Brussels, 18/06/2012 (Agence Europe) - In Luxembourg on Monday 18 June, the European agriculture ministers recommended rules on the rural development regulation which are flexible enough to allow them to be adapted to the realities on the ground. This arose from the debate of the Agriculture Council on the rural development regulation, which is part of the package on the reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP).
On behalf of the Presidency, the Danish minister, Mette Gjerskov, summed up the debate on the rural development regulation as follows: - several countries of the EU agree that the aim of spending a minimum of 25% of the total participation of the rural development fund on attenuating climate change and adapting to this change, as well as on land management, should be stated in a recital, rather than in the regulation; - certain countries, including France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Finland and Bulgaria, however, oppose this minimum threshold of 25%; - other countries (Sweden, Denmark and the UK) would like this figure (25%) to be binding and included in the body of the regulation; - certain delegations would like other measures to be part of the 25% objective (forestry, Natura 2000 regions, framework directive on water); - some delegations agree that the Commission's proposals should provide a single co-funding rate for the rural development programmes (with some exceptions), whilst others are calling for an increase (more than 50%; for example 55%); - other countries feel that the countries themselves should decide on the co-funding level; - certain delegations called for the transition regions to be able to obtain a higher co-funding level; - a number of countries (the UK, the Netherlands) called for the transfer of funds from the first pillar (direct aid and market expenditure) into the second (rural development) not to be accompanied by a call for national co-funding (the aid under the first pillar is paid for 100% by the Community budget, unlike aid under the second); - several countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece) called for support for the irrigation zones to be taken into account more in the regulation.
There is strong support in favour of what the Commission has proposed, in other words stressing the importance of agri-environmental actions, whilst keeping in place the level of 25% as a guideline to respect the EU countries' desire for flexibility in putting the programmes together and adapting them to reality, said Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos, at the end of the ministers' debate. On the co-funding rates, “I note positions which are fairly divergent, which is to be expected as we are at the start of the negotiations”, he conceded.
The ministers have been asked to answer two questions: (1) should the regulation on rural development make provision for an obligation to spend a minimum percentage of the budget of the ERDF (European Rural Development Fund) on actions in the field of the environment? (- it is worth noting that in recital 28 of the proposal on rural development, the Commission proposes setting the objective of earmarking a minimum of 25% for these actions); (2) do the proposed rules regarding an increase of the ERDF participation rate help to respond to the policy's objectives for rural development or should it be possible for other operations to benefit from a higher co-funding rate? (Under the proposal, the EU's co-funding rates will be generally set at 85% for the less developed regions, the extremely remote regions and the minor islands of the Aegean Sea, and at 50% for the other regions. These rates could, however, be higher for innovation and the transfer of knowledge, cooperation, establishing producer groups, aid to help young farmers to set themselves up and Leader projects).
During the debate, Poland said that the financing of environmental measures should be decided upon by the countries of the EU, “there should not be a level which is the same for all” (in reference to the 25%). Poland would agree to a common co-funding rate for all member states, but calls for greater flexibility in certain programmes. Poland argues that the “phasing out” regions should be taken into account.
Hungry agrees to the threshold of 25% for environmental measures, but no more.
Belgium “is not opposed” to setting a minimum level for expenditure (25%), but asks to remain open on the measures to be implemented. On the co-funding rate, Belgium takes the view that the choice should be left up to the countries to determine rates, on the basis of their priorities.
In the view of Spain, greater flexibility should be afforded to the countries and the regions in dividing up the funds on the basis of their own strategies. Earmarking 25% of the ERDF to 3 measures “is too restrictive”, the Spanish minister argued, unless other relevant measures are included (forestry, Natura 2000, framework directive on water).
Spain welcomes the increase of the maximum co-funding rate for certain measures, but is opposed to the idea of the financial effort being stepped up in the transition regions.
Sweden called for 50% of the funds to be allocated to environmental measures, a requirement which the country argues should be laid down in the base regulation. Attention should also be paid to exceptions on the co-funding rates, said Sweden.
The new French minister, Stéphane Le Foll, is opposed to bringing in a minimum level (25%), because this would call into question the ability of the countries to adapt each measure to the various realities on the ground. On co-funding, “we are not in favour of reducing the co-funding rates. These should be raised to 50 to 55%”, argued France.
Slovenia agrees with the objective of 25% and calls the greater flexibility on the higher co-funding rates.
Portugal accepts the idea of a minimum percentage (25%), but on condition that this is not laid down in the articles of the regulation. On the co-funding rates, Portugal called for the least-favoured regions to be taken into account.
Germany is strongly opposed to the idea of a minimum level and called for a higher co-funding rate.