----

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)’

(2005/C 164/03)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to the Proposal for a Council Regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), COM(2004) 490 final — 2004/161 (CNS);

Having regard to the decision of the European Commission on 15 July 2004 to consult it on this subject, under Article 265(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 15 June 2004 to instruct the Commission for Sustainable development to draw up the opinion on the subject;

Having regard to the conclusions of the Second European Conference on Rural Development, held in Salzburg on 12-14 November 2003;

Having regard to the European Commission document entitled ‘Extended Impact Assessment — Rural Development Policy post-2006’;

Having regard to the contribution by the Commission for Sustainable Development to the opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Third Cohesion Report (DI CdR 15/2004 rev. 1);

Having regard to its opinion on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy — CdR 66/2003 fin (1);

Having regard to its draft opinion (CdR 255/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 9 December 2004 by its Commission for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Mr Jan Pieter Lokker, member of the Executive Council of the Province of Utrecht (NL, EPP);

adopted the following opinion at its 58th plenary session, held on 23 and 24 February 2005 (meeting of 23 February):

1.   The Committee of the Regions' views

1.   Introduction

2.   Towards a multi-sectoral rural development policy

3.   ... with considerable scope for the fleshing-out of measures at regional level ...

4.   ... a clear role for LEADER

5.   Conclusions

2.   Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Recommendation 1

Article 11a(2)

Reason

The point of the amendment is to make the procedure for submitting the national strategic plan and rural development programmes consistent with the procedure in the regional policy regulation. The subsidiarity principle dictates that rural development strategy is the responsibility of whichever territorial tier of authority is appropriate to the particular situation of the member State concerned.

Recommendation 2

Article 14(2)

Reason

This would give Member States more scope to adapt programming to their own needs.

Recommendation 3

Article 16

Reason

This would give the authority drawing up the rural development programme more flexibility to adapt the budget allocation across different measures to programming needs.

Recommendation 4

Article 19(c)(iii)

Reason

This covers producer groups in the broadest sense of fresh and processed products. Management bodies are those involving producers and/or processors.

Recommendation 5

Article 27

Reason

To be consistent with measures implemented under other Structural Funds. It should be noted that the agri-food industry provides more jobs than many other sectors of production.

Recommendation 6

Article 34

Reason

European legislation divides land use into two categories: agricultural land and forestry land. Agroforestry systems are ones which on a single piece of land combine short-term agricultural activities (crops or livestock production) with longer-term forestry activities (wood or cork production, or for recreational purposes, bringing many external benefits for the environment). Agroforestry covers a wide range of production systems based on multiple use of the land and optimisation of synergies between the various uses, so as to make