calls that the sector should occupy a place commensurate with its overall contribution to the economy. Such calls grew yet stronger during the United Kingdom Presidency from July to December 2005. Indeed, shortly before the United Kingdom assumed the Presidency, Tony Blair stated that [i]t simply does not make sense, in this new world, for Europe to spend over 40 per cent of its budget on the common agricultural policy, representing 5 per cent. of the EU population producing less than 2 percent. of Europe's output.’1 In similar vein, there has been trenchant criticism of the extent to which agriculture has dominated the Doha Development Round negotiations under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (‘WTO’). For example, Commissioner Mandelson has expressed ‘a real fear that a continuing overnegotiation and overbidding in agriculture will stymite the progress we urgently need to demonstrate across the range of the talks’.2
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2006
References
1 Hansard (HC) (20 June 2005) Col 523.
2 Wall Street Journal (3 Nov 2005).
3 See eg European Commission European Union Citizens and Agriculture from 1995 to 2003 (European Commission Brussels 2004).
4 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Northern Ireland) and National Assembly for Wales Agriculture and Rural Affairs Department Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2002 (The Stationery Office London 2003) 7–8.
5 European Commission Agenda 2000: for a Stronger and Wider Union, Bulletin of the European Union, Supplement 5/97 COM(97)2000, III.2.
6 See eg W Grant Pressure Groups and British Politics (Macmillan Basingstoke 2000) 96–9.
7 See eg Agra Europe Weekly No 2179 (21 Oct 2005) EP/2.
8 Wall Street Journal (3 Nov 2005).
9 OJ (2005) L 277/1.
10 For the list of direct payments now comprised within the SFP, see Council Regulation 1782/2003 (‘2003 Horizontal Regulation’), OJ (2003) L 270/1, Annex VI, as amended by Council Regulation 864/2004, OJ (2004) L 161/48 and Council Regulation 319/2006, OJ (2006) L 58/32. Under the agreement reached in Luxembourg on 26 June 2003, the list included, in particular, area aid payments in the arable sector and headage premiums in the beef and veal sector. This original list has been materially extended to cover, as from 1 January 2006, at least a proportion of direct payments in respect of cotton, olive oil, raw tobacco, and hops; and following reform of the sugar sector, direct payments in that sector have also been incorporated as from the same date.
11 ibid Art 1
12 OJ (2004) L 161/48, Preamble(1).
13 For analyses of decoupling, see eg Cahill, SA ‘Calculating the Rate of Decoupling for Crops under CAP/Oilseeds Reform’ (1997) 48 Journal of Agricultural Economics 349: and Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (‘OECD’) Decoupling: a Conceptual Overview (OECD Paris 2001) passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Securing this advantage was an advowed objective of the Mid-term Review from Inception: see eg European Commission Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy COM(2002)394, 20. For the criteria governing ‘Green Box’ exemption as ‘de-coupled income support’, see the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, Annex 2, para 6 (a key criterion being that ‘[n]o production shall be required in order to receive such payments’).
15 For discussion of the original proposals (European Commission Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy COM(2002) 394) and the draft regulation (European Commission A Long-term Policy Perspective for Sustainable Agriculture COM(2003) 23), see eg (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1030.
16 2003 Horizontal Regulation (n 10) Art 71.
17 ibid Art 66.
18 ibid Art 68a, as amended by Council Regulation 864/2004, OJ (2004) L 161/48.
19 ibid Art 69.
20 On multifunctionality generally, see eg OECD Multifunctionality: Towards an Analytical Framework (OECD Paris 2001) passim; Van Huylenbroeck, G and Van Huylenbroeck, G and Durand, G (eds) Multifunctional Agriculture: a New Paradigm for European Agriculture and Rural Development (Ashgate Aldershot 2003)Google Scholarpassim; and Grossman, MR ‘Multifunctionality and Non-trade Concerns’ in Cardwell, M, Crossman, MR, and Rodgers, CP (eds) Agriculture and International Trade: Law, Policy and the WTO (CAB International Wallingford 2003) 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 For a useful survey of national implementation, see eg Agra Europe Weekly No 2171 (26 Aug 2005) EP/5, as amended by Agra Europe Weekly No 2173 (9 Sept 2005) EP/8.
22 Other Member States have implemented other forms of partial decoupling. For example, Austria, Belgium, France, Portugal, and Spain have retained the link with production in the case of all headage payments for suckler cows.
23 speech/05/511 The Common Agricultural Policy: History and Future (Washington DC 15 Sept 2005).
24 (n 14) 20.
25 (n 10) Arts 58–63.
26 For the national implementing legislation, see the Common Agriculture Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes Regulations 2005, SI 2005 No 219; the Common Agricultural Policy Single Farm Payment and Support Schemes (Scotland) Regulations 2005, SSI 2005 No 143; the Common Agricultural Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Wales) Regulations Schemes Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2005, SR 2005 No 256.
