In this thesis, I analyse the actors of the upcoming negotiations about a reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU. The actors I have chosen to analyse are the Commission, the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the WTO. I will look at earlier reforms of the CAP to see how the actors influenced the reforms, with special attention to the major reforms of 1992 and 2003. I compare the current situation to the situation in 1992 and 2003 to find similarities as well as differences. In the end, I will give an assessment of what the roles will be of the four actors in the negotiations this time and what the reform may look like when passed. The MacSharry-reform of 1992 fundamentally changed the CAP from a system of price support to a system of direct payments to the farmers, while the Fischler-reform of 2003 took the CAP from coupled support paid for production to decoupled support paid per hectare. The reforms were named after the agricultural Commissioners who were successful in negotiating them. Also internal pressure from the budget and external pressure from the WTO played an important role. The upcoming reform is due to become effective on 1 January 2013 along with the new multiannual financial framework and the process already began in 2010. In November of 2010, the Commission presented three scenarios for the CAP of which the second is most favoured by the Commission. The proposals from the Commission are, among others, a greening of the direct payments to benefit the climate and the environment, a cap on payments, that is a limit to how much support one farm may receive and finally, redistribution of direct support between new and old member states. Furthermore, the Commission would like to cut the budget of the CAP, in order to be able to spend more in other policy areas. The European Parliament has gained influence in the area of agricultural politics with the Lisbon treaty. The Parliament will now be able to influence the budget of the CAP through the multiannual financial framework and the annual budget. The Parliament will also be able to influence the political content of the CAP. The Commission is traditionally a powerful actor and the Commission will also play an important part in this CAP reform. The Commissioner for agriculture Dacian Ciolos, however, has only been Commissioner since February 2010 and it is still too early to say which part he will play in the negotiations. However, it is clear that the greening of the CAP as well as a redistribution of the CAP are important issues to the Commissioner. The WTO was very influential in the reforms of 1992 and 2003. In 1992, the EU's CAP reform became a part of the final negotiations in the Uruguay round and in 2003 the Commissioner for agriculture used the CAP reform to improve the negotiation position of the EU in the Doha round. However, for the upcoming reform the WTO seems to play a minor role. There is only little interest in trade liberalisation in the EU and the only influence the WTO is likely to have is to keep the EU from breaking the WTO rules already in place. My conclusion is that the European Parliament has improved its position with the Lisbon treaty and has become a stronger actor with regards to the CAP. The Commission has been a very powerful actor and will also shape the outcome of this reform to a large degree. The Council of Ministers represents member states of very different opinions and it will be very hard to negotiate a compromise for the Council. The WTO, unlike in 1992 and 2003, will only have a minor role to play.
|Educations||MA in International Business Communication (Intercultural Marketing), (Graduate Programme) Final Thesis|
|Number of pages||80|