A reform of the CAP was undergoing preparation during the latter part of the 1990s and in March 1998 the Commission presented a set of 'Proposals for Council Regulations (EC) concerning the reform of the common agricultural policy (Comn~ission 1998)'. The DG for Agriculture was primarily responsible for the elaboration of these proposals but an additional number of DG's were associated including, among others, the DG for Competition, the DG for Regional Policy and Cohesion and the DG for the Environment. The ideas articulated in the 1998 Commission document were eventually endorsed by the Council at the Berlin Summit on Agenda 2000 in March 1999 and subsequently referred to as the 1999 CAP reform. Although conflicts do evolve around the particularities of the various elements suggested in the Commission document from 1998, the problem figures outlined were carried through into the 1999 reform with the qualification that the then recently implemented Amsterdam Treaty was considered to be further enforcing the objective to integrate environmental concerns into all areas of EU policies (Commission 1999a, pp. 1- 3). Accordingly, the problems to be addressed within the CAP towards the end of current period are made up by largely familiar elements, yet some of these are instituted slightly differently from earlier periods. Surplus production, the build up of intervention stocks and related budget pressures are still matters of concern but now they are articulated as the potential consequences - as is rising unemployment - of a lack of international competitiveness in European
The Common Agricultural Policy and Organic Farnung: An lnstit~tional 147 Perspective on Contrnulty and Change
agriculture. That is, a central problem within the CAP is whether European agriculture will be able to profit from more liberalised international agricultural markets (Commission 1998, p.2). This problem may be characterised as analytically instituted in the sense that it is based on a coupling between, on the one hand, a predicted further liberalisation of international trade with agricultural products and potentially profitable international markets and, on the other hand, actual developments within the CAP, which has established an experience of a relationship between high price policies and insufficient competitiveness in the world market. The sources of this problematic are mono- causal - in the sense that they are clear and simple - structural and thematic and found both outside and inside the CAP. Problems of liberalised international agricultural trade are, thus, partly related to a predicted strong growth in demand and prices in the world markets for agricultural produce, and partly related to the still high price policies within the CAP (Commission 1998, p.2, 5). The solutions suggested in this regard were cuts in the guaranteed prices accompanied with an increase in direct income support to farmers (Commission 1998, p.5) and, hence, represented a continuation of solutions institutionalised within the CAP by the end of the previous period.
At this point in time, a second problem central to the CAP is related to 'how agricultural policy is devised and managed' (Commission 1998, p.3). Whereas the CAP was established to manage agricultural policies among the original six Member States, it was argued that the management of the CAP needs to be adjusted to accommodate not only the current 15 Member States but also to take into account the accession of the new Member States from central and eastern Europe. The enlargement is predicted to enhance the complexity and bureaucracy of the CAP and the diversity of agriculture in the EU. Although diversity in natural conditions, production methods, income levels and competitiveness is a quality of agriculture in the EU, increased diversity enforces the need to take into consideration the requirements of particular sectors and local conditions (Commission 1998, p.3). The second problem within the CAP may also be characterised as analytically instituted in the sense that it is based on a coupling between, on the one hand, the predicted enlargement of the EU to the east and, on the other hand, a number of actual enlargements throughout the development of the CAP, which has established an experience of a relationship between Community enlargements and structural diversity, and administrative complexity.
The source of the problems (i.e. the enlargement to the east) relating to the management of the CAP is mono-causal, structural, found outside of the CAP but also thematic since enlargements have been a frequently reoccurring concern throughout the development of the CAP. The solutions envisaged are in general aimed at the establishment of a 'new balance between common management and increased decentralisation'. More specifically, it is suggested that 'national envelopes' should be established, which entail that resources are allocated from the CAP budget to Member States according to national agricultural production
148 The Formation of a Policy Field: Organic Farming Within the CAP (1993-2005)
size which, in turn, are distributed by Member States according to their particular objectives vis-a-vis national agriculture (Commission 1998, p.5).
