EN Official Journal of the European Union C 132/89

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Regulation (EU) No …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)’

COM(2010) 799 final – 2010/0385 final

2011/C 132/17

Rapporteur: Mr NARRO

On 18 January 2011, the European Parliament and the Council decided separately to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, on the

Proposal for a Regulation (EU) No …/… of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (Single CMO Regulation)

COM(2010) 799 final – 2010/0385 final.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 February 2011.

At its 470th plenary session, held on 15 and 16 March 2011 (meeting of 15 March), the European Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 174 votes to 5 with 15 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

1.1 The EESC welcomes the potential for simplification and transparency that alignment with the Treaty of Lisbon might offer for the complex legislation flowing from the single CMO. Nevertheless, the general public needs to have greater simplification and clarity.

1.2 The EESC believes firmly in the consultation of stakeholders and Member States during the preparation of EU legislation, and is convinced that this should continue. In order to deal with the new system of delegated and implementing acts, it is essential to encourage transparency and dialogue with the sector's representatives.

1.3 The Commission should lose no time in making clear how experts are to be consulted and how the Management Committee's new operating procedures will work as regards the implementing acts.

1.4 The EESC calls for a clear definition of delegated acts and of the term ‘non-essential’, which characterises such acts, for the length of time for which the delegation is valid to be stipulated, and for a careful case-by-case evaluation. It is imperative that the Parliament and Council be given detailed information of the acts to be adopted as a matter of urgency, thus making it easier to repeal the delegation if required.

2. Background to the opinion

2.1 The purpose of the proposal is to align Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 on the Single Common Market Organisation with the differentiation between delegated and implementing powers of the Commission introduced by Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The proposal consequently limits itself to bringing the Single CMO into line with the new requirements of the Lisbon Treaty without affecting the Union's existing approach.

2.2 Articles 290 and 291 of the Treaty of Lisbon seek to amend the decision-making procedure between the European Commission, the Council and the European Parliament concerning the implementing rules for the Union's legislative texts.

2.3 Article 290 TFEU gives the Commission the power to supplement or amend certain non-essential elements of its rules. As a result, a delegated Commission act can set out the additional and ‘non-essential’ elements needed for the common market organisation to operate properly. The Commission may adopt delegated acts to establish the conditions under which economic operators can take part in a procedure, the obligations arising from the issuing of a licence, eligibility criteria for products as regards market intervention, and certain definitions.

2.4 In accordance with Article 291 TFEU, it is the Member States that are responsible for implementing the arrangements established by the Legislator. Nevertheless, this article requires the rules to be applied uniformly in the Member States. Therefore, the Legislator confers on the Commission implementing powers as regards uniform conditions for the implementation of the common market organisation and a general framework of checks that Member states must implement.

2.5 Exceptionally, Article 43(3) TFEU is an autonomous basis for the adoption of legal acts by the Council. This article stipulates that ‘The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt measures on fixing prices, levies, aids and quantitative limitations (…)’. This provision is an exception from Article 43(2) TFEU, which requires the ordinary legislative procedure to be used to establish the common organisation of agricultural markets.

2.6 The Commission proposal includes the content of four other proposals: a) The legislative resolution as regards the aid granted in the framework of the German Alcohol Monopoly (COM(2010) 336 final). b) The proposal for a Regulation as regards distribution of food products to the most deprived persons in the Union (COM(2010) 486 final). c) The proposal amending Regulation (EC) 1234/2007 on marketing rules. d) The proposal amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards contractual relations in the milk and milk products sector.

3. General comments

3.1 Whilst the changes to the structure for adopting implementing acts are perhaps not revolutionary, they nevertheless represent a major step towards a new model that alters the implementing powers for EU legislation. Member State involvement in implementing decisions will be limited exclusively to those cases in which harmonisation between the Member States is essential for transposing a text.

3.2 The Commission must draft new rules setting out the powers and workings of the bodies replacing the Committees in the framework of the now-abolished comitology procedure, to ensure that the new system operates properly.

3.3 Looking forward, it is crucial to encourage Member States and representatives from the relevant sectors to be involved in adopting legislation. The process of dismantling the longstanding comitology procedure must not lead to the role of operators in the sector being marginalised.

3.4 As fora for consultation between stakeholders within civil society, consultative groups form an essential part of the Union's decision-making process. These interface bodies should clearly not be called into question, given their role as a conduit for channelling knowledge of the sector and its daily reality to the Commission.

3.5 Delegated acts, intended for non-essential elements of the legislative act, are a thorny issue in discussions between the Council, the Parliament and the Commission. Delegated acts are of major importance and the ‘non-essential’ nature of the legislative act should consequently be defined in greater detail and the length of time for which the delegation is valid should also be stipulated, and there should be a careful case-by-case evaluation.

3.6 The EESC is concerned by the exception from the general rule requiring the ordinary legislative procedure to be used to establish the common organisation of agricultural markets. Article 43(3) TFEU stipulates that ‘The Council, on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt measures on fixing prices, levies, aids and quantitative limitations (…)’. The European Parliament's role in agricultural matters should be safeguarded and therefore a restrictive and coherent interpretation of this article is called for.

4. Specific comments

4.1 The Commission has made considerable and very complex efforts to align the extensive body of provisions covering the CMO with the new requirements of the Treaty of Lisbon. In this simplification process, it is very important that not only governments benefit from the new system, but also that those governed by them can see the reduction in red tape and complexity.

4.2 The proposal for a Regulation amending the single CMO contains 300 delegated acts and 294 implementing acts. In this case, unlike others, such as aid for rural development through the EAFRD, or the common rules for direct support schemes for farmers, in which the rules have been aligned with the Treaty of Lisbon, the Commission has restricted itself to making a ‘formal’ amendment without including new provisions.

4.3 The EESC welcomes the fact that, in the interests of transparency, the European Commission has clearly set out in various articles certain decisions that can be adopted without the help of the Management Committee. The process was similar in the past but was not contained in any legislative text. An example of this exercise involving implementing acts can be found in Articles 255 and 270 of the proposal, with respect to managing import quotas and export licences.

4.4 The classification of certain decisions as delegated acts could cause problems in some sectors. In the case of the wine sector, decisions concerning oenological practices will no longer be the responsibility of the Member States and, since they are considered to be delegated acts, responsibility for them will lie exclusively with the Commission. In this respect, the Commission should clearly indicate those points where, in spite of a mere legal amendment to the text, a substantial shift in responsibilities has occurred in practice.