27 The Common Agricultural Policy Single Farm Payment and Support Schemes (Scotland Regulations 2005), SSI 2005 No 143, Regs 19–25.
28 See eg Commissioner Fischler Speech/03/356 CAP Reform (Brussels 9 July 2003).
29 European Commission Communication from the Commission on Simplification and Better Regulation for the Common Agricultural Policy COM(2005)509, 6.
30 Speech/03/326 ‘The New, Reformed Agricultural Policy’ (Luxembourg 26 June 2003).
31 (n 29) 8–9.
32 ibid 8.
33 OJ (2005) L 209/1.
34 OJ (1999) L 160/80, Arts 21a—d and 24a—d, as amended by Council Regulation 1783/2003, OJ (2003) L 270/70.
35 OJ (1999) L 160/80, Arts 22—4, as amended by Council Regulation 1783/2003, OJ (2003) L 270/70.
36 OJ (2005) L 277/1.
37 ibid Art 4.
38 ‘Leader’ is the acronym for ‘Liaison entre Actions de Dèveloppement de l'Économie Rurale’ and since inception, the initiative has been directed towards the promotion of local rural development action groups: OJ (1991) C 73/33.
39 OJ (2006) L 55/20.
40 Council Regulation 1698/2005, OJ (2005) L 277/1, Art 6.
41 ibid Art 6(1).
42 European Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation on Support for Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) COM(2004)490, Explanatory Memorandum, para 14. See also eg European Governance: a White Paper OJ (2001) C 287/1 and O de Schutter ‘Europe in Search of its Civil Society’ [2002] European Law Journal 198.
43 European Commission Agenda 2000: for a Stronger and Wider Union, Bulletin of the European Union, Supplement 5/97 COM(97)2000, III.2.
44 Speech/03/395 EU Position on Agriculture Before Kick-off of Cancún Ministerial (Cancún 9 Sept 2003).
45 See eg Commissioner Fischler CAP Reform: What Relevance for Cancún? (Washington, DC 28 July 2003).
46 Significantly, the Cancún Ministerial failed, notwithstanding that a joint framework had earlier been proposed by the Community and the United States: IP/03/1160 EC and US Propose a Framework for a Joint Approach on Agricultural Questions in WTO (Brussels 13 Aug 2003).
47 On these aspects, see generally eg R Aggarwal ‘Dynamics of Agriculture Negotiations in the World Trade Organization’ (2005) 39 Journal of World Trade 741.
48 WT/DS265/AB/R, WT/DS266/AB/R, and WT/DS283/AB/R (28 Apr 2005). For the Community legislation subject to challenge, see Council Regulation 1260/2001, OJ (2001) L178/1.
49 For the implementing Community legislation, see Council Regulation 318/2006, OJ (2006) L 58/; Council Regulation 319/2006, OJ (2006) L 58/32; and Council 320/2006, OJ (2006) L58/42.
50 It was originally proposed that the cut be 39 per cent: European Commission COM (2005) 263, Explanatory Memorandum, 5.
51 On one estimate Community farmers and processors will receive € billion in 2006: Agra Europe Weekly No 2183 (Nov 2005 EP/2). For the impact on the ACP countries more generally, see dg H Yenkong Ngangjoh ‘Disputing Trade Preferences at the WTO Dispute Settlement Body: Revisiting the EC/ACP Sugar Preferences’ (2005) 6 Estey Centre Journal of International Law and Trade Policy 148.
52 European Communities—Protection of Trademark and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs: Complaint by the United States WT/DS174/R (15 Mar 2005); and European Communities—Protetion of Trademark and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs: Complaint by Australia WT/DS290/R (15 Mar 2005).
53 Commission Regulation 1107/96, OJ (1996) l 148/1, Annex, as amended by Commission Regulation 1829/2002, OJ 2002 L277/10. The earlier registration had been annulled in Joined Cases C-289/96, C-293/96, and C-299/96 Denmark v Commission [1999] ECR I-1541.
54 Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02 Germany c Commission (judgment) (25 Oct 2005) nyr.
55 See eg IP/03/1178 WTO Talks: EU Steps Up Bid for Better Protection of Regional Quality Products (Brussels 28 Aug 2003).
56 See eg European Commission The Ec's Proposal for Modalities in the WTO Agriculture Negotiations Ref 625/02 (European Commission Brussels 2002) 4.
57 OJ (1992) L208/1.
58 See generally M Handler ‘The WTO Geographical Indications Dispute’ (2006) 69 Modern Law Review 70. For the proposed legislation to address the decisions of the Panel, see European Commission Com (2005) 694 and COM (2005) 698/2.
59 See eg European Commission Mid-term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy COM(2002)394, 19–20.
60 Speech/05/516 Agricultural Talks in the Doha Round (Washington, DC 16 Sept 2005).