Brussels, 04/05/2011 (Agence Europe) - In efforts to bring the common agricultural policy (CAP) into line with the Lisbon Treaty, member states are having difficulty agreeing on arrangements for setting the various aids and refunds which, under the Treaty, are not matters for the co-decision procedure (Council of Ministers-European Parliament) that previously applied to the CAP. The Commission has brought forward proposals but these are far from being universally accepted.
At the meeting of the Special Committee on Agriculture on Monday 2 May, member states' experts debated a proposal from the European Commission which aims to implement Article 43 (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which states: “The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt measures on fixing prices, levies, aid and quantitative limitations …”. This provision looks like an exception to the usual decision-making procedure (Article 43 (2) which states: “The European Parliament and the Council … shall establish the common organisation of agricultural markets … and the other provisions necessary for the pursuit of the objectives of the common agricultural policy”.
Risk of casus belli. The Commission is of the view that eight common organisation of the market measures do not come under Article 43 (2) and, therefore, fall under exclusive Council responsibility: - aid for private storage of butter; - production refund for sugar; - aid for skimmed milk and skimmed milk powder in animal feeds; - aid for processed skimmed milk in caseins and caseinates; - aid for the diary products for school pupils; - aid in the silk worm sector; - setting export refunds; - minimum prices for the export of live plants.
The Commission proposes that it should set these amounts under the implementing acts procedure provided for in the Treaty, arguing that this procedure is quite similar to the current management committee procedure where member states are represented on the management committees. During the exchanges of views in the SCA, the Netherlands, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Denmark and others expressed their surprise at the prospect of such a delegation of decision-making power to the Commission, and questioned this transfer of responsibilities formerly devolved to the Council.
Some member states, such as Finland, Denmark, Spain and the Czech Republic, were critical of the lack of ambition of the text under discussion, considering that Article 43 (3) is broader than what the Commission is proposing. In response, the Commission warned that too broad an interpretation of the Article could be seen by the European Parliament as a casus belli. (L.C./transl.rt)