Nicosia, 11/09/2012 (Agence Europe) - On the sidelines of the informal meeting of European agriculture ministers, experts from the Special Committee on Agriculture (SCA) expressed a number of differences in their assessments of certain aspects of rural development, namely investment aid in farms and investment relating to forestry activity. The Agriculture Council on 24 September will above all cover the theme of rural development in the context of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It may also discuss market measures and horizontal regulations (management, funding and monitoring of the CAP).
Although all countries consider that this kind of investment is one of the key elements in post-2013 CAP rural development, they adopt different stances regarding the role that must be paid by such investment. For some, like Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, it is appropriate to target action for innovation, new technologies and competitiveness. Other member states (Spain, Italy, Belgium, and the Czech Republic to name but a few) defend a wider vision which also includes sustainability, increased productivity and competitiveness, and even the redemption of certain loans. France, in particular, has evoked the need for non-productive investment, such as stakes in the water sector.
The principle of the role of financial instruments for supporting such investment is generally accepted by all countries.
A large majority of countries take the view that implementation of the criteria allowing eligible projects to be selected is a good thing, but this competence should be partially delegated to the member states, which are more able to target such criteria according to specific national features.
A very large majority of delegations (including the Netherlands, United Kingdom, Finland, the Czech Republic and Spain), support the idea that the size of farms is not a good criterion for eligibility. The European Commission has pointed out that the size of farms was not the only criterion highlighted in its proposal. For example, there is no size criterion when investment relates to the energy efficiency of farms.
Some countries, like Germany, Denmark, the United Kingdom and Sweden, consider, as does the Commission, that it is pointless to contemplate continuing with the grace period (as set out in the current provisions) for investment allowing European standardisation (water, animal welfare, etc.). They feel that such a period would introduce competition distortion between the farmers respecting the norms and those benefitting from the respite of a period of grace. Other delegations (France, Italy, Poland, Spain and the Czech Republic) consider, on the other hand, that implementation of a period of grace could be envisaged.
Forestry activity. The large majority of delegations were on the whole in phase with the Commission's proposals on investment in the forestry industry. Some (such as the Swedish delegation) prefer, however, to aim at information and training, rather than production. Others, like Finland, would like provisions to underline the economic and productive nature of forestry. Italy, Ireland and Spain argued in favour of including forests belonging to public and semi-public establishments in the regulation, while others, such as Finland, Austria and the United Kingdom, expressed concern about this or were opposed to it altogether. (LC/transl.jl)