| Draft document | Downloads: | |
english:  |
german: | |
|
french: |
bulgarian: | |
|
italian: |
portuguese: |
|
|
spanish: |
polish: |
| Draft document | Downloads: | |
|
english: |
german: | |
|
french: |
bulgarian: | |
|
italian: |
portuguese: |
|
|
spanish: |
polish: |
European
AgriCultural Convention
The
purpose of the European AgriCultural Convention (EAC) is to promote debate
on rural perspectives which should
stimulate the work of the European Convention on the Future of
The
debate on rural perspectives will be
conducted in public through the EAC website - www.agriculturalconvention.org/Forum.html and will reach a climax
at the EAC Gathering in
This
paper offers a provocative starting–point for that debate. It has been created through the rapid and
intensive efforts of a series of regional working groups, plus individual
contributions – see www. Agriculturalconvention.org/ for the list of those who
have contributed so far.
The
paper should not be seen as a dogmatic manifesto, but rather as an attempt to
provoke a debate and to offer a wide and long-term view which rises above the
immediate politics of today and yet candidly addresses some of the major dilemmas of an expanding
and changing
The
paper is structured to reflect that wider view. It starts by stating a vision for the
future
All
who read this paper are encouraged to offer comments and corrections, through
the Website, or by e-mail to info@agriCulturalconvention.org
between now and 25 May. We particularly
welcome comments on some of the contentious issues which are highlighted by
italics in the paper.
Comments
will be taken into account in re-shaping the paper for discussion at the
Gathering on 6 and 7 June. In turn, the
discussion at that Gathering will be reflected in a final version of the paper
which will be submitted to the Convention in mid-June, supported by all the
contributions which have accumulated during the process.
Please
let us hear from you.
Hannes Lorenzen
European Parliament
European
AgriCultural Convention
1. The
need to look far ahead. The
European Convention on the Future of Europe (hereinafter called ‘the
Convention’) can, and should, take a long term view of the future of
2.
A wider European
Union. The Convention should accept
the challenge of a European Union which, in 20 years’ time, may embrace a
larger part of the geographic continent.
It should ensure that its' concept of a future Union is capable of
taking in countries, such as those in the Balkans or the western parts of the
former Soviet Union, which lie beyond those which are now accepted as
candidates for membership.
3. A
force for peace and stability in the world. A future enlarged European Union should be
committed not only to improving the lives of all its citizens, but also to the
well-being of people in other continents.
It should seek to be a force for peace, democracy, and the promotion of
equal opportunity for peoples throughout the world. It should use its growing economic and
political power in a generous way, recognising that peace and stability are
indivisible around the world, and that prosperity elsewhere will be to the
long-term benefit of Europe.
4. A
Union based on solidarity. Since
its foundation, the European Union has been based on principles of solidarity
and cohesion. It has aimed to correct
the grave disparities which exist between different people and regions within
the existing Union. These disparities
will be more marked within an expanding Union.
The Convention must recognise and address the massive challenge of
achieving cohesion in a larger Europe;
the fear that is felt by many citizens that they will lose out through
sharing the common wealth; the
intemperate reaction that can be prompted by that fear; and thus the high importance of solidarity
within a larger Union. There is no
historical or political alternative to a European political and constitutional
framework, which creates a balance between those who need support in gaining
their livelihood and those who have already received support through many years
of financial and political solidarity.
5. Unity
and diversity. The future Europe
must offer its citizens the benefits of unity and (at the same time)
diversity. Unity offers freedom of
movement and of trade; assurance of
democracy, human rights and the rule of law;
a rich exchange of ideas and cultures.
Diversity in all its forms - cultural, social, environmental and
economic – should be seen as a source of strength, and of local identity and
pride, to be nurtured and used to enrich the lives of all Europeans. A major challenge for the Convention is to
find the right balance between unity and diversity in the institutions which it
proposes.
