Cresson, Mrs. E.

Archive of European Integration

- nh//6a'YC
European Communities
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
Wbrking Documents
1980 - l98l
14 October I98O DOCUMENT L-489/8O
REPORT
drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture
on the proposal from the Commission of the European
Communities to the Council (Doc. L-348/8O) for a
Directive on the development of agriculture in the
French overseas departments
Rapporteur: Mrs E CRESSON
English Edition PE 67.Ll6/fin.
I;
By letter of 28 July 1980 the Preeident of the Council requested
the European Parliament to deliver an opinion on the proposal from the
Commission of the European Cbmmunities to the council for a directive on
the development of agricul-ture in the French overseas departments.
On 27 August L98O the President of the European Parliament referred
this proposal to the Committee on Agriculture as the committee responsible
and to the Commirttee on Budgets and the Committee on Development and
Cooperation fc lheir opinions.
On 24 September 1980 the Committee on Agriculture appointed
Mrs Cresson rapporteur.
On 29 September 1980 the Council requested the European Parliament
to consider this pro5rcsal by urgent procedure pursuant to Rule 14 of its
Ru1es of Procedure.
Ttre Conmittee on Agriculture considered this proposal at its meeting
of 13 October I98O and at the same meeting adopted the motion for a
resolution and the explanatory statement by 21 votes to none with 5
ab#ntions.
Present: Sir Henry P1umb, chairman; Mr Frllh, vice-chairma0t
Mrs Cresaon, rapporteur; Mr Batter'sby, Mr Bocklet, Mrs Castle, Mr Clinton,
ltr oollesel1i, Mr curry, Mr Dalsass, Mr Fanton (deputizing for Mrs Buchou),
Mr Gautier, Mr Helms, Mr Hord, Mr Howell (deputizing for Mr Provan):
Mr Josselin (deputizing for lilr Gatto), Mr Kavanagh (deputizing for
Mr Llmge), !1r Kirk, Mr McCartin (deputizing for Mr Tolman), Mr Maffre-Baug/e,
Mr Maher, Mrs Martin (deprtizing for Mr Dalatte); l,!r d'Ormesson, Irtiss Q'uin,
Mr Sutra and Mr woltjer.
I1he opinion of the Ootrunittee on Budgets is 'attached to this retrnrt.
Ttre opinion of the Committee on DevelopmenL and CooPeration will be
published separatel-Y.
-3- PE 57. L]-6/fin.
CONTENTS
A. MOTION FOR A RESOLUTIONT
B. EKPLANATORY STATEMENT.
opinion of the Couunittee on BudgetE . . . ., . . .'. . 10
Paqe
5
6
-4- PE 67. LL5/fin.
AThe Committee on Agricutture hereby submits to thc EuroFan
Parliament the forlowing motion for a ro3orution togcthGr with
explanatory statement :
MOTION FOR A RESOLT,IIION
embodying the opinion of the European parliament on the proposal from
the Com.nission of the European Cornmunities to the Council for a
directire on the development of agriculture in the French overseas
departments
The European Parliament,
- having regard to the proposal from the Commission to the Council
(cou (80) 384 final),
- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 43 of
the Treaty setting up the EEc (Doc. 1-348/80),
- 
having regard to the report by the Cqunitt€e on AErLculture, the
opinron of the Committee on Budgets and the opinlon of the
Commrttee on Development and Cooperation (Doc.I-499/gO ),
approves the Commission proposal.
-5 PE 67.L15^in.
1.
B
EXPIAUATORY STATEMEIiIT
Until the judgement handed dpwn by the Court of ilustice on 10 October 1978
(knovm aE rHansen. judgement) the status (within the European
1
Cornmunityt) of the French overseas departmcnts, Guadeloupe, Martinique,
Guiana, ReuniOn and saint-Pierre-et-Miguelon, was hybrid and
ambiguoue.
