Brussels, 21/03/2005 (Agence Europe) - A part of the heated battle announced for the negotiations between Member States on financial perspective 2007-13 (EUROPE 16 March) 2005, p 17 on the most recent discussions at the Agriculture-Fisheries Council, a public hearing took place on 15 March at the European Parliament between experts and MEPs who reiterated their opposition to cuts in funding to the rural development policy.
Responding to the European Commission proposal of July 2004 on the new European Rural Development Fund, Philippe Lacombe from the French National Agronomic Research Institute (INRA) declared, “If the Lisbon Strategy is the central concern of the Community, this makes rural development crucial because of the need to safeguard jobs and breathe new life into country areas. Society is interested in the countryside as a source of outlets and products, so we must take advantage of this interest”. Andrea Fugaro (Coldiretti) stressed that rural development must be integrated with other Community policies, “”people who live in rural areas must enjoy the same governance, the same services and the same infrastructure as others”. Agnes Schierhuber (EPP-ED) rapporteur on the case said that, “There can be no rural development without money”. Elisabeth Jeggle (EPP-ED, Germany) stated, “the present discussions on reducing the EU's budget are not even remotely compatible with the aims of rural development. Sooner or later someone is going to have to foot the bill”. Marie-Hélène Aubert (Greens/EFA, France) indicated that rural development funding should not stop at simple aesthetic considerations and keeping the countryside tidy, it should be, “part and parcel of sustainable agriculture”. Nils Busk (ADLE, Denmark) underlined that they should make sure that rural development was also about handing the countryside back to farmers in the state that the farmer received, “reducing overproduction has helped this cause”, he explained. Katerina Batzeli (PES, Greek) said that the proposed breakdown of spending on rural development should only be indicative, “finance for regional development should be complementary to money allocated to rural development”.