Decision-making process and the
CAP in the EU
- Experiences of Hungary -
Szent István University 22, June
Dr. Laszlo Benedek Flamm
Head of EU Coordination Unit
Ministry of Rural Development, Hungary
1
Decision-making process and the CAP in
the EU
- Experiences of Hungary 






Basic data on Hungarian agriculture
Political framework of EU institutions and the
CAP
About the CAP
Adopting the CAP in Hungary
Main players, Decision-making process and the
CAP
Experiences, practises
Conclusion/messages
2
Basic data on Hungarian agriculture
In GDP (2008):
agriculture + food industry => 5,6 %
agri-business
=> 12-15 %
In employment:
agriculture + food industry => 7,8 %
3
Basic data on Hungarian agriculture
Share of agriculture
30
25,8
25 25
25
20
% 15
10
5,5
5
6,3 7
3,6 3,6 4
4,2 3,7 5
4,9 4,7 4,6
in investment
in employment
0
in GDP
in consumption
in exports
2006
2007
2008
4
Basic data on Hungarian agriculture
In the 90’s:
 export =
3 bn EUR
 Import =
1,5 bn EUR
 Balance = +1,5 bn EUR
 50% of the export to EU15
2007: export = 4,7 bn EUR
import = 3,5 bn EUR
balance = +1,2 bn EUR
2008: export = 5,7 bn EUR
import = 3,8 bn EUR
balance= +1,9 bn EUR
44% of the export to EU15
81% of the export to EU27
5
Basic data on Hungarian agriculture
Share of agricultural area: 62% - EU
average below 50%
 2 million registered land owners,
 80% of them live in rural areas
 They cultivate the land of 1,5 million
owners
 Rural area = 87% of the Hungarian territory

6
Political framework of EU institutions and the
CAP
EU integration process from 1957 until today:
Treaty of Rome – the Lisbon Treaty



Common legislation – acquis communautaire
Common policies - CAP
Common institutions – Council, Commission,
Parliament, EESC, RC
Common Agricultural Policy – one of the „oldest”
policies
– Treaty of Rome
2004: Hungary became a member of the EU
– full adaption of CAP
– participating in policy-making
7
About the CAP


One of the oldest policy of the EU (Rome Treaty)
Common Policy, but there are still national
competence:
 policy of land property
 the taxation system of the farmers
 the system of the social insurance of the farmers
 agricultural education
 Research and Development (and Innovation)
Policy
 Agricultural marketing
8
About the CAP



Based on the community legislation
Community financing
National policies within the framework of the CAP
 legislative limits (burdens)
 notification to the Commission
 national budget – itself


IRL in 2007-2013 CC 2 bln € + NC 5 bln
€
HU in 2007-2013 CC 3,7 bln € + NC 1,4
bln €
9
About the CAP
The CAP is to ensure:

Competitiveness

Social aspects (employment)

Rural aspects

Environmental aspects

Sustainable development

Food safety and food security
market measures
rural development
2007-2013 CAP: I. + II pillar
Future of the CAP after 2013 – Discussion today
10
Adopting the CAP in Hungary 2004-
1. Legal harmonisation - Market regulations for:
Sugar
wine
cereals fruit and vegetables
Bovine milk products pig poultry
-
-
Adapting market measures: interventions, quotas,
informatics, market and price information-,
monitoring system
Coordination, meetings with agri-organisations –
product boards
11
Adopting the CAP in Hungary 2004-
2. Institution-building, institutional harmonization
Prior to accession: pressure from the EU was very
strong
After accession: tricky situation – greater freedom
but audits are taking place frequently with financial
consequences
- Single paying agency - rural development
- National veterinary and phytosanitary services
- Food quality standards
- Food industry
12
Adopting the CAP in Hungary 20042. Institution-building, institutional harmonization
-
Land administration and registry system – county,
local-level land offices
Extension service – farm advisory services
Agri-environment
Investments in infrastructure, informatics: establishing
data-, statistics-, integrated information system,
purchase of technical equipments, setting up
laboratories
13
Adopting the CAP in Hungary 2004-
2. Institution-building
 Single paying agency – a real challenge –
spending EU money in the Member State
ARDA: Agricultural and Rural Development
Agency –from 1998
SAPARD Agency – from 2000
Agricultural and Rural Development Agency –
2003

Since 2006: unified Agricultural Administrative
Office (all authorities and services together,
except land registration)
14
Adopting the CAP in Hungary 20043. Human reseourch management
 1996-1997: Selection of experts for the negotiations
Mainly young people with language skills, EU-studies at
Hungarian universities, study trips to Brussels

