Brussels, 15/03/2005 (Agence Europe) - On Monday in Brussels, Ministers of Agriculture from EU Member States were unable to agree on the minimum spending rates proposed by the European Commission for the new European Rural Development Funds (2007-13). The Council also opposed the setting up of a reserve of 3% for compensating the best performers in the “Leader” programme and criticised the initial outline of the Commission “strategic orientations” text for rural development 2007-13.
Spending based on poles of intervention: the Commission is proposing to reserve a minimum funding of 15% of the total Community contribution for pole 1 (competitiveness in agriculture and forestry) and 3 (diversification in favour of farms) and 25% for pole 2 (area management). It is also proposing a 7% minimum rate for Community funding for the “Leader” programme (implementing local strategies by local action groups). The acting president of the Agriculture-Fisheries Council, Luxembourg minister Fernand Boden pointed out in a press conference that, “there is a certain move towards accepting minimum rates, on the condition that there is not too much rigidity… and that such a system provides the necessary flexibility to Member States for implementing integrated and horizontal development projects”. The presidency will therefore be presenting a compromise text at a later stage on lowest minimum funding rates.
During Council discussions, France and Austria clearly indicated that they did not agree with these rates because they would reduce the ability of national authorities to use funds according to their specific needs. France considers that this will lead to further “administrative complications”. Other countries were highly critical of the principle of imposing spending thresholds, such as Finland, Spain and even Belgium. Other EU countries more or less agreed with the approach of minimum rates per specific pole. Hungary supported the Commission's proposed rates. The United Kingdom indicated that it wanted to have a higher minimum rate for intervention pole 2 (50%) but also explained that it did not want minimum rates for the other poles of intervention. Germany wanted lower rates for intervention poles 1 and 3 (10% instead of 15%) but possibly higher for pole 2 to help develop organic farming. The Czech Republic, Estonia, and Cyprus wanted lower minimum rates than those put forward.
Leader Reserve: Mr Boden recognised that there were, “a significant number of reservations about the Leader Reserve”. He explained that delegations had explained that it would be difficult to plan spending under a supplementary envelope that would only be available over the last two years of the programming. The basis for such a reservation was sharply contested by the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Spain, Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic and Finland. Most delegations, however, support the Leader programmes because of the dynamic effect they have on employment.
Community strategy: the document (the definitive version is expected in June) underlines the rural development objectives for 2007-13 and established a link between the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies. The Council said that in general terms, they needed a short document that included a “clear message allowing the EU to easily expose the objectives of common agricultural policy to the European public”, explained the Luxembourg minister. Mr Boden explained that delegations had come out against a too rigid approach which could result in “new legal constraints and additional administrative costs for Member States”. Several delegations, including Austria, Finland and France wanted the document to make a reference to the “European agricultural model” defined in 1997 for a “competitive, sustainable, multifunctional farming shared out over the whole European Union territory, including disadvantaged areas.