Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Rural Development and the “POSEI” Regime for European Islands: Between Remoteness, Subsidiarity and the “Delivery Model”

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

European islands and other remote territories areas have specific features and constraints and they thus require a targeted assistance at EU level. As a result, the EU has put in place numerous provisions that have been providing an invaluable support, particularly through its rural development policy and in its dedicated programme for agriculture in EU outermost regions. Currently, discussions for a reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are ongoing at the EU Parliament and Council. The new system proposed by the Commission legislative proposal submitted in June 2018 is based on the two key concepts of increased subsidiarity and the so-called “delivery model.” A crucial question is therefore what the impact of this reform could be, once approved, for agricultural activities in European islands and other remote regions for the future programming period (2021–2027). Our hypothesis is that the “delivery model” and subsidiarity complement each other: the new proposed CAP aims at being more subsidiary because, thanks to the result-based approach of the “delivery model,” the carrying out of performances at local level will be enhanced. This increased autonomy presents some challenges for insular and remote territories; however, it also presents huge opportunities in terms of political discretion in the choice of the best tools for the management of their own territory, as well as in terms of voice in EU negotiations. In sum, there is reason to believe that enhanced subsidiarity, coupled with the “delivery model,” would eventually help insular and remote territories to reduce the gap between Brussels and the most far-out territories of the EU

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Regulation (EU) No 228/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union, OJ L 78.

  2. Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, OJ L 193/1. Article 63(1) provides that “[w]here the Commission implements the budget under shared management, tasks relating to budget implementation shall be delegated to Member States. The Commission and Member States shall respect the principles of sound financial management, transparency and non-discrimination and shall ensure the visibility of the Union action when they manage Union funds. To that end, the Commission and Member States shall fulfil their respective control and audit obligations and assume the resulting responsibilities laid down in this Regulation.” Article 63(2) then states that “[w]hen executing tasks relating to budget implementation, Member States shall take all the necessary measures, including legislative, regulatory and administrative measures, to protect the financial interests of the Union.” On shared management in the context of EU administration, see Herwig, Rowe, and Türk (2011). On the different roles played by the Commission and Member States in the implementation of the budget, see Cipriani (2006). On shared management in the context of EU agriculture, see the fundamental Craig (2012: 79) et seq; Craig (2011: 81).

  3. In this part, the authors will draw extensively from Ferraris (2019).

  4. Steiner (1994: 49).

  5. Respectively, Article 4 TEU and Article 5(3) TEU.

  6. For an in-depth analysis on this debate, see Pimenova (2016).

  7. Cygan (2013: 169).

  8. Schout and Sleifer (2014: 5).

  9. Henkel (2002: 386).

  10. Grant et al (2013: 9).

  11. de Búrca (2006: 10).

  12. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions—The Principles of Subsidiarity and Proportionality: Strengthening their Role in the EU’s Policymaking, COM(2018) 703 final.

  13. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions “The Future of Food and Farming” COM(2017) 713 final.

  14. Cf. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Statistics_on_rural_areas_in_the_EU#Rural_development_2014.E2.80.932020 (last access 9 January 2020).

  15. For this part, contents are drawn again from Ferraris (2019: 855).

  16. For a reconstruction of the debate between central administered and local systems, see again Ferraris (2019: 855).

  17. It was argued that the programming period 2007–2013 was characterised by a piecemeal application of measures by the Member States and their Managing Authorities and by the lack of appropriate guidelines and training on their implementation. See Dwyer (2013: 36).

  18. According to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, these priorities are: knowledge transfer, improved competitiveness, innovation in products and processing, protection of biodiversity and landscapes, more efficient and sustainable use of water, energy and low-carbon technologies and tackling rural poverty and social exclusion.

  19. Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, Article 7.

  20. Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, Article 53.

  21. Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013, Article 42.

  22. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 807/2014 supplementing Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and introducing transitional provisions, OJ L 227; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 808/2014 laying down rules for the application of Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), OJ L 227.

  23. Tangermann and von Cramon-Taubadel (2013: 42).

  24. For a brief but complete historical background of these measures, see Bianchi (2012: 261–267).

  25. EU Commission—DG AGRI, “Evaluation of Measures for Agriculture Carried out for the Outermost Regions (POSEI) and the Smaller Aegean Islands” Final Report (2016). Available at: https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/7e21ac03-dbb8-11e6-ad7c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en (last access 20 September 2019).

  26. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions “The Future of Food and Farming” COM(2017) 713 final.

    In this paragraph, the authors will draw extensively (Ferraris 2019: 855).