Until that juclgement these departments were Eometimes equated wlth
metropolitan France, and, as such, placed on the same fooEing as the
Member States with regard to the matterE covered by Article 227 (2)
of thc EEC Treaty; in other cases theyrwere assimilated to the overscas
territories of the Member states (ocT)- whose status is laid down in
Articlee 131 to L37, 227 (3) lnncx rV to the EEc Treaty and the
Implementing Convention on the Association of these countrieg wlth
the cornmunity.
Eow6ver, since the .Hansent judgement relations between the overseas
departments and the Community have been clarified. The Court ruled
that all the provLsions of the EEC Treaty and of gecondary Community
legislation should apply fully to the ovcrEoas departments.
That is the background to the Commlesioprs proposal whose purpose is to
replace measures under the EDF (European Develotrxnent Fund which
finances economic development proJects for ACP States associated
with the Community and for the overseas countries and territorieE)
by action under the EAGGF - Guidance section - which finances
agricultural structural projects in the Community. Ehe overEreas
dcpartmenta are thus now covered by thc acneral arrangements applieable
in the CommunitY.
4. The weakness of the economy of the
apparent. This is due:
- to their PoPulation structure,
overseas departments is immediately
- to the fact that their service sector is targe in relation to their
production activities: 75% of GDP in l.[artinique and R6union,
- to the fact that their primary Eector is based, as in many Third World
countries, on a few insufficiently diversified agricultural products
(bananas, sugar cane, etc.),
- to their Iarge trade deficit: exports cover only lO% of imports in
Guyana, 2V/" in R6union-
5. There is very litt1e diversity in agriculture prodrd,ion3. ,og.r o.n. i"
the main resource of Martinique, Guadeloupe and Reunion and it is a
souree of rum as well as sugar.
I
I
lt
I
I
,t
2.
3.
1r" os. g4g - r ftre
2orrar"a"" countries
3see pE 65.949, p.
situation of the French
and territories
2s ff
- 
b-
overseas departnents. (FODs)
II
I
I
t
l
I
I
I
I
I
pE 67 .LL6/ f,Ln.
,1
Bananls are Particularly irnportant for Guadeloupe and Martinique
becarise these two iElands supply a large Part of the French marlcet.
ltartinique also Produces pineapple but this product eneounters
competition from other states e6pecially the fvory Coagt. The
Community therefore grants production aid to tinned plneapple froo
1Martlnique-.
Aubengines are also an lmportant resource for these two depart'mcnts
but they are handicapped by distance f.nvolving high transport coets)
ln conrpeting with aubergines produced in the Cornmunity or in Spain
and fsrael. lfhe CommiEEion accordingly subuitted to the Councll
a propo8al for a Regulation establiahing a Eystem of,raid for the
marketing of aubergines grown in the French Antilleso which theo
European ParlLarnent approved at its sitting of 16 November LgTg'.
The Council has sti.ll not taken a decision on this lrroPosal.
Rice is an essential basic foodstuff for the population of Reunion and
since I ,fanuary 1978 Reunion has enjo],Bd a slncial system of exemption
from import levies; imports also benefit from the production subsidy
on rice gro$rn in the community.,1rhls delnrtncnt also produees geranium
and vetiver .(Bourbon eEsences) for export but thcre is strong competLtion.
fronr China, Eglpt and Haiti.
Gulana produces tropical timber for export.
Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon constLtuteE an exception in that thls
department is sparsely populated and Lts cconomic re8ources are derived
primarily from fishing. It is moreover not affectcd by thie prolnaal
for a dlrective.
6. Since agriculture in the FODs is clearly backward in relation to that
in other regJ.ons of the Comrnunlty and since Directive 72/L59/EEC on the
modernisation of farms applies only partially to the situation of the
fODs, the Coffirission ie of the opinion that a special plurlannual progranme
should be Providcd for the FODs.
lnegulation (EEC) No 525/77 - o.J. No L73 of 2L.03 .L977, p. 462ro.. l-276/?9 and Doc. 1-468/79 - RaPPorteurs Mr caillavet
3o.r. No c3o9 of L0.L2.Lglg, P. 68
PE 67.LL6/tin.
l1
r.