6. Citizens’ initiative. The long-established traditions of democracy
in Europe, coupled with the pride of individual nations and ethnic groups,
point towards a Europe in which initiative lies strongly with citizens, rather
than primarily with governments or inter-governmental institutions. The challenge throughout Europe is to
release the enterprise and the energy of people at local level to take control
of their own destinies, and to take initiative in programmes and projects to
benefit their own area.
7. High
quality of life. The broadly
temperate climate of Europe, plus its rich and varied natural resources, are a
base upon which can be built a high quality of life for its peoples. To achieve that high quality should be a
major aim of the expanding European Union.
Quality of life is a larger concept than standard of living. It depends upon a decent income (an aim
which has still to be achieved by many millions of present (and more millions
of future) citizens of the Union); upon
security of food supplies (at the right
quantity, quality and price); and upon
good social provision and a high-quality environment.
8. The
role of rural areas. More than
four-fifths of the land surface of Europe, and nearly half of its' population,
fall within rural areas. These rural
areas are thus called upon to provide living-space and livelihood for hundreds
of millions of people. But they also
provide a large part of the food, and much of the other resources (for example
timber, minerals, water and electricity), needed by all Europeans. Increasingly, the rural areas also provide
space for leisure activity by Europeans, and a major attraction for visitors
from other parts of the world. These
multiple functions of rural areas will become yet more important in the years
ahead.
9. The
role of agriculture and forestry.
The rural areas provide the platform for two major activities –
agriculture and forestry – which, over millennia, have provided a large part of
the food, the timber and the energy that Europeans need. The provision of these resources is still of
vital importance to Europe. But modern
technology and global trade have dramatically changed the context within which
farmers and foresters now operate, and the demands that European society needs
to place upon them. We no longer need a
constant increase in the volume of food produced. Farming is no longer the dominating force in
the economy of many rural regions. The
workforce in farming and in forestry has fallen sharply in many countries.
10. The
changing role of farmers. For these and other reasons, a shift in the role
of farmers and foresters is underway.
Farmers should continue to be providers of most of the food consumed by
Europeans, and of food which is exported.
But the emphasis in the production of that food is shifting from
volume-at-low-cost to food quality, human health, animal welfare and respect for
the environment. Apart from producing
food and timber, farmers and foresters in many regions will be seen as, and
where appropriate supported from public funds to be, suppliers of resources for
added-value enterprise in the rural economy, providers of space and opportunity
for non-farming enterprises and for recreation and tourism, producers of
renewable energy, and stewards of the landscape and of the natural and cultural
heritage.
11. Equality
and partnership. The vision of a
future Europe, described above, implies the acceptance of equality and
partnership within the expanding Union.
The relationship between the present member states of the Union and the
candidate countries should be one of equality and partnership in a great
enterprise, rather than of members of a closed club and supplicants to join
that club. The enlargement process must
not be seen as an absorption of the former Eastern block but as a
reconciliation between the two parts of the continent according to common
values and projects.
12. Cohesion.
The future Europe must pursue the long-standing commitment to removal of
disparities between regions and peoples, what has become known as
‘cohesion’. This must be reflected both
within the Union, and in its relations with the outside world, aiming at
the progressive reduction of
inequalities between continents and countries.
To this end, the EU should stop subsidising the export of European food
to developing countries; should
recognise the need of the developing countries to find markets for their food
products, both within those countries and in Europe and other parts of the
developed world; and should work within
the World Trade Organisation to persuade other developed nations to take the
same view.
13. Empowerment. If the
enterprise and the energy of people is indeed to be released at local level
throughout Europe, then governments and the European Union must recognise the
barriers that now exist and take active steps to empower the people. In many parts of Europe - east and west,
north and south, urban and rural - people now feel demotivated, dependent upon
the initiative of others, dis-empowered. Programmes of development, initiated by
government or the European Union, will not work effectively if the people are
not committed and involved. If the
Convention is to find an institutional framework which will really motivate the
people, it must look at the future from
the perspective of the citizen, not only of the European politician.
