CAP Reform vs WTO: Crop Diversification or Crop Rotation? : Legal opinion prepared by Dr. Christian Häberli at the request of APRODEV, the Association of World Council of Churches related Development Organisations in Europe

The European Commission’s proposals for the Legislative Framework of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the period 2014-2020 include, inter alia, the introduction of a “strong greening component”. For the first time, all EU farmers in receipt of support are to “go beyond the requirements of cross compliance and deliver environmental and climate benefits as part of their everyday activities crop diversification as a contribution to all EU farmers in receipt of support go beyond the requirements of cross compliance and deliver environmental and climate benefits as part of their everyday activities.” In a legal opinion prepared at the request of APRODEV, the Association of World Council of Churches related Development Organisations in Europe (www.aprodev.eu), Christian Häberli examines the WTO implications of this proposal, as compared with an alternative proposal to rather link direct payments to crop rotation. The conclusions are twofold: 1. Crop rotation is at least as likely to be found Green Box-compatible as crop diversification. Moreover, it will be more difficult to argue that crop diversification is “not more than minimally production-distorting” because it entails for most farmers less cost and work. 2. Even if (either of the two cropping schemes) were to be found “amber”, the EU would not have to relinquish this conditionality. This is because the direct payments involved would in all likelihood not, together with the other price support instruments, exceed the amount available under the presently scheduled maximum.

Proposals for Specific Activities of the Basic Mandate and Priority Action Projects, 2nd round 2005: Documentation for the ESAPP Advisory Board Meeting of June 15th, 2005

Budget frame-figures for 2nd half 2005; priority listing of proposals for PAP 2nd round 2005; evaluation sheets of approved, revised and rejected proposals for Specific Activities of the BM and PAP.

Annual Planning for the Basic Mandate and Proposals for Priority Action Projects, 1st round 2005

Budget frame-figures for 2005; annual planning for the BM 2005; priority listing of proposals for PAP 2005; evaluation sheets of approved, postponed and rejected proposals for the BM and PAP.

Proposals for Priority Action Projects, second round 2004

Budget frame-figures for 2nd half of 2004; priority listing of proposals for PAP 2nd round 2004; evaluation sheets of approved, revised and rejected proposals for PAP.

Who cares about my feature request?

Previous studies on issue tracking systems for open source software (OSS) focused mainly on requests for bug fixes. However, requests to add a new feature or an improvement to an OSS project are often also made in an issue tracking system. These inquiries are particularly important because they determine the further development of the software. This study examines if there is any difference between requests of the IBM developer community and other sources in terms of the likelihood of successful implementation. Our study consists of a case study of the issue tracking system BugZilla in the Eclipse integrated development environment (IDE). Our hypothesis, which was that feature requests from outsiders have less chances of being implemented, than feature requests from IBM developers, was confirmed.