7. trhe purpose of this programme is to assist the development of
agriculture in the FODs bY means of
a) collective irrigation operations
b) improvement of the agricultural infrastructure'
c) improvement of the soil, protection against fLooding and
other Protection work,
d) reforestation operations and the improvement of neglected forests
includlng the establishment of wind-breaks and forest roads,
e) measures to cncourage cattle-rearing and eultivation of
greater varietY of croPs-
g. The whole progrrmme which is to last 5 years, will cost- 2ll mEltra. The
EAGGF is to cover 50% of the expense incurred in financing
activities under points d, c, d and e) and 4@A of the expenditure
committed to finance point b), in total 96.5 mEuA. This proportion
accords with the council's eonsenEug that infrastrarcture financing
must not exceed the share of the ERDF, i.e. exactly 4096'
9. The expenditure breaks down as follolvs:
Ln
Projects Cost of Project EAGGF expenditure
Irrigation
Agriculture
infrastructure
Improvements of soils
and paeture-land
ReforeEtation and
improvement of acceas
to foreets
Guidance of Production
31
90
47
9
34
15.5
36.O
23.5
4.5
17.0
TOTAL 211 96.5
ll
i
I
i
i
I
I
ti
i
rl
I
i
I
I
,,t
,i
lrt
l,r
Ii
i
:
I
,l
I
10. It will be noted that the communLty already
when Martinique and Guadeloupe were ravaged
'Frederick'i orl that occasion the EAGGr was
their agriculturel.
lDo". L-43O/7g - Rapporteur: Sir Henry Plumb.
camc to the aid of thc FODs
by hurricanes 'David' and
uscd to reconstitute
.B PE 67 .tt6 /fLn.
11. sLnce the tHanEen'iudgement the EDF cannot continue to finance
etructural projects in the FODE in L980. Ihe Committee on
Agriculture therefore conEiderE that the commiesion.s proposal
ghould be approved. with this cmmunity aid France wilr be abre
to irnprove the agricultural structures of its overaeas departro nta
and diversify production; thiE is necesEary in order to enable
the FODs to earn more revenue from agricultgre.
12. Of course, the Committee on Agricultgre knors that this Community
aid on, its o$rn cannot solve the problems of imbalance in
agricultural production in the FODs and the economic imbalance
resulting from it. Aid will have no effect unless there is:
- strict monitoring of the utilization of EAGGF and ERDF
appropriations, which must be used to reduce the currently
exceseive disparitiee in income, particularly by vigorous
efforts to create local jobs in agriculture and fisheries,
- 
genuine agricultural reform, aiming to increase.the area
available for the groring of food products, particularly by
enforcing the legislation on uncultivated or insufficiently
cultivated Iand, so aa to develop the food crops essential to
the population of the IODs,
- application of the safeguard clause enabling FOD agricultural
produetion to be protected in the event of market diEturbance.
- 9- pE 62.115/fin,
iI
t
t
+
I
1.
2.
OPINION OF THE COI{MITTEE ON BI'DGETS
Letter from the chairman of the committee to Sir Henry plumb,
chairman of the Comrnittee on Agrieulture
Strasbourg, 14 October 1980
Subiect: Opinion of the @mmittee on Budgets on a proposal for
a Council Directive on the development of agriculture
in the French overseas departments
(Doc. COM(8O) 384 finat)
Dear Sir Henry,
At its meeting of 24 and 25 September 1980 the Conunittee on Budgets
considered the above proposal for a Council directive. l
This proposal raises a number of fundamental questions.
By earmarking funds from the general budget of the @nununjt ies to
finance agriculturar development measures hitherto covered by the
European Development Fund this proposal demonstrates once again the
Council'g inconsistency in opposing the budgetization of the DF;
On several occasions Parliament ahd the @mmittee oh Budgets have
opposed the inclusion of financial ceilings in regulations and ccrtain
procedures of the Management Corunittee raising the possibility of
appeal to the Council.
Although the basic reguration, 729no, on the financing of the common
agricultural policlr r€fers merely to the 'estimated total cost,, which
does not necessarily entail ceilings on individual measures, Article 5 (1)
of the present proposal strictly limits the budgetary implications of the
programme. Article 8 makes the Fund Committee responsible for decigione
on aid from the Fund, and for the detailed rules for implementation.
