5.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/18

1.1

Considerable rural diversity is a feature of the European Union. Rural development policy has to reflect and safeguard that diversity, which also encompasses rural areas' social structure and environment. A living countryside benefits not only the rural population, but also society as a whole.

1.2

In the EU, a rural development policy is slowly being established which represents more than simply an extension of agricultural policy. The rural economy needs to branch out into other activities in addition to food production, given the dwindling economic importance of farming in many rural areas. That is the only way to keep Europe's rural areas alive, from an environmental, economic and social point of view. Three objectives have to be met: a) rural populations have to be given long-term prospects by increasing the number of jobs, expanding infrastructure and providing a wider variety of employment; b) agricultural production has to become more consumer-focused rather than producer-focused, as was the case in the past; c) the quality of food has to be improved and there has to be better protection for nature, the countryside, the environment and water.

1.3

A realistic approach is also important. This means being aware of the role played by European agriculture in maintaining the regions, as well as the regional impact if that role were to disappear owing to the application of strictly economic criteria to agricultural and forestry activities. Rural development policy alone therefore cannot resolve all the difficulties faced by the EU's rural areas. In some places, the issues go beyond the Regulation's scope and will require joint efforts from a number of different funds. Coordination — at regional level — between rural development policy and regional policy (2) is thereby essential. However, the CoR calls for additional proposals for the proofing of other EU and national policies to ensure greater complementarity with EU and national rural development policies. Likewise, the EAFRD should be proofed against other policies to ensure mutually beneficial objectives.

1.4

The 2003 Salzburg conference gave a new and powerful boost to rural development policy. The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact that the Salzburg conclusions have been substantially incorporated into the Regulation. The application of the policy to all regions of the EU, together with the simplification of the implementation of the policy and the financial arrangements are key positive aspects. The Committee of the Regions also gives its support to the partnership arrangements defined in Article 6 of the Regulation. It is very important to involve local and regional authorities in all stages of rural development policy. This is the best way of ensuring that, in the regions concerned, measures are implemented which bring about a higher level of social and economic cohesion within the individual regions concerned, and between these regions and surrounding regions.

1.5

The following comments on the regulation should be seen in this context. The main priority is to establish a genuine rural development policy.

2.1

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact that the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Treaty Article 159, earmarks a substantial portion of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for regions covered by the new ‘convergence’ objective.

2.2

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the proposed new legislative measures in respect of rural development policy, but deplores the fact that, in the preamble to the Regulation, rural development policy is viewed initially as a policy which complements and accompanies market and income support policies, rather than being recognised as an autonomous policy. A related issue in this context is the question of whether adequate budgetary resources are available to pursue an ambitious rural development policy.

2.3

The Committee of the Regions endorses the benefit of a strategic approach to rural development. It is important to prevent any fragmentation of resources. Questions do, however, have to be asked with regard to the added value of a European strategy. The Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies and the Salzburg conclusions already provide an adequate framework at EU level. It is up to the Member States, the regions and local authorities to flesh out the implications of this framework in respect of rural areas and rural development policy. This is the only way to tackle the conflicting objectives of, on the one hand, securing a more strategic approach to rural development policy at EU level and, on the other hand, maintaining adequate flexibility at the national, local and regional levels.

2.4

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the proposal that ensures Member States must consult with their regional and local authorities. However, the Committee of the Regions expresses its concern over the time given to the Member States to draw up the national strategy plans and rural development programmes. The Committee of the Regions also deplores the fact that the national strategy plans must be submitted before the rural development programmes can be sent to the European Commission since these two measures are closely connected. In this context, the Committee of the Regions proposes that the same procedure be adopted as is applied in the case of regional policy; in the latter context Member States may submit the strategic framework together with the operational programmes (Recommendation 1)

2.5

In the longer term, the aim should be to introduce a single regional fund, thereby removing the distinction between funding for regional development policy and funding for regional policy. For each region, the aim would be to address the opportunities and problems of the whole region on the basis of a single cohesive strategy covering the whole territory of the region.

2.6

Rural development policy is formulated on the basis of one or more rural development programmes. On the basis of an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the region and/or Member State concerned, the rural development programme introduces measures to address the needs of the region and/or Member State concerned. This action may conflict with the provisions of Article 16 of the Regulation, which stipulates a minimum Community financial contribution in respect of each of the priority objectives (15 % in the case of axes I and III and 25 % in respect of axis II). The Committee of the Regions endorses the need for balance in expenditure on regional development policy. From this perspective, it is advisable above all in the case of the third priority objective — namely encouraging diversification in the economies of rural areas — to prescribe a minimum contribution. Appraisals of the various regional development programmes covering the period 2002-2006 did indeed indicate that this very component of regional development policy was less well developed. The appraisal of strengths and weaknesses carried out in connection with the abovementioned programmes must, however, also be a factor in determining how resources are to be distributed between the various priority objectives. The CoR therefore urges that the option of diverging from the percentages stipulated in Article 16 be taken up in cases where such a course of action is adequately justified on the grounds of the abovementioned analyses (Recommendation 3).

