Brussels, 20/01/2005 (Agence Europe) - Many MEPs on the agriculture parliamentary committee expressed concerns on Wednesday about insufficient funding for agriculture for the period 2007-2013. There were also worries about rural development policy paying for the budgetary battle in the next financial perspectives. Both the European Commission, the Luxembourg presidency and most MEPs are opposed to the idea, realauched by the two MEPs from the Liberal group (including, it appears, Jan Mulder, the Netherlands) of introducing co-financing of 25% for the agricultural markets of Member States.
In response to a number of questions from MEPs, including Lutz Goepel (CDU), Katerina Batzeli (PES, Greece) and Niels Busk (ADLE, Denmark), on the idea of co-funding market agricultural spending (co funding only exists in rural development programmes), the acing president at the Agriculture Council, Luxembourg minister Fernand Boden, declared: “I now see significant opposition, and some injustice too” on the subject of the request for co-funding of 25% of market spending. According to Boden, “nobody wants renationalisation of the CAP” many Member States can not assume the burden of co-funding“. Mr Boden also believes that at the Council, this proposal is not acceptable. He told MEPs who were worried that the Luxembourg presidency will fight to preserve the money from CAP they need. According to the Presidency, it is not possible to make exceptions to the agreement at the European Council of Brussels (October 2002) on the ceiling for market agricultural spending between 2007 and 2013. Boden said that this was something that should be an acquis and which should not be interfered with too much.
The Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mariann Fischer Boel, in reply to Friedrich-Wilhelm Graefe zu Baringdorf (German Green), that the idea of co-funding could prove very dangerous. She underlined the dangers of renationalisation of the CAP (and the danger of a fight breaking out between ministers of Agriculture and Finance in the EU) and the disappearance of the current CAP, which would cease to be a common policy.
Rural développement, a victime of the club of six?
EUR 100 bn in funding proposed by the Commission (from 2007 to 2013) for rural development was in danger of being reduced due to the budget battle between Member States over the next financial framework. Mr Boden everyone agrees on strengthening the second pillar of the CAP and it is important that there is enough money for these programmes. Boden pointed out that co-funding of spending in this area was possible (which would allow each country to choose its priorities based on a list of Community measures). Fischer Boel warned that if the 1% club got their way then rural development would pay the price (in a reference to the six Member States: Germany, Austria, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Sweden) which wanted to limit spending to 1% of Gross National Income (GNP) of the Community budget for 2007-13. the Commissioner said that “this would deal a blow to the most forward looking component of the CAP”.
Mr Boden also called on MEPs to speed up their work on examing the proposal for a new European Rural Development Fund, “if not these programmes could not begin in 2007 or even in 2008”. The objective of the presidency is to conclude an agreement during the EU Council of ministers of agriculture from 20-21 June. The European Parliament is expected to adopt its opinion during the plenary session of 22-23 June in Brussels (adoption of the opinion in May's parliamentary committee), according to the reporter on the case, Agnes Schierhuber (EPP-ED, Austria).
The Luxembourg presidency said that the agriculture dossier will be a priority and the countdown has already begun: a decision is needed straight away on the regulation for the rural development fund then a decision on the Community strategy, then the setting up of a national strategy, followed by a national programming for the final discussions on national programming with the Commission. Mr Boden concluded that they had a very tight schedule (EUROPE will return to this in more detail on the other priorities of the Luxembourg presidency).