Brussels, 27/04/2005 (Agence Europe) - On Tuesday in Luxembourg, most Member States refused the new methodology proposed by the Commission for delimiting the EU's disadvantaged regions that are eligible for rural development funding from 2007-2013 (EUROPE 8932). The agriculture debate will continue on 30 May in Brussels with scrutiny of the first compromise text from the Luxembourg Presidency. The aim remains that of reaching a political agreement in June.
The Commission suggests that the criteria defining mountainous areas and specific eligible areas should remain the same, but that the criteria defining intermediary areas, the eligibility of which is currently based on socio-economic criteria, should be amended. It advocates replacing the socio-economic criteria with five new criteria at municipal level (NUTS V Nomenclatura), which mainly depend on the quality of soil and climatic conditions. During the Council, a group of Member States (France, Italy, Spain, Luxembourg, Austria, and Poland in particular) felt that this new methodology would entail unacceptable changes. Some, including France, Spain and Greece, suggested status quo and postponement till much later of the debates on definition of the disadvantaged areas. The Commission felt that status quo is not an option and that it is necessary to continue working toward finding other acceptable criteria. Only a few Member States, including the Netherlands and the Baltic States, supported the Commission and considered the new criteria proposed satisfactory. Others, like Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Ireland and Cyprus, called for other criteria to be added or for those proposed to be replaced with new criteria.
Fernand Boden, President of the Agriculture Council, told the press that it was unanimously agreed the importance of the concept of disadvantaged regions should be stressed as it is part of the European agriculture model. According to simulations, he said, the new delimitation of disadvantaged “intermediary” areas (neither mountainous nor specific) proposed by the Commission would not only entail an 8% reduction in the total surface area of the intermediary disadvantaged areas, but also quite considerable distortion between Member States. Furthermore, he underlined that a large number of Member States considered the changes that would occur on their territories “politically unacceptable”. According to Mr Boden, the Commission noted that the criteria should be reviewed and completed, an exercise that cannot be done overnight. “That is why a number of Member States have suggested keeping to the current delimitation and working together to find new criteria at a later date”, the Luxembourg ministers explained. A majority of Member States agree to redefine the intermediary disadvantaged regions but on the basis of criteria other than those proposed by the Commission, Mr Boden noted.
The Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mariann Fischer Boel, recalled that the Commission recommended reviewing the criteria in order to take into account criticism made in 2003 by the Court of Auditors and the European Parliament. “I note that the proposals cause certain Member States problems. We have therefore decided to prolong the discussion, including before the Council meeting end May” (30 May), Ms Fischer Boel said, pointing out that she had heard the criticism of Member States but warning that the criteria to be retained should be compatible with the rules of the WTO.
On the subject of the proposal on Common Agricultural Policy funding for 2007-2013, Mr Boden said the debates had made sufficient progress to allow one to hope that a political agreement may be reached in May.