Concluding notes from the ELO Seminar held on 27-28 May, 2004, in Essex and

Norfolk

The following are the notes I used for the concluding remarks I was asked to make by
Mark Thomasin-Foster, CLA Vice President, Europe, who chaired a two day ELO
Seminar organised with CLA and representatives from the Czech Municipal and Private
Forest Owners Association (SVOL) and the Maltese Progressive Farmers Union, 27-28
May 2004.

They serve as an aide-memoire of what we, as seminar participants, got out of the
seminar, of value to CLA, ELO, the Czech and Maltese organisations and for future
contacts with organisations from the new member states.

Participants:

CLA: Mark Thomasin-Foster; Prof Allan Buckwell, Nick Way, Andrew Streeter (first
session), Hugh Van Cutsem (latter part of first day, evening discussion and second day),
Lord De Ramsey (speaker at dinner)

ELO: Dorin Pereu

SVOL: John Parish and Constantin Kinsky

Maltese Progressive Farmers Union: Joseph Farrugia and Andrew Camilleri

Concluding remarks (apart from thanks to MTF for organising the event with the help of
Dorin Pereu and the very kind hospitality of Andrew Streeter and Hugh van Cutsem)

• How quickly we get to know each other and how much we have in common,
especially in our philosophy about ownership rights. We have learnt from you
as well as you learning from us. Discovered that we have a range of
experience. Some countries give greater protection for ownership rights than
others. CLA’s experience probably in the middle of the range. Nevertheless,
Andrew Streeter gave us a graphic and heartfelt account of the problems and
injustices arising from compulsory purchase even in the UK
• Our first conclusion should not be that it is impossible to move forward with a
joint European lobby where our experience differs, but that it is essential to
keep lobbying at the European level to move the “centre of gravity” on policy
towards ownership rights. That is why the European Charter of Fundamental
Rights is worth having.
• We all believe that ownership rights are essential to deliver not only basic
foodstuffs, but also environmental services, added value food products.
Allan Buckwell gave us a tour of the CAP and agricultural policy from the
repeal of the Corn Laws through to yesterday evening. If it is possible to add
anything to AEB’s analysis, just to say that demographics of Europe 15 reflect
changes he described in UK. 10yrs ago would have been inconceivable for
EU to agree the CAP reform that was agreed last year. EU 15 also keen to
start the retreat from production support before the accession of the new 10.
Have also seen growing strength of the environmental movement in rest of
EU 15 too as well as UK, especially in north, but elsewhere too.
• So a key focus for policy decisions has moved to environmental policy and
the balance between regulation and contractual arrangements, between stick
and carrot. Many of these decisions taken on environmental policy are taken
at EU level.
• 2nd conclusion: Importance of lobbying, before member state governments
can express their preference for regulation, with a coordinated, pan-European
view, or at least one which is flexible to fit the circumstances of EU25. 3 rd
conclusion: One other conclusion from AEB’s session: Although CAP reform
is now to be implemented in member states, there are so many complications
and questions raised that we can expect EU to return to CAP reform in the
years to come. So ELO will be needed here too.
• 4th conclusion: Meanwhile, other organisations less sympathetic to our
concerns will lobby on the Rural Development Regulation, so as we are
involved in all aspects of land based business, ELO can and should lobby
here too. We have the voice we need. Very interesting talk form Sandy Greig
who raised important questions about the direction of forestry policy in one
member state, the boundary between forestry and agriculture, and the
balance between the carrot and the stick.
• 5th conclusion: Need to share our knowledge, and to use that knowledge to
lobby
• Andy Clements talk:
- Raised questions: which is the right approach: a top quality job on a limited
area, or a less good job on a wider area?
- Use of compulsory purchase : possibility of ELO championing cases in
ECHR and even ECJ that help our position
- Focus on outcomes and solutions. See some sign of this at EU level in so
far as CAP less monolithic and more flexible at national level to achieve
objectives.

6th conclusion: This move to focus on outcomes rather than mechanisms and to
leave the detail to member states does not mean we need ELO less. Even
where decisions are taken at member state level we need ELO to share
information and to improve our ability to lobby nationally.

Nick Way
28 May 2004

A0909096
NW