Training for everybody but specially
- for experts in Brussels – agricultural group at the
Hungarian permanent representation,
- for experts in Hungarian authorities supervised by the
Ministry e.g. paying agency, animal health and food
safety authorities, land offices
15
Adopting the CAP in Hungary 20043. Human reseourch management
Training experts in:
-
-
Working with EU regulations in practise e.g.
management of supports - direct payments,
handling incoming applications, using market
measures, information and price monitoring,
Coordination with EU-institutions,
Communication with EU institutions
16
Adopting the CAP in Hungary 2004







Moving targets
High supports
Intervention
EU=15
To be a beneficiary of the CAP
To gain direct payments
Attractive opportunities for using the Structural
Funds
Predictable future for the longer planning time
(2004-2007) and (2007-2013)
17
Adopting the CAP in Hungary
In the year 2010 and / or later






Moving targets
Supports seems to be reduced
Intervention is being cut down
EU = 27 Member States – Big Group
Support schemes are being converted 
co-financing
New challenges in the policy
18
Adopting the CAP in Hungary
In the year 2010 and / or later




Public Goods as the most important factor of the
subsidies
Climate change and agriculture  agricultural
carbon management
Crisis  MS want to reduce their contribution to
the EU
Predictable future for the longer planning (20042007) and (2007-2013)  but reforms, Health
Check, policy may formulate other priorities 
social, environmental issues, energy policy,
sustainable development and other issues
19
Main players, decision-making process
and the CAP
European
Commission
Commission
Working
Groups
Council Meeting
- Ministers -
European
Parliament
Special Committee on
Agriculture
Council Working
- Groups expert level20
Main players, decision-making process and
the CAP



European Commission - DG AGRI
European Council - Meetings of ministers
European Parliament (Lisbon Treaty)- Agri-COM.
 HU Ministry of Rural Development
 Department of EU Coordination
 Coordination – mandates, participation at
Commission Working Groups, Council
Working Groups and SCA
 PRESIDENCY I. half of 2011
21
Main players, decision-making process and
the CAP
Council Meetings
 the body for decision making
 Minister is the spokesman
 Important characteristics
 preparation
 attitude
 approach
 no „real” voting ministers’ contribution
(opinion)
22
Main players, decision-making process and
the CAP
Council Meetings
Importance of the involving partners, and
communication
 bilateral, trilateral, multilateral
 HU – V4 MS (PL, CZ, SK, HU + RO + BG)
 other groups - alliance (G22)
 COM, EC, PRES
 Lisbon Treaty: EP
 NGO’s
– national and EU (COPA,
COGECA, CEJA)
23
Main players, decision-making process and
the CAP
SCA
•
For decision making
•
Between Council meeting of minister and Council
Working Groups -„Filtering”, preparing decisions
•
Decisions – mostly political decisions but
decisions on administrative, professional basis
•
SCA spokesmen: high-level officials supported by
a staff: team from the Permanent Representation in
Brussels and from the national ministry
24
Main players, decision-making process and
the CAP
SCA
 Voting system – qualified majority decisionmaking
 Get compromise for majority – before,
during the SCA-meetings
 If no compromise – decision will be made
at the Council meeting of Ministers
25
Main players, decision-making process and
the CAP
Working Groups - European Council and the
European Commission
 Expert’s meeting
 Professional discussions on specific issues (market
measures e.g. quota, intervention, animal health
and welfare, plant protection, rural development
etc.)
 Council Working Group- more professional
specific topics to discuss – REPORTING TO SCA
26
Experiences, practises





Influencing decision-making
Political steps, action taken by high-level officials,
state of secretary, minister
Already in the preparation phase – meeting with
COM Directorate General for Agriculture and
Rural Development
Before decision-making – SCA-meeting, meeting
with representatives of the Council
The European Parliament can influence the
decision-making too
27
Experiences, practises
Making compromises
 Preparatory meetings – SCA, SCA spokesman,
agricultural group at the Permanent
Representation – flexible, efficient
 Meetings of ministers – not only Council
meetings, bilateral meetings in a member state,
multilateral meetings, eg. Visegrad countries

Hungarian experiences in 2005 Sugar reform,
2007 Wine reform, 2009 State aid to buy lands
28
Conclusion/messages






For making compromises – be flexible
To be aware of national minimum – room for
manoeuvres
In Brussels administration people are working –
contacts to people, personal-, working contacts
People in Brussels are not enemies, they are
partners in achieving common goals
Be well-trained – physically too negotiations after
midnight
Be well-informed, to know people, to know the
issue up-dated
29
Thank you for your attention!
Dr. Laszlo Flamm
Head of EU Unit
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,
Hungary
Tel: + 36 1 301 40 54
Email: [email protected]
30