  27. Commission Staff Working Document, Impact Assessment Accompanying the reform of the CAP, SWD(2018) 301 final.

  28. Proposal for a Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules on support for strategic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the Common agricultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans) and financed by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (CAP Plan Regulation), COM(2018) 392 final. The proposed reform of the CAP for the period 2021–2027 is completed by: Proposal for a Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulations (EU) No 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products, (EU) No 1151/2012 on quality schemes for agricultural products and foodstuffs, (EU) No 251/2014 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of aromatised wine products, (EU) No 228/2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in the outermost regions of the Union and (EU) No 229/2013 laying down specific measures for agriculture in favour of the smaller Aegean islands, COM(2018) 394 final; and the Proposal for a Regulation (EU) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy, COM(2018) 393.

  29. Indeed, the result-based approach enshrined in the concept of “delivery model” is not new to EU law, but already existed—mutated mutandis—in other sectors. For its consideration from the perspective of eco-system services, cf. Dwyer (2013: 29).

  30. As the official CAP glossary clarifies, “The Common Agricultural Policy comprises two ‘pillars.’ The first pillar is support to farmersʼ incomes. This support is provided in the form of direct payments and market measures and is entirely financed from the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. The second pillar is the support provided for the development of rural areas. This support takes the form of Rural Development programmes and is co-financed from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.” cf. https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/glossary_en#glossary-p (last access 20 September 2019).

  31. Respectively, Proposal for a CAP Plan Regulation, Article 5; Article 6; and Articles 64 to 72.

  32. Mantino (2018).

References

  • Bianchi, Daniele. 2012. La politique agricole commune (PAC): Précis de droit agricole européen. Bruxelles: Éditions Bruylant.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cipriani, Gabriele. 2006. The Responsibility for Implementing the Community Budget. CEPS Working Document No 247. https://www.ceps.eu/publications/responsibility-implementing-community-budget. Accessed 15 September 2018.

  • Craig, Paul. 2011. Shared Administration and Networks: Global and EU Perspectives. In Values in Global Administrative Law, ed. Gordon Anthony, Jean-Bernard Auby, John Morrison, and Tom Zwart. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Paul. 2012. EU Administrative Law. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cygan, Adam. 2013. Regional Governance, Subsidiarity and Accountability Within the EU Multi-level Polity. European Public Law 19: 161.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Búrca, Gráinne. 2006. Reappraising Subsidiarity’s Significance after Amsterdam. Harvard Jean Monnet Working Paper No 7/99. https://jeanmonnetprogram.org/archive/papers/99/990702.html. Accessed 9 January 2020.

  • Dwyer, Janet. 2013. Transformation for Sustainable Agriculture: What Role for the Second Pillar of the CAP? Bio-Based and Applied Economics 2 (1): 29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraris, Luchino. 2019. The 2021–2027 EU Rural Development Policy: A New Paradigm of Shared Management? European Law Review 44 (6): 855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, Charles et al. 2013. How to Build a Modern European Union. CER Report 2013. https://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/rp_119.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2019.

  • Henkel, Cristoph. 2002. The Allocation of Powers in the European Union: A Closer Look at the Principle of Subsidiarity. Berkeley Journal of International Law 20 (2): 359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, Herwig C.H., Gerard Rowe, and Alexander Türk. 2011. Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union. Oxford: OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mantino, Francesco. 2108. Le politiche di sviluppo rurale 2014–2020: un’analisi dei fattori che ne condizionano l’attuazione in Europa. Agriregionieuropa 14.52. https://agriregionieuropa.univpm.it/en/node/10029 Accessed 20 September 2019.

  • Pimenova, Oxana. 2016. Subsidiarity as a ‘Regulation Principle’ in the EU. The Theory and Practice of Legislation 4 (3): 381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schout, Adrian, and JaapSleifer Sleifer. 2014. A Public Administration Take on Legitimacy: Better Regulation as Multilevel Governance Challenge. In The Role of “Experts” in International Decision-Making or Irrelevant, ed. Monika Ambrus et al. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Josephine. 1994. Subsidiarity under the Maastricht Treaty. In Legal Issues of the Maastricht Treaty, ed. David O’Keeffe and Patrick M. Twomey. Chancery Editing: Chancery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tangermann, Stefan and von Cramon-Taubadel, Stefan, 2013. Agricultural Policy in the European Union: An Overview. Department fürAgrarökonomie und RuraleEntwicklungUniversitätGöttingen Research Paper. https://www.unigoettingen.de/de/document/download/468756dd26772ba40606fb7034c7995d.pdf/Diskussionsbeitrag-1302.pdf. Accessed 20 September 2019.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. European Commission - Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels, Belgium

    Luchino Ferraris & Gianluca Frinzi

Authors
  1. Luchino Ferraris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gianluca Frinzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luchino Ferraris.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This contribution represents solely the views of their authors and cannot in any circumstances be regarded as the official position of the European Commission.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ferraris, L., Frinzi, G. Rural Development and the “POSEI” Regime for European Islands: Between Remoteness, Subsidiarity and the “Delivery Model”. Liverpool Law Rev 42, 87–98 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-020-09264-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10991-020-09264-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation