Brussels, 20/07/2004 (Agence Europe) - The Agriculture Ministers of the Member States of the EU held a public debate in Brussels on Monday on the European Commission's recent proposal on the 2007-2013 generation of rural development programmes (see EUROPE of 16 July, p.8). Initial reactions were by and large positive, although several States, including France, Portugal, Ireland , Finland, Austria, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Malta and Cyprus, criticised the Commission's intentions to make countries spend a percentage of their national envelope in each intervention area (15% for competitiveness of agriculture and forestry, the same for the diversification for rural areas, and 25% for agri-environmental measures). Furthermore, several ministers (including the Irish and Greek ones) protested against the new proposed definition of least favoured areas.
In his presentation, Commissioner Franz Fischler said that under the proposal, Member States should invest at least 55% (15+15+25) in these three areas, and that the rate of Community co-funding of the aid would vary between 55 and 80%, depending on the themes and regions in question. The sum total of the financial envelope for this policy from 2007 to 2013 will be 96 billion EUR (2004 price), including 56 billion from the guarantee section of the EAGGF, 33 billion from the orientation section of the EAGGF and 7 billion from aid modulation (reduction of direct aid to the rural development policy decided on at the reform, in June 2002, of the common agricultural policy).
Mr Fischler took the floor again at the end of the Member States' debate to stress that his position gave the Member States enough flexibility to spend according to their priorities. He said that the percentages proposed were designed to avoid a Member State spending all of the fund in the same region. As the current definition of least favoured areas has led to over-compensation, which has come in for criticism from the Court of Auditors, the Commission had no choice but to make the criteria stricter. If the situation does not change, we will "get into trouble with the WTO", he said.
Here is a brief rundown of the main points made during the debate: the Belgian minister, Sabine Laruelle, said that the proposal did not take sufficient account of "peri-urban" areas; Ireland noted that the two pillars of the CAP (market expenditure and rural development) should complement each other, not compete; Finland said that the agri-environmental measures lacked clarity, and called for financial efforts made in favour of the rural development policy to be stepped up; Ester Tuiksoo, for Estonia, welcomed the three areas of intervention proposed; Slovenia said that the proposal did not take sufficient account of the Member States' priorities, and criticised the system, which it feels is "too rigid"; the Swedish minister Ann-Christin Nykvist said that the added value of the financial measures proposed should be proven. She welcomed efforts made by the Commission to simplify; Greece said that arbitrary criteria must not be used to rule out certain areas; the new Portuguese minister for agriculture and fisheries, Carlos Costa Neves, said that his country attached great importance to a "balanced development" of rural territories, and that the funds on the table were not enough; Germany stressed the importance of regionalising aid (a point also made by Belgium), and "going beyond" uniquely agricultural support to rural areas (which is exactly what Mr Fischler is proposing); the Danish minister Mariann Fischer Boel voiced her regrets at the lack of provisions to support innovation, to which Mr Fischler replied that rural development fund was destined for research projects; Spain stressed that the allocation of funds between the least favoured areas and others should be balanced; the Italian minister, Giovanni Alemanno, said that more flexibility should be introduced to increase (from 3% to 5%) the total reserve planned in the new "Leader" approach. This reserve would be paid to the Member States with the best results in projects coming under this (fourth) category of action. Italy also declared that the Leader credits put in reserve should be made available more quickly (in 2012 in the proposal).
The Council's Special Agricultural Committee (SAC) was tasked with a detailed examination of the proposal. Ministers will discuss the subject again at the October Council. It is worth noting that the meeting of the Agriculture Council of 20 November was to be cancelled.