Brussels, 01/03/2005 (Agence Europe) - The Agriculture Ministers of the Member States of the EU made progress on Monday in their examination of various elements of the proposal on the new European Rural Development Fund (EARDF) for the period 2007-2013. However, the most controversial aspects of the draft, the minimum rates of expenditure under the four main axes of intervention (competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors, land management, diversification of the rural economy and “Leader approach”), the redefinition of intermediate less-favoured areas and the criteria for the allocation of funds, will be tackled by the forthcoming Agriculture-Fisheries Council on 14 March. The Luxembourg Presidency is to present a compromise text on the dossier.
The current President of the Agriculture-Fisheries Council, the Luxembourg minister Fernand Boden, told the press that the Council “has clearly spoken out in favour of a strong rural development policy, which also has a solid contribution to make towards the Lisbon objectives”. He noted that the “Council has made clear its agreement to include support for innovation and development among the measures to be implemented”. Mr Boden said that most delegations wanted to see “greater progress in simplifying procedures” and are aiming for “a higher degree of subsidiarity between the Community and the Member States”. He said that differences of opinion and problems persist on the subject of resources available to put the Natura 2000 measures into practice, and on the areas to be considered and those to benefit from these measures. The Presidency and the Commission are to draw up a new compromise text together, “as soon as possible”, on the whole of the proposal as it relates to support for rural development, in order to move the dossier forward as quickly as possible, Mr Boden promised. This compromise text can be presented at the forthcoming Council on 14 March. Mr Boden welcomed the willingness of the European Parliament to adopt its opinion in April. He confirmed that the Presidency's aim is to reach political agreement before the end of June on the new European Rural Development Fund.
Here is a summary of the main lessons to be drawn from the Council's debate.
On the “improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors” axis, many delegations wanted to extend (particularly in the processing sector) the beneficiaries of support measures for small and medium-sized enterprises. Several Member States called for the provisions on support for early retirement to be changed and for support to be provided for innovation and development. A large number of countries asked for the Commission to include the possibility of co-funding of subsidised rates on investment. Several delegations maintained their request for new measures in favour of risk management and the protection of genetic resources to be included. Others, including Belgium, asked for agriculture in semi-urban areas to be taken into account.
On the “land management” axis, it is worth noting that the Commission agreed that the animal well-being measures will be an optional, rather than an obligatory, element of the national rural development programmes. Only agro-environmental measures will remain obligatory. Furthermore, the Commission has agreed to other called-for changes, notably in relation to the scope of non-productive investments, the rate and duration of aid for forests and conditions for the re-planting of trees on abandoned land. Some Member States objected to the removal of certain existing measures, such as maintenance of fire breaks, purchasing land for environmental purposes and the protection of genetic resources. Requests were made in favour of new measures (tackling soil erosion, water management and abandoned farmland).
The Council also discussed the proposal on the funding (during the period 2007-2013) of the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP). This proposal provides for the creation of two funds instead of the EAGGF (European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund): the EAGF (European Agricultural Guarantee Fund) for direct aid and market support and the EARDF (European Rural Development Fund) mentioned above. During the debate, the Member States from outside the euro zone, including the Czech Republic, the UK and Sweden, said that reimbursing expenditure in euros (as provided under the proposal) holds risks for them in terms of the exchange rate. They have therefore asked for another solution to be found. The Presidency will try to “draw up, together with the Commission, a solution to the issue of setting financial limits in euros”, said Mr Boden. On budgetary discipline, several delegations, including Italy, Greece and Austria voiced their hopes that the Council of Ministers will keep the prerogative of ensuring that the annual financial ceilings decided by the European Council of October 2002 are adhered to for market measures and direct aid. The proposal provides for the Commission to set the necessary adjustments to direct aid if the Council has not taken a decision by a given date.
With regards to the director of an approved paying agency's obligation to sign the insurance declaration, several delegations expressed their concern that this provision may lead to an additional and unnecessary administrative burden. Finally, several member states (Spain, Greece, Ireland, Belgium, Latvia and Slovenia) indicated their opposition towards the financial penalties incurred for failure to recover amounts not owed being set at 50% per member state and 50% for the Community when the recovery is subject to national legal action.