Decisions reached in the dead of night

Date: 27/02/1997

By Michael Mann

WHAT is the connection between 'green' money, animal welfare and the intervention price for peaches?

To most of us, the answer is obvious: there is none. But to Europe's agriculture ministers, there is a definite link, as long as there is some advantage to be gained from finding one.

Meetings of EU agriculture ministers have become the epitome of political expediency over the years. This is a worrying tendency given that decisions taken in the dead of night affect the way some 41 billion ecu - or almost half the EU budget - is spent.

To free marketeers, 'Fortress Agriculture' represents everything that is bad about the EU. But as previous attempts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy have shown, they remain a small minority among farm ministers. Sweden, the UK and, to a lesser extent, the Danes can do little to combat the forces of protectionism which dominate farm policy.

So how are the decisions which affect food prices, the rural landscape and the way in which the European taxpayer's money is spent actually made?

Unlike all other areas of policy, in which the Committee of permanent representatives (Coreper) does the preparatory work leading up to ministerial meetings, in the farming sector this task is carried out by the Special Committee for Agriculture (SCA).

And unlike Coreper, which has to keep a weather eye on the interests of all government departments - not least the treasury - the SCA remains the preserve of the farm ministries.

Agricultural specialists from each of the 15 member states spend two days a week toiling through proposals ranging from ways to make the life of battery hens more agreeable to the maximum moisture content of dried fodder.

The latest initiative is a 26-page proposal concerning the control of Pseudomonas solanacearum (Smith) Smith, the cause of brown rot in potatoes. No wonder officials often emerge somewhat shell-shocked from SCA sessions.

The success or otherwise of the committee's work depends to a large degree on who sits in the chair. Recent months have brought accusations of growing aimlessness.

Last June's meeting of agriculture ministers was supposed to polish off reforms of the 1.6-billion-ecu support system for the EU fruit and vegetable market. But by the time they entered the meeting - after months of debate at official level - there were 160 separate reserves on the paper.

Different countries have different ways of operating and different priorities. In recent memory, Belgium, Greece and Italy managed to achieve very little in their six months in charge of Council business, but the second half of 1996 - with Ireland at the helm - was remarkably productive, although the need for rapid action to deal with the beef crisis played a large part in concentrating minds.

Ireland's Ivan Yates established a reputation at a European level as a tough and effective negotiator. At a December meeting unusually devoid of content, he even managed to pull off a deal to phase out veal crates, taking everybody by surprise.

Given the slow progress of various proposals in the SCA, some wonder about the wisdom of holding 11 ministerial sessions every year. Traditionally, the January to May and July to November meetings remain little more than talking shops.

Come June and December, minds are suddenly concentrated as whichever country holds the presidency desperately tries to polish off agreements on a number of questions, so as to have something to show for its six months in charge.

This normally involves putting all the outstanding plans which are ready for agreement into a package and tinkering with them until a sufficient number of governments can accept them.

This in turn means that European Commission proposals are often watered down beyond all recognition. In addition, if a particular country finds something distasteful, it will often have to be offered a concession in another area by way of compensation.

Animal welfare campaigners were horrified in 1995 when animal transport arrangements were traded off against some countries' concerns about their agricultural exchange rates.

Such deals also give the Commission the chance to use its considerable skills in creative accounting - somehow, regardless of the number of sweeteners on offer, package agreements never manage to push spending above the legal limits.

Despite the crisis over beef, Yates was able to break the mould last year by refusing to deprive himself of sleep. As the Union starts on the next reform of the CAP, everyone will be hoping that other presidencies will be as sensible.