3. Article 7 of the proposal states that 'the Corunission sha1l, by agree-
ment with the French Republic, determine the manner in which it shal1
be kept informed of the progress of the progranune.' A provision of
this nature in a directive is without precedent. The Corunittee on
Budgets would point out that the overseas departments are an integral
part of the French Republic. Such discrimination between Member States
must be eschewed;
4. Finally, the committee on Budgets r,ould draw your attention to the
t
-Pr.gBengs Mr Lange, Chairman; l,lr Notenboon and lrlr Splnelli, Viee-Chairmen;It{r Adonnino, Mr Aigner, t"Ir Bailtot, Mrs Boeerup,'I'tr Forth,Mrs Hoff, I.lr Howell, Mr Langes, Mr lr{otchane, !4r Newton Dunn,l,!r Orlandi, Ir{r Simonnet and l-Ir John Mark Taylor
I
.
I
li
1,t
I'i
i
l,l
rl
irl
I
-10- PE 67.LL6/fin.
I
i
!
rrl
I
I
I
{
t"
fact that the object, of this proposal is to establish, by a directive
addressed to a single Member State, a commen measure with substantial
financial implications, and representing a major departure from the
terms and timits set by Directive 72/L59, in particular Articles 14
and 18 thereof, on the modernization of farms.
In theee circumstances, the Conwrittee on Budgets does not object to
the principte of using appropriations from the overall endowment of.the
EAGGF Guidance Section to finance a common measure to aesist the French
overseaa departrrents. However, it can deliver a favor:rable opinion only
if the Comnission undertakes to introduce without delay a proPosal revis-
ing the procedures of the Management Comnittee defining its functions as
purely advisory, and to amend Art,icle 5 of the proposal for a directive
making the figures mentioned purely indicative in nature'
Yours sincerely,
Erwin LANGE
-1I-- PE 67.LL5/fin.
r1{
I
I
I
ti
11
ItI
J
I'l
,l
i
i
i
i
]
{
t
iti
tt
rl
St'
,Itr li
t'
d'
I
,l
!
I
{i


Report drawn up on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture on the proposal from the Commission of the European Communities to the Council (Doc. 1-348/80) for a Directive on the development of agriculture in the French overseas departments. European Parliament Working Documents 1980-1981, Document 1-0489/80, 14 October 1980

- nh//6a'YCEuropean CommunitiesEUROPEAN PARLIAMENTWbrking Documents1980 - l98l14 October I98O DOCUMENT L-489/8OREPORTdrawn up on behalf of the Committee on Agricultureon the proposal from the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities to the Council (Doc. L-348/8O) for aDirective on the development of agriculture in theFrench overseas departmentsRapporteur: Mrs E CRESSONEnglish Edition PE 67.Ll6/fin.I;By letter of 28 July 1980 the Preeident of the Council requestedthe European Parliament to deliver an opinion on the proposal from theCommission of the European Cbmmunities to the council for a directive onthe development of agricul-ture in the French overseas departments.On 27 August L98O the President of the European Parliament referredthis proposal to the Committee on Agriculture as the committee responsibleand to the Commirttee on Budgets and the Committee on Development andCooperation fc lheir opinions.On 24 September 1980 the Committee on Agriculture appointedMrs Cresson rapporteur.On 29 September 1980 the Council requested the European Parliamentto consider this pro5rcsal by urgent procedure pursuant to Rule 14 of itsRu1es of Procedure.Ttre Conmittee on Agriculture considered this proposal at its meetingof 13 October I98O and at the same meeting adopted the motion for aresolution and the explanatory statement by 21 votes to none with 5ab#ntions.Present: Sir Henry P1umb, chairman; Mr Frllh, vice-chairma0tMrs Cresaon, rapporteur; Mr Batter'sby, Mr Bocklet, Mrs Castle, Mr Clinton,ltr oollesel1i, Mr curry, Mr Dalsass, Mr Fanton (deputizing for Mrs Buchou),Mr Gautier, Mr Helms, Mr Hord, Mr Howell (deputizing for Mr Provan):Mr Josselin (deputizing for lilr Gatto), Mr Kavanagh (deputizing forMr Llmge), !1r Kirk, Mr McCartin (deputizing for Mr Tolman), Mr Maffre-Baug/e,Mr Maher, Mrs Martin (deprtizing for Mr Dalatte); l,!r d'Ormesson, Irtiss Q'uin,Mr Sutra and Mr woltjer.I1he opinion of the Ootrunittee on Budgets is 'attached to this retrnrt.Ttre opinion of the Committee on DevelopmenL and CooPeration will bepublished separatel-Y.