14. Ethnic diversity. A major source
of strength, but also often of tension, in many parts of rural Europe is the
ethnic mixture within the resident population or (in some areas) among
immigrants, seasonal workers or asylum-seekers. There are no easy or standard answers to the
questions raised by such ethnic diversity.
At European and national level, there is need for open-ness and
generosity in policies. Europe should recognise that it will
continue to attract immigrants from many other parts of the world, for as long
as levels of income in Europe are significantly higher than in those countries
: it may therefore be in Europe’s strong self-interest to assist those other
countries to improve their standards of living. For those newcomers who are here to stay,
there should be a clear commitment to integration and equal treatment; for refugees who are expected to leave after
a period, effort should be made to enable them to re-enter and thrive within
their countries of origin. At local
level, the principle of participation and equality should be applied to all
citizens, whatever their background.
15.
The added value
of Europe. The EU attracts the hopes of
millions who now live outside it. It
carries the confidence of a majority of those who live inside it. But that confidence is not an automatic thing
: it has to be earned. If the
confidence is to be earned, and the hopes are to be realised, the EU must show
that it can bring added value to the citizens.
There must be clarity about what is best done at European level (as distinct
from national, regional or local level), and the cost of doing it must be
proportional. We comment further on
this issue later in the paper.
16. Subsidiarity. As now interpreted, the principle of subsidiarity is seen
mainly as a matter of re-distribution of competences and decision-making power
from the top down. But if (as advocated
above) the allocation of powers is judged from the perspective of the citizen
or the enterprise, then subsidiarity may be better seen as empowerment of
citizens and of civil society to take more responsibility and to trust their
local, regional and national governments with roles which can only be served at
those levels. This upward, rather than
downward, approach to the division of responsibilities is one that can also
best reflect the high diversity between localities and regions throughout
Europe.
17. Sustainability. Europe
should give a lead to the world in the pursuit of sustainability. This may be expressed, for example, in the
progressive increase in the use of renewable energy sources, and reduction in
the use of fossil fuels; provision for
long life and recycling, rather than early obsolescence and discarding, of
industrial products; the adoption of
sustainable, or organic, methods in agriculture; and the protection of biological and
landscape diversity. This would also
make economic sense in terms of efficiency of resource use, integration of
production sectors and reducing the costs of environmental degradation to
society.
18. A
territorial approach. The multiple
functions of rural areas, in providing quality of life for those who live in
them and providing services for all Europeans including those who live
in cities, points strongly towards the need for an integrated approach to the
planning and management of those areas.
That action must also take account of the diversity of regions. Integration and diversity can best be assured
by a territorial approach – that is, one which addresses the needs and
opportunities of a given area in a rounded manner, rather than in a way that is
sectoral or standardised from one region to another. A territorial approach permits clear
analysis of the links between rural areas and the towns which service them. It also brings public decision-making down
to a geographic scale which can be understood, and influenced, by the
citizen.
19. In the light of the vision
and principles stated above, we move to a statement of the kinds of action that
we perceive to be needed in relation to development of rural areas and (as part
of that development) to agriculture and forestry.
20. Integrated action on a
territorial base. Rural areas in
the existing EU are highly diversified – from the sparsely populated regions of
northern Scandinavia to the peri-urban settlements of the Ruhr, from the alpine
valleys of Austria to the dairy farms of
Ireland, from the vineyards of Gascony to the arid islands of Greece. The experience of the last twenty or more
years has shown that the needs of such varied regions cannot be met by
standardised solutions. They demand an
approach which is specific to each place.
What has also been learnt is that sectoral solutions, whether focused on
agriculture alone or on industry alone, do not suffice. The need, as stated in paragraph 18 above,
is for integrated action on a territorial base. The pre-accession programmes in the
central European countries are already showing that the same principle applies
there.
21. Recent years have seen a series of
initiatives, in different parts of Europe, which offer possible models for such
integrated and territorial action. They
include (for example) the local action groups under the LEADER programme; territorial contracts and regional park
programmes in France; integrated rural
development programmes in Finland;
micro-region initiatives in Hungary.
If the vision of prosperous, multi-functional rural regions is to be
realised throughout Europe, there is a need for a whole new generation of
integrated territorial plans and programmes, building upon these varied
models.
22. Partnership. The prime responsibility for promoting such
plans and programmes lies with national and provincial governments, since they
command much of the sectoral policies and resources which need to be harnessed
in an integrated way. In each
territory, they need to work in partnership with local authorities and with the
private and voluntary sectors. In many
countries, there is no tradition for such integration and such partnership. That is why it was necessary for the EU to
launch the LEADER initiative, which has had the effect of provoking action by
the member states in this field. The
challenge for the next decade and more is to build on LEADER and other
initiatives, so that it becomes natural for governments to initiate and
implement integrated territorial programmes, or encourage others to do so.
23. Participatory democracy. This paper emphasised earlier (paragraphs 6
and 13) the need to release the enterprise and the energy of local people in
rural development programmes. This is an essential consequence of an integrated
and territorial approach. The means
that can be used to achieve this release of enterprise and energy will vary
according to the socio-cultural traditions of each country. They may include co-operative enterprises,
round-tables, study circles, ‘syndicats d’initiative’, local action groups and popular movement councils. The success of these mechanisms may depend
not only on the energy of those who create or lead them (those whom the Swedes
call the ‘fiery spirits’), but upon the willingness of governments at all
levels to trust such social organisms and to enable them to operate. The Convention should emphasise the benefits
to be gained from participatory democracy, and should look to ways in which
governments and the EU can encourage such democracy.
24. Policies
for agriculture. This paper
described earlier (paragraphs 9 and 10) the changing role of agriculture. Public policies and programmes are
inevitably changing to reflect this changing role. For the last 60 years, the actions of
European farmers have been mainly influenced by the policies and the measures
exercised by governments and (for those within the EU) by the Union itself. Now those policies and measures are
changing, and they are bound to change further, in response to such factors as
the trend of world trade negotiations;
the need to reduce dumping and export subsidies, in the interest of the
developing nations; the high cost of
commodity supports within the EU budget;
and growing public concern about the power of multi-national companies,
about unsustainable use of the world resources, about the impact of agriculture
on the environment, and about animal welfare and human health.
25. These factors may appear to point towards a
withdrawal of public financial support to farmers. But a new and positive perspective on the
role of farmers is provided by another factor, namely the growing recognition
of the need to strengthen and diversify the economy of the rural regions of
Europe. In this perspective, the
farmers and the foresters are seen as the suppliers of resources for
added-value enterprises in the rural economy; they can be seen as providers of
space and opportunity for non-farming enterprises and for recreation and
tourism; producers of renewable energy; and stewards of the landscape and of
the natural and cultural heritage –providers of "environmental
services", such as protection of watersheds and drinking supplies and soil
conservation. These roles may provide
both a starting-point for direct enterprise by the farmers, or for income to
farming families whether on or off the farm, and also a reason in some areas
for continuing financial support from public sources. Such enterprise, income and financial
support may fall increasingly within the context of rural development
programmes. Systems of advice,
education, training and financial and other support to farmers should embrace
this multi-functionality.
26. Food and farming. A further
significant factor in the changes affecting agriculture is the rising public
concern with quality and safety of food.
This concern has been prompted by outbreaks of animal disease or
food-related human illnesses, such as salmonella, brucellosis, BSE and foot and
mouth disease. European consumers
increasingly demand, and many are ready to pay extra for, food which they
believe to be free of pollution and of risk of disease. This is prompting rapid growth in the volume
of organic produce, and a rising public demand for foods of named origin. This represents an opportunity for farmers
to diversify their production, to add value to their products, and (in some
cases) to relate directly to consumers.