The third problem for the CAP to deal with has to do with its degree of legitimacy among the wider public. While the unjust distribution of support among farmers and regions is still a concern for the CAP, the unjust distribution of support is now conceived, on the one hand, as 'having negative effects on regional development planning and the rural community, which has suffered badly from the decline in agricultural activity in many regions'. On the other hand, 'other regions have seen the development of excessively intensive farming practices which are having ofien a serious impact in terms of the environment and animal diseases' (Commission 1998, p.3). Although there is not established a direct causal relation between the support for already better-off regions and problems related to the environment and animal health, together '[all1 these factors combine to create a bad image of the CAP in the minds of the public' (Commission 1998, p.3). From the 1998 Commission document, it also appears that '[mlaking the CAP more acceptable to the citizen in the street, to the consumer, is one of our primary tasks in the years ahead' (Commission 1998, p.3). Moreover, '[aln agriculture which pollutes, which contributes inadequately to spatial development and protection of the environment, and which, because of its undesirable practices, must take its share of responsibility in the spread of animal diseases, has no chance of long-term survival and cannot justify what it is costing' (Commission 1998, p.3). The image problem of the CAP may be characterised as normatively instituted in the sense that it is based on a coupling between, on the one hand, an actual but also predicted further inadequacy of the CAP to resolve current problems in agriculture and, on the other hand, an ideal holding that the CAP needs to obtain its legitimacy in the wider public.
The causes of problems related to lack of legitimacy or acceptance of the CAP among the wider public are thus multiple, structural and thematic in nature (distorted distribution of support among farmers and regions, the decline of activities in certain rural areas, intensive agriculture, environment depletion and animal health issues) and are found within the CAP in the sense that the policy so far has been inadequate. Solutions envisaged to improve the image of the CAP among the wider public are, for instance, a simplification of the CAP and, in general, 'it is vital to deal with various inequalities and abuses which seriously harm the image of the CAP' (Commission 1998, p.6). Great hope is attached to the introduction of a 'second pillar' of the CAP dealing with rural development which, in essence, put together existing measures directed towards environmental protection and structural improvements in rural areas (Commission 1998, p.6, 134).
Most recently, proposals for a number of Council regulations have been elaborated by the DG for Agriculture, adopted by the Commission, endorsed by the Council and subsequently referred to as the 2003 CAP reform (Council 2003). The proposals suggested by the Commission and subsequently endorsed by the Council largely reiterate problems institutionalised in the context of the
The Common Agricultural Policy and Organic Farming: An Institutional 149 Perspective on Continuity and Change
1999 CAP reform. This appears in the explanatory statement to the Commission proposals. The problems the CAP needs to address thus have to do with the competitiveness of European agriculture, the lack of responsiveness to market developments, broader societal expectations directed towards the CAP and issues related to rural development. Additionally, both the lack of responsiveness of agricultural production to market developments and concerns related to rural development is linked to CAP objectives of environmental protection, food quality, food safety and animal welfare concerns (Commission 2003, p.3). A central cause of current problems is the preferred support mechanisms of the CAP that are conceived as establishing an incentive system, which has negative effects on the protection of the environment and, in general, counteract moves towards more sustainable agricultural production (Commission 2003, p.5).
While the solutions proposed are still conceived in terms of preparing the CAP for the forthcoming enlargement to the east, it is also envisaged they will strengthen the position of the EU in the context of the forthcoming negotiations in the WTO (Commission 2003, p.5). The preferred and familiar solution of decoupling agricultural support from yields and enhanced direct support to farmers is conceived to address problems regarding the competitiveness of European agriculture, the lack of responsiveness to market developments, and rural development. However, the enhancement of direct support to farmers is conditional on agricultural production methods satisfying certain requirements in terms of protection of the environment, food safety, food quality and animal welfare and, in cases where these conditional requirements are breached, sanctions will be enforced (Commission 2003, p.3, 10). While the 2003 CAP reform, in the main, seems to represent a continuation of the already institutionalised problems and solutions, concerns with food safety, food quality and animal welfare is reinforced (possibly at the expense of environmental concerns) by being linked to both market developments and rural development and by being connected with legal sanctions.