-3- PE 57. L]-6/fin.CONTENTSA. MOTION FOR A RESOLUTIONTB. EKPLANATORY STATEMENT.opinion of the Couunittee on BudgetE . . . ., . . .'. . 10Paqe56-4- PE 67. LL5/fin.AThe Committee on Agricutture hereby submits to thc EuroFanParliament the forlowing motion for a ro3orution togcthGr withexplanatory statement :MOTION FOR A RESOLT,IIIONembodying the opinion of the European parliament on the proposal fromthe Com.nission of the European Cornmunities to the Council for adirectire on the development of agriculture in the French overseasdepartmentsThe European Parliament,- having regard to the proposal from the Commission to the Council(cou (80) 384 final),- having been consulted by the Council pursuant to Article 43 ofthe Treaty setting up the EEc (Doc. 1-348/80),- having regard to the report by the Cqunitt€e on AErLculture, theopinron of the Committee on Budgets and the opinlon of theCommrttee on Development and Cooperation (Doc.I-499/gO ),approves the Commission proposal.-5 PE 67.L15^in.1.BEXPIAUATORY STATEMEIiITUntil the judgement handed dpwn by the Court of ilustice on 10 October 1978(knovm aE rHansen. judgement) the status (within the European1Cornmunityt) of the French overseas departmcnts, Guadeloupe, Martinique,Guiana, ReuniOn and saint-Pierre-et-Miguelon, was hybrid andambiguoue.Until that juclgement these departments were Eometimes equated wlthmetropolitan France, and, as such, placed on the same fooEing as theMember States with regard to the matterE covered by Article 227 (2)of thc EEC Treaty; in other cases theyrwere assimilated to the overscasterritories of the Member states (ocT)- whose status is laid down inArticlee 131 to L37, 227 (3) lnncx rV to the EEc Treaty and theImplementing Convention on the Association of these countrieg wlththe cornmunity.Eow6ver, since the .Hansent judgement relations between the overseasdepartments and the Community have been clarified. The Court ruledthat all the provLsions of the EEC Treaty and of gecondary Communitylegislation should apply fully to the ovcrEoas departments.That is the background to the Commlesioprs proposal whose purpose is toreplace measures under the EDF (European Develotrxnent Fund whichfinances economic development proJects for ACP States associatedwith the Community and for the overseas countries and territorieE)by action under the EAGGF - Guidance section - which financesagricultural structural projects in the Community. Ehe overEreasdcpartmenta are thus now covered by thc acneral arrangements applieablein the CommunitY.4. The weakness of the economy of theapparent. This is due:- to their PoPulation structure,overseas departments is immediately- to the fact that their service sector is targe in relation to theirproduction activities: 75% of GDP in l.[artinique and R6union,- to the fact that their primary Eector is based, as in many Third Worldcountries, on a few insufficiently diversified agricultural products(bananas, sugar cane, etc.),- to their Iarge trade deficit: exports cover only lO% of imports inGuyana, 2V/" in R6union-5. There is very litt1e diversity in agriculture prodrd,ion3. ,og.r o.n. i"the main resource of Martinique, Guadeloupe and Reunion and it is asouree of rum as well as sugar.IIltII,t2.3.1r" os. g4g - r ftre2orrar"a"" countries3see pE 65.949, p.situation of the Frenchand territories2s ff- b-overseas departnents. (FODs)IIIItlIIIIIpE 67 .LL6/ f,Ln.,1Bananls are Particularly irnportant for Guadeloupe and Martiniquebecarise these two iElands supply a large Part of the French marlcet.ltartinique also Produces pineapple but this product eneounterscompetition from other states e6pecially the