Brussels, 16/09/2004 (Agence Europe) - Since farm market spending has already been set for 2007-2013 (by the European Council), it is the rural development policy that may lose out in the battle of the budgets between Member States in the negotiations over the next Financial Perspectives, warned Commissioner Franz Fischler at a press conference in Brussels on Thursday, organised by the Agriculture Directorate General of the European Commission. Fischler naturally enough argued the case for the European Commission's proposal adopted on 14 July regarding the new European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), (see Europe of 16 July 2004, p.8).
The battle over the funding of the EU has already begun. When I hear the arguments put forward by some net contributors (to the EU budget), namely that it is possible to fund more Europe with less money, I get seriously worried about the future of rural development, said Fischler at the press conference. He said that if he were in Member States' shoes, he would think twice before applying budget discipline dogma to the new rural development policy simply in order to save money to announce that we've been able to make savings. The Commissioner stressed the vital importance of rural development for the EU, since 90% of Europe's regions are rural. Fischler explained that limiting the EU budget to 1% of GNP (Gross National Product) would amount to draconian cuts in rural development funding, which would serve the interests of sustainability.
Responding to reporters' questions, Fischler said that if heads of state were to decide to cut the budget for structural action, this would automatically translate through into cuts for rural development. He said everybody risked paying the price for a rural development policy that was running out of steam (particularly in terms of the additional public spending the new Member States would be forced to pay to compensate for the rural exodus). If one were to make an overall calculation, it costs much less money to spend money on rural development, rather than agreeing to and experiencing the consequences of bag general development in the countryside, said the Commissioner. A reporter asked whether national co-funding of rural development spending should be introduced, in order to make savings. Fischler replied that this was undesirable because it ran the risk of putting an end to cohesion policy in this field and could create an uneven playing field since Member States' were likely to have different levels of commitment to rural development.
25% rise in rural development aid by 2013
A lot has changed over the last ten years, said Fischler in his introduction. We now have a coherent rural development policy for 25 Member States, he said, adding that then years ago, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) spent very little on rural development. He explained that from 2000 to 2006, rural development spending had increased to EUR 7 bn for the EU15, and under the European Commission's proposal (unveiled in July), the budget could increase further, and reach EUR 14.2 bn in 2013 for the EU27 (including around EUR 1 bn recovered through modulation of direct aid). Fischler said that this figure of EUR 14.2 bn in 2013 was a 25% rise in funding on today's figures. Most of the increase is destined for the new Member States. For the Member States of the old EU15, funding will remain at virtually the same level. Fischler said that contrary to popular belief, farm spending had decreased and would continue to decrease, both in real terms and spending per farmer. In 1993, the EU spent 0.61% of EU GDP on farming, compared with 0.43% today, and forecasts of 0.33% in 2013.
Fischler then spoke about the main elements of the FEADER proposal - a single funding and programming instrument; a genuine EU strategy for rural development focussing to a greater extent to the past on the EU's priorities; a tighter control and assessment system (the account clearance system will be extended across all rural development aid); and more of a bottom-up approach so Member States, regions and local action groups can have a greater say in how programmes are adapted to meet local needs. Responding to questions from reporters, Fischler said it was too early to talk about how funding would be divided among the new Member States, but added that this would be decided in due course. First of all, he said, the Member States will have to agree on the broad outline of the new rural development policy.