Governments and the EU can encourage this process, by direct support for
changes in production methods and for an integrated approach to the whole food
chain, and by highlighting the specific values of locally produced and marketed
food. A more direct link between farmers
and consumers will help to recreate links, and a trusting relationship, between
rural and urban citizens of Europe.
27. Innovation and exchange. A
major advantage of the European Union - for its citizens, enterprises and
public bodies - is the opportunity for exchange and comparison of different
ways of doing things. This has already
had high value within the 15 member states, notably in the field of agriculture
and rural development. The enlargement
of the EU will bring further valuable models into this exchange. Moreover, the new member states may be more
open to change than the current EU.
There will thus be large scope for the development of new models, and
for innovative solutions in rural development.
Innovation is much needed, since it is clear that the problems cannot be
solved by the traditional top-down approach of the CAP and the Structural
Funds. Local resources (social,
natural, cultural, economic) must be mobilised and backed by central policies
and external support.
28. To
achieve this, a genuine experimental approach is needed. Encouragement for innovation in rural areas
should be a cornerstone of rural policy.
The innovation may relate to economic enterprise; or to the social field, for example the
strengthening of civil society, democratic participation and local
partnership. Encouragement should be
provided through capacity-building, education, research, advisory and extension
services and in other ways. There is a
particular need to strengthen civil society, as an active force in rural
development, in some of the pre-accession countries.
29. Research. There is a strong need for both basic and
applied research to support rural innovation and rural development. More funding should be allocated to this. The focus should be at the local level and
at local problems (social, economic, cultural and ecological). A specific need for research relates to
innovation in governance, evaluation, rural management and development policies
and strategies. The themes of
sustainable rural development should figure strongly in the research and
development programmes of the EU.
Considering the cohesion policy and the serious problems affecting
marginal areas which suffer from geographical or natural handicaps, priority could
be given to the establishment of a Community institute dealing with research
and development related to the remote and sparsely populated areas throughout
Europe.
30. Local
centres of expertise. In many rural
areas, there is a strong need for innovative solutions which are closely geared
to the particular character and resources of each place. Local economic development could be greatly
assisted by the creation of local centres of expertise, ‘think-tank’ bodies
which can grasp unused local potential, or see emerging opportunities based on
worldwide trends. These bodies could
look for emerging innovative technologies, assess their applicability to local
conditions, and ‘translate’ the innovation into a language understandable to
local people. They could also offer
support (in an ‘incubator’ manner) to new small enterprises up to the point
that they become viable: this support may include provision of premises,
covering the risk to farmers of taking out loans, expert advice, and assistance
with marketing.
IV. Instruments
31. In considering the
instruments which may be deployed by the future enlarged Union, the Convention
should again look far ahead, rather than focusing first on immediate concerns
such as the review of the Common Agricultural Policy.
32.
The trends, and the demands, which are outlined in
this paper point clearly towards a future pattern of EU interventions that is
radically different from that of the 1970s to 1990s when the present set of
instruments were developed. The following
crucial differences can be predicted :
-
the level of financial support related to farm
commodities will have greatly reduced;
-
the emphasis in support to agriculture will have
shifted onto the multifunctional role of farming, within the context of rural
development;
-
the support for rural development will have become
wide and multi-functional; and
-
the concept of integrated territorial development
will have become well established, certainly in
rural regions and also very likely
in urban and metropolitan areas.
33. Radical review. These
points imply that, within 10 to 15 years, there may be a strong case for a
radical review of all the main instruments now used by the EU to promote social
and economic development – the CAP and European Agriculture Guarantee
Fund; and the Structural Funds, European
Social Fund and the Social and Regional Development Funds. It may be right to decouple the
agricultural and the rural development elements, now linked within the
CAP; to cut through the divide between
the Rural Development Regulation and the Social and Regional Development
Funds; and to create instruments which
more directly reflect the essential need for territoriality and integration at
the point of delivery, while meeting the re-distributive aims of cohesion. The Convention would be well advised to
bring such possible changes into consideration when advising on the
institutional framework of the future Union.