2.7

It is also imperative that the distribution of resources does not impede those projects which, taken overall, fall within the scope of the Regulation but nonetheless go beyond the scope of one individual priority objective. The stipulation in Article 71(6) that a specific action may only be financed under one priority axis does, however, appear to render the abovementioned objective impossible. The Committee of the Regions therefore proposes that this Article be amended accordingly (Recommendation 19).

2.8

The level of detail in the Regulation is sometimes remarkable, especially in comparison with the regulations dealing with regional policy. It may be better to entrust responsibility for dealing with some particular issues to the persons in charge of drawing up the rural development programme. Cases in point are the provision whereby only small and micro-enterprises are eligible for support in respect of measures to improve processing and marketing, the provision in Article 50 whereby only one of the children of farmers is eligible for support in respect of diversification and the maximum levels of EU support as stipulated in Annex I.

2.9

One of the conclusions reached at the Salzburg conference was that a living countryside is vital for agriculture, just as agriculture is a vital component of a living countryside. It is very important that regional development programmes pay adequate attention to the setting-up in business of young farmers. There is currently no integrated policy covering young farmers. One example of such an integrated policy would be the introduction of a start-up package bringing together, in a single scheme, all matters relating to the taking-over of an enterprise and setting up new farmers in business.

2.10

The Committee of the Regions takes note of the proposal to discontinue the use of the socio-economic criteria for designating ‘other areas with handicaps apart from mountain areas’ and to bring the basis for calculating the allowances into line with agri-environmental payments. The reasons underlying the European Commission's proposal are clear but the Committee of the Regions expresses its concern over the impact which the change in the criteria may have on farming businesses in the areas concerned. In the event that the proposed changes have a major socio-economic impact, provision should be made for the introduction of other policy measures to mitigate this impact. At the very least, consideration should be be given to the establishment of a transition period for phasing-out of aid to farmers in areas which will in the near future no longer be eligible for support.

2.11

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact that it is now possible for other landowners, in addition to farmers, to take up agri-environmental measures. These players may represent the missing link in land management where the aim is to cover all the land in an area (and not only agricultural land). In this context, the Committee of the Regions explicitly proposes that provision be made for other reward schemes for agri-environmental measures in view of the fact that the current reward scheme — based as it is on the additional costs and income foregone due to the fulfilment of the commitments entered into — is not always applicable. One possibility is to provide for an allowance based on actual output and related benefits (Recommendation 8).

2.12

The Regulation no longer provides for a take-up incentive for agri-environmental measures, i.e. the possibility of a 20 % increase in the allowance. This is unwelcome given the usefulness of such measures and their importance for rural land management. The Committee of the Regions proposes that this incentive be restored (Recommendation 8).

2.13

There are very significant differences between countries with well-developed and less well developed forestry sectors. The Commission proposals are not sufficiently flexible to encourage afforestation in countries with low levels. The developing forest industry in such countries will be jeopardised and the environmental advantages lost if allowances are not made for such differences.

2.14

Every year many farmworkers seek work outside agriculture. In some regions, this may exacerbate the problem of depopulation. Attention needs to be paid to the retraining of farmworkers as an adjunct to job-creation, and to the possibility of part-time farming. The rural development programme must provide scope for such retraining and/or for diversification, inter alia so as to include non-agricultural activities,, not least in those regions set to benefit less from assistance provided under the Structural Funds, (in particular the European Social Fund (ESF)). In regions where ESF funding is more concentrated, the ESF programmes concerned should explicitly provide for retraining and multi-jobbing of farmworkers.

2.15

Rural Areas in the Union offer valuable natural and cultural heritage, which can play a key role in diversification of the rural economy. However, the ability of the local tourism sector to use these attractions in a sustainable way and to provide the tourist with a high quality experience is often hampered by poor service delivery and/or inappropriate product development. Therefore, it is essential that specific reference to training is made under the tourism measure in Article 52 of the Regulation (Recommendation 12).

2.16

Women play a major role in the diversification of the economy in rural areas but frequently also come up against specific problems, such as more limited access to the capital required in order to set themselves up in business. In the Committee of the Regions' view, the Regulation should help secure greater involvement of women in rural economies (Recommendation 11). The Internet is also invaluable in promoting the diversification of rural economies. Many rural areas do, however, enjoy little or not access to the Internet. The Committee therefore welcomes the Commission's proposal that the ERDF be used to equip rural areas with sufficient ICT infrastructure. This will greatly help to bridge this ‘digital divide’; resolving this problem would also make the areas in question more attractive to new enterprises and could enable existing enterprises to tap into new markets. Complementary measures could be adopted under the EAFRD as part of the priority to diversify the rural economy.