fvory Coagt. TheCommunity therefore grants production aid to tinned plneapple froo1Martlnique-.Aubengines are also an lmportant resource for these two depart'mcntsbut they are handicapped by distance f.nvolving high transport coets)ln conrpeting with aubergines produced in the Cornmunity or in Spainand fsrael. lfhe CommiEEion accordingly subuitted to the Counclla propo8al for a Regulation establiahing a Eystem of,raid for themarketing of aubergines grown in the French Antilleso which theoEuropean ParlLarnent approved at its sitting of 16 November LgTg'.The Council has sti.ll not taken a decision on this lrroPosal.Rice is an essential basic foodstuff for the population of Reunion andsince I ,fanuary 1978 Reunion has enjo],Bd a slncial system of exemptionfrom import levies; imports also benefit from the production subsidyon rice gro$rn in the community.,1rhls delnrtncnt also produees geraniumand vetiver .(Bourbon eEsences) for export but thcre is strong competLtion.fronr China, Eglpt and Haiti.Gulana produces tropical timber for export.Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon constLtuteE an exception in that thlsdepartment is sparsely populated and Lts cconomic re8ources are derivedprimarily from fishing. It is moreover not affectcd by thie prolnaalfor a dlrective.6. Since agriculture in the FODs is clearly backward in relation to thatin other regJ.ons of the Comrnunlty and since Directive 72/L59/EEC on themodernisation of farms applies only partially to the situation of thefODs, the Coffirission ie of the opinion that a special plurlannual progranmeshould be Providcd for the FODs.lnegulation (EEC) No 525/77 - o.J. No L73 of 2L.03 .L977, p. 462ro.. l-276/?9 and Doc. 1-468/79 - RaPPorteurs Mr caillavet3o.r. No c3o9 of L0.L2.Lglg, P. 68PE 67.LL6/tin.l1r.7. trhe purpose of this programme is to assist the development ofagriculture in the FODs bY means ofa) collective irrigation operationsb) improvement of the agricultural infrastructure'c) improvement of the soil, protection against fLooding andother Protection work,d) reforestation operations and the improvement of neglected forestsincludlng the establishment of wind-breaks and forest roads,e) measures to cncourage cattle-rearing and eultivation ofgreater varietY of croPs-g. The whole progrrmme which is to last 5 years, will cost- 2ll mEltra. TheEAGGF is to cover 50% of the expense incurred in financingactivities under points d, c, d and e) and 4@A of the expenditurecommitted to finance point b), in total 96.5 mEuA. This proportionaccords with the council's eonsenEug that infrastrarcture financingmust not exceed the share of the ERDF, i.e. exactly 4096'9. The expenditure breaks down as follolvs:LnProjects Cost of Project EAGGF expenditureIrrigationAgricultureinfrastructureImprovements of soilsand paeture-landReforeEtation andimprovement of acceasto foreetsGuidance of Production31904793415.536.O23.54.517.0TOTAL 211 96.5lliIiiIItiirlIiII,,t,ilrtl,rIii:I,lI10. It will be noted that the communLty alreadywhen Martinique and Guadeloupe were ravaged'Frederick'i orl that occasion the EAGGr wastheir agriculturel.lDo". L-43O/7g - Rapporteur: Sir Henry Plumb.camc to the aid of thc FODsby hurricanes 'David' anduscd to reconstitute.B PE 67 .tt6 /fLn.11. sLnce the tHanEen'iudgement the EDF cannot continue to financeetructural projects in the FODE in L980. Ihe Committee onAgriculture therefore conEiderE that the commiesion.s proposalghould be approved. with this cmmunity aid France wilr be abreto irnprove the agricultural structures of its overaeas departro ntaand diversify production; thiE is necesEary in order to enablethe FODs to earn more revenue from agricultgre.12. Of course, the Committee on Agricultgre knors that this Communityaid on, its o$rn cannot solve the problems of imbalance inagricultural production in the FODs and the economic imbalanceresulting from it. Aid will have no effect unless there is:- strict monitoring of the utilization of EAGGF and ERDFappropriations, which must be used to reduce the currentlyexceseive disparitiee in income, particularly by vigorousefforts to create local jobs in agriculture and fisheries,- genuine agricultural reform, aiming to increase.the areaavailable for the groring of food products, particularly byenforcing the legislation on uncultivated or insufficientlycultivated Iand, so aa to develop the food crops essential tothe population of the IODs,- application of the safeguard clause enabling FOD agriculturalproduetion to be protected in the event of market diEturbance.