34. Radical change of this sort
cannot, and should not, be achieved in one step. We are currently mid-way through the Agenda
2000 era, in which the CAP provides the framework both for the farm support
system and for rural development. But
the Convention should recognise the severe constraints which this framework now
places upon the vital work of rural development. Throughout the EU, there is need to
strengthen and diversify the economy of rural regions, by means which may
include adding value locally to farm and forest products, the creation of craft
industries, modern manufacturing and service industries, including tourism, and
the use of telecommunications to facilitate modern occupations accessible to
rural dwellers. An approach based on a
‘second pillar’ of the CAP, funded to a theoretical 10% of the CAP budget but
mainly limited to support for accompaning measures and early retirement cannot
adequately address the scale and width of the need for rural development. To
date, member states have made little use of the ‘modulation’ provision, whereby
they can move money from the agricultural budget into that of rural
development.
35. The Common Agricultural Policy. The CAP has served for
many decades as a key element of European integration, before it became a
victim of its own success. The prime
objective of the CAP, to assure sufficiency in food supplies for Europe, has
been handsomely fulfilled : but new problems have arisen, as side effects of
the success story, such as degradation of soil and environment, depopulation of
rural areas, and increased threats to animal welfare and human health. Moreover, commodity supports under the CAP
have placed enormous strains on the EU budget, and these supports are
increasingly questioned in the context of world trade negotiations. These factors, plus the prospect of
accession of central European states, with large areas of farmland, all point
to the non-viability of the present basis of the CAP.
36. The question, therefore, is not whether to
continue to reform the CAP, but rather how to reform it so that it :
-
meets the pressing needs of
member states and candidate countries;
-
addresses the changing emphasis
in the role of farmers;
-
provides adequate funding for the
rural development effort, until such time as this is decoupled from agricultural funding;
-
is consistent with what is
negotiable in world trade talks, assuming a strong defence by the EU of
non-trade concerns; and
-
consistent also with Europe’s
obligations to developing countries (see paragraph 12 above).
37. We
suggest that the major changes in the CAP should be delayed until the end of
the current Agenda 2000 era, in 2006, by which time the Union may already be
substantially enlarged. But meanwhile
means must be found to increase the funds available for rural development, either
by the progressive reduction in direct payments to farmers and the reallocation
of these resources to an expanded EU contribution to the Rural Development
programmes in the member states or by a compulsory requirement that all
member states make use of modulation measures to switch increasing amounts of
money to their rural development programmes.
In either case, the natural conditions of different areas must be taken
into account, and the speed of reallocation of funds should be carefully judged
so as not to threaten the viability of farms, especially in less favoured
areas. In addition, those Article 33
measures which provide support for the adaptation and development of rural
areas might be made compulsory for inclusion in all Rural Development,
alongside the agri-environment measures.
There should be greater flexibility in allowing Rural Development
Regulation resources to be payable to non-agricultural recipients, where the
proposed activities of these recipients can be shown to be of benefit to the
wider rural economy and environment.
38. A new
typology of rural areas. Looking
further ahead, to the period beyond 2006, we see the need for clear definition
of the territorial basis upon which rural development programmes may be framed
throughout the enlarged Union. This may
call for a new typology of rural areas, with clear criteria related to the
relative need of each area for social and economic development or for
environmental safeguards and/or repair.
This can then form the basis for different degrees of Community co-financing,
to reflect the principle of cohesion.
39. Innovation
in the food supply chain. The new
approach to the links between farming and the food chain (paragraph 26) points
to the need for clearer recognition, in EU instruments, of issues such as
transparency related to food processing, standards and labels for organic or
environmentally friendly production, traceability, added value and related
issues. There is a case for special EU
funding in these fields – related to enterprise conversion, research and
innovation - for a period of years.