3.1

The Committee of the Regions attaches considerable importance to the involvement of local and regional authorities in the drawing-up and implementation of rural development programmes and considers that this role should be reflected more strongly in the Regulation (Recommendation 13). The Committee of the Regions calls for national strategies to provide adequate scope for measures which are tailor-made to meet the needs of the regions and of local areas (see also point 2.2 above). The Committee of the Regions believes that it is important that strategies take into account the need for balanced spatial development throughout each region. A surfeit of prescriptions at EU or national level in respect of the strategy to be pursued may impede the introduction of regional initiatives which are geared to addressing local opportunities and problems.

3.2

There is a need for programming, financing and monitoring to be tailored to actual need. It is therefore strange that the Regulation should stipulate that Member States may draw up a rural development programme either at national or regional level. It would be better to provide more leeway on this point, including the possibility of combining regional and national programmes. Moreover, in Member States with a federal structure in particular, it has proven useful during the current funding period, to take up the option of approving national framework regulations which could then be implemented in the regional programmes. (Recommendation 2).

3.3

The Committee of the Regions supports the proposal that the third priority should preferably be implemented by means of local development strategies. There can be no doubt that new economic activities are vital for rural areas. Such activities complement farming. The new activities must, however, be introduced with care in order to avoid impairing the quality of rural areas. In this context, the Committee shares the view expressed by the European Economic and Social Committee (3) that it is essential to avoid any ‘rurbanisation’, i.e. the application of the same measures in both rural and urban areas. That is certainly true for areas under urban pressure, where maintaining the specific features of rural areas is vitally important for the quality of life in urbanised areas. The problems encountered in these areas, including problems linked to urban agriculture, require a completely different approach than that adopted for tackling the problems of more peripheral rural areas. The Regulation must provide adequate scope for meeting these requirements.

4.1

The Committee of the Regions attaches great importance to LEADER and therefore deplores the lack of clarity as regards the role of the LEADER programme in the Regulation. On the one hand, the LEADER approach is designated, in Article 4.2, as the fourth priority objective but it is also described, on the other hand, as a methodology for implementing measures taken in pursuance of the first three priority objectives. The Committee of the Regions urges that the LEADER approach be given its rightful position, namely as a separate priority, comparable to the role played by Interreg in regional policy. Mainstreaming of the LEADER approach runs the risk of losing the unique character and the added value of this approach. The Committee of the Regions asks the European Commission to include details on the future role of LEADER in the Regulation and to clarify the position of LEADER as a separate priority.

4.2

As regards the implementation of local strategies, Article 63(1) appears to indicate that these strategies have to meet all the goals of the four priority axes. This runs counter to the provisions of Article 62(a) which states that a LEADER approach is to be pursued ‘with a view to achieving the objectives of one or more of the three priority axes …’. The Committee of the Regions proposes that this inconsistency be removed from the Regulation (Recommendation 14).

4.3

The Committee of the Regions supports the proposal to earmark for LEADER a part of the EU funding available to Member States, according to the needs of the areas affected. The Committee of the Regions also welcomes the proposal to establish a European network for rural development. The experience gained with the establishment of national LEADER networks could be utilised in this respect. However, the Committee of the Regions cautions against a repeat of the unacceptable delays in launching the EU Observatory of Rural Areas (LEADER+), the LEADER European Observatory (LEADER II) and many of the national LEADER networks. The European Commission and the Member States should make it a priority to establish these bodies from the very outset of the programming period. Local authorities have a great deal of experience in working with the LEADER approach which should be utilised by Member States when they produce a framework for LEADER.

4.4

The Committee of the Regions is against keeping a substantial part of the available budget in reserve for those Member States whose LEADER programmes achieve the best results. This will probably result in priority being given to short-term, ‘easy’ projects, at the expense of medium- and long-term projects. For planning to be reliable, it must be established what resources are available in the relevant Member State (Recommendations 15 and 18).

5.1

In the Committee of the Regions's view it is important not to jeopardise continuity in the actions and measures during the transition between the 2000-2006 and the 2007-2013 programming periods. Steps must therefore be taken to ensure that the multi-annual measures agreed in the old phase, such as the agricultural environment measures, are funded until the expiry of the commitment period and that the agreed level of Community participation (the co-funding rate) is maintained. In order to have an effective EU rural policy in the new phase, the Committee of the Regions supports the Commission's proposal for a budget of € 88,75 billion (excluding modulation) for financing the EU rural development policy. Renationalisation of the policy or parts of the policy are strongly rejected by the CoR.

5.2

The Committee of the Regions notes that, according to the draft Regulation, in addition to an ex-ante, mid-term and ex-post assessment, an annual assessment is also supposed to be submitted; however, it wonders what is the value added of an annual assessment.

5.3

One of the aims of the Regulation is to simplify the legislation governing this area. In order to be in a position to assess whether this objective has been achieved, it is essential to have an insight into the implementing regulations. The Committee of the Regions would welcome a request for an opinion on these regulations, in view of the experience which Committee of the Regions members have had in implementing policy in this field.