- 9- pE 62.115/fin,iItt+I1.2.OPINION OF THE COI{MITTEE ON BI'DGETSLetter from the chairman of the committee to Sir Henry plumb,chairman of the Comrnittee on AgrieultureStrasbourg, 14 October 1980Subiect: Opinion of the @mmittee on Budgets on a proposal fora Council Directive on the development of agriculturein the French overseas departments(Doc. COM(8O) 384 finat)Dear Sir Henry,At its meeting of 24 and 25 September 1980 the Conunittee on Budgetsconsidered the above proposal for a Council directive. lThis proposal raises a number of fundamental questions.By earmarking funds from the general budget of the @nununjt ies tofinance agriculturar development measures hitherto covered by theEuropean Development Fund this proposal demonstrates once again theCouncil'g inconsistency in opposing the budgetization of the DF;On several occasions Parliament ahd the @mmittee oh Budgets haveopposed the inclusion of financial ceilings in regulations and ccrtainprocedures of the Management Corunittee raising the possibility ofappeal to the Council.Although the basic reguration, 729no, on the financing of the commonagricultural policlr r€fers merely to the 'estimated total cost,, whichdoes not necessarily entail ceilings on individual measures, Article 5 (1)of the present proposal strictly limits the budgetary implications of theprogramme. Article 8 makes the Fund Committee responsible for decigioneon aid from the Fund, and for the detailed rules for implementation.3. Article 7 of the proposal states that 'the Corunission sha1l, by agree-ment with the French Republic, determine the manner in which it shal1be kept informed of the progress of the progranune.' A provision ofthis nature in a directive is without precedent. The Corunittee onBudgets would point out that the overseas departments are an integralpart of the French Republic. Such discrimination between Member Statesmust be eschewed;4. Finally, the committee on Budgets r,ould draw your attention to thet-Pr.gBengs Mr Lange, Chairman; l,lr Notenboon and lrlr Splnelli, Viee-Chairmen;It{r Adonnino, Mr Aigner, t"Ir Bailtot, Mrs Boeerup,'I'tr Forth,Mrs Hoff, I.lr Howell, Mr Langes, Mr lr{otchane, !4r Newton Dunn,l,!r Orlandi, Ir{r Simonnet and l-Ir John Mark TaylorI.Ili1,tI'iil,lrlirlI-10- PE 67.LL6/fin.Ii!rrlIII{t"fact that the object, of this proposal is to establish, by a directiveaddressed to a single Member State, a commen measure with substantialfinancial implications, and representing a major departure from theterms and timits set by Directive 72/L59, in particular Articles 14and 18 thereof, on the modernization of farms.In theee circumstances, the Conwrittee on Budgets does not object tothe principte of using appropriations from the overall endowment of.theEAGGF Guidance Section to finance a common measure to aesist the Frenchoverseaa departrrents. However, it can deliver a favor:rable opinion onlyif the Comnission undertakes to introduce without delay a proPosal revis-ing the procedures of the Management Comnittee defining its functions aspurely advisory, and to amend Art,icle 5 of the proposal for a directivemaking the figures mentioned purely indicative in nature'Yours sincerely,Erwin LANGE-1I-- PE 67.LL5/fin.r1{IIIti11ItIJI'l,liiii]{titittrlSt',Itr lit'd'I,l!I{i

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Archive of European Integration

Archive of European Integration