40. Local
Partnerships. The LEADER programme
has demonstrated the high value of local partnerships in conceiving and
implementing rural development programmes.
It is good that the current era includes a continued emphasis on the
LEADER approach. But encouragement to
the creation of local partnerships should not be confined to LEADER+. The EU, and member states, should seek to
stimulate such partnerships in all rural development programmes, as is being
done (for example) in Finland. Such
partnerships, involving the public, private
and voluntary sectors on the scale of sub-regions, can help to relate the
content of programmes accurately to the specific character and needs of each
area, to mobilise local resources and energies to complement outside resources,
and to ensure participation and involvement of the local poulation.
There
may be a case for EU funding of the operation costs of the local partnership
structures, in order to guarantee the continuity and independence of these
structures.
41. LEADER. In addition to the local partnership
principle, the LEADER Programme offers a very valuable emphasis on other
principles – the territorial approach, the focus on indigenous resources, the
idea of innovation, and the value of exchange between different LEADER groups,
both within a country and on a trans-national basis. These principles should be widely applied,
both within LEADER+ regions and elsewhere.
There is a strong case for creating immediately a LEADER-type programme
in the pre-accession states, within or alongside the SAPARD programme. People involved in rural development in the
pre-accession states should, in any case, be fully involved in the trans-national
exchanges within the LEADER + programme.
42. A
European network. The enlargement
of Europe, and the pressing need for active and imaginative programmes of rural
development throughout the continent, notably in the pre-accession countries,
point to the high value of an active European network of exchange in this
field. The EU could do much to stimulate
this network, through :
- creation of a dynamic Rural Observatory, in
succession to that which accompanied the
LEADER II programme, but with a wider brief;
-
support for common PR campaigns for sustainable development of rural
areas;
-
support for effective rural non-government organisations, and for
programmes to strengthen the emergence of such organisations in the
pre-accession countries.
43. Regulations. There is a strong case for review of the
role of the EU in the field of regulations related to, for example, hygiene and other standards in farming, food
processing and related fields. At
present, the Union is committed to producing detailed regulations, which go far
beyond what is necessary or wise in order to protect the consumer. These regulations, which are now also being
imposed on candidate countries through the insistence on the acquis communautaire, can have the effect of raising greatly the threshold
of capital investment for rural enterprises, and have already forced the
closure of many such enterprises. The
emphasis in EU intervention should shift towards an insistence on transparency
in the declaration by producers of the nature of their products, so that
consumers can judge for themselves what to buy. The EU should not otherwise impose
regulations related to production, except where these are agreed between all
member states and are clearly best promulgated at European level. This is consistent with the principle that good law is obeyed law :
regulations should be proportionate to the degree of social awareness of the
problem and to the capacity for enforcing them.
44. Charters. This comment about regulations does not deny
the importance of those Directives, Charters and Conventions – originated
either by the European Union or by the Council of Europe – which relate (for
example) to rural or mountain areas or to the protection of the biodiversity,
cultural heritage, landscape, soil, water and other assets of this
magnificently varied continent. These
instruments are fully consistent with the principle of unity and diversity
expressed earlier in this paper. They
present a significant model of the future institutional shape of the Union, in
that they depend to variable degree upon agreement and implementation or
enforcement by the member states. The
Convention should reflect upon the use of such instruments in the larger
Europe.
45. The acquis communautaire.
The need for proportionality and common sense in the field of
regulations is strongly apparent in the current round of negotiations between
the EU and the candidate countries. The
EU appears to see the acquis
communautaire as a hurdle which the candidate states must cleanly jump
before they enter the club of member states.
This is the wrong approach, when seen from perspective of the principles
outlines earlier in this paper. The
rules should rather be seen as an indicative set of standards which the
candidate states may progressively achieve both before and after becoming
members of the Union. The requirements
before entry should focus mainly on those related to democracy, human rights
and the rule of law. Other more
technical requirements, including those related to standards within the
agriculture and food sectors, should be open to completion after entry to the
Union.
46. Rural development in the candidate countries. In the run-up to accession, candidate
countries should be given support by the Union not only to achieve the acquis communautaire, but also to
prepare for the entry into substantive EU programmes. In the field of agriculture and rural
development, the EU should offer support to the candidate countries not only
for programmes parallel to the Rural Development Regulation, but also parallel
to the LEADER + Initiative. This would
have particular value in those candidate countries in which local democracy and
local partnerships are not well developed.
47. New member states of the Union should be able
to expect equality of treatment with existing members, related to policies and
financial support systems, from the moment of entry or on a formal phasing-in
basis within a very few years of joining.
This should apply particularly to support to farmers (bearing in mind
the changes recommended above in the basis for that support within the EU).
48. Transparency
and effectiveness. If citizens are
to be assured that there is real added value from the EU, and that the real
needs of very varied regions are being met, there must be transparency in all
public processes and there must be assurance of effectiveness in
programmes. Unfortunately, these
criteria are not currently met. The
preoccupation of the European Commission with financial accountability and
rigorous audit is causing lamentable delay in pursuit of programmes, and
hesitancy to take initiative and to permit initiative in others. The Convention must address how to shift the
emphasis onto action, speedy despatch of business, transparency and
effectiveness.
49. Do
less, better. Already, within a
15-country grouping, the EU is doing more than it needs to do, and more than is
healthy for the well-being of local communities and local economies. To apply the same level of intervention to a
Union of 27 or more countries would cause paralysis at the centre and grave
delays and dislocations in the provinces.
The EU should draw back from detailed interventions, for example in the
field of regulations that is outlined in paragraph 43. It should concentrate on what truly needs to
be done at the Union level.
50. The Convention must look
closely at what needs to be done at European level, and what (from the
perspective of the citizen or the enterprise) is better done at national,
regional or local level. This is
essential in order to assure the citizens of Europe that there is true added
value from Europe (see paragraph 15 above).
Briefly stated, the functions best pursued at European level are :
-
to promote and enable freedom of movement, of trade,
and of exchange within the Union;
-
to represent the interests of all Europe in world
negotiations on trade and aid;
-
to protect democracy, human rights and the rule of
law;
-
to pursue cohesion, by the appropriate transfer of
resources from the richer to the poorer regions, in a manner that truly
achieves the reduction of disparities.
51. Decision-making. An enlarged European Union will need
great clarity in its decision-making and management processes. The Convention must address questions such
as :
-
the powers of co-decision to be given to the
European Parliament, which does not now have those powers in the field of
agriculture and rural development;
-
the principle of majority voting in the Council of
Ministers;
-
the ways in which the Parliament and the Commission
relate to, and consult with, interests of all kinds in the larger Europe :
there may be need for a statute of European associations, governing their
relations to the Union and giving them a permanent channel for dialogues with
the Parliament and the Commission.
52.
Integrated administration. If the EU is to advocate and ensure an
integrated approach to rural development programmes which it funds, then it
must demonstrate effective integration within its own administration. At the moment, this integration is very far
from being achieved. Too often, those
who deal with the European Commission find that ‘the right hand does not know
what the left hand is doing’. The
Convention, when considering the future institutional form of the Union, should
bear in mind that it exists for the benefit of the citizens of Europe and must
be approachable and coherent for them.
53.
Location. The
eastward enlargement of the EU should be accompanied by locating part of its
administration in a central European capital.
This would be both a symbolic, and a highly practical, recognition of
the principles of equality and of cohesion.
54.
Languages. The
enlargement of the Union will create the risk that its affairs will be gravely
impeded by linguistic confusion. No
linguistic group should be disenfranchised or favoured in the management of
Europe. But the principle of ‘unity and
diversity’ may point towards acceptance of a fundamental concept – that the
daily business, and national administration, of Europe’s life should be
conducted in many tongues, but that the limited business that is done at
European level should move progressively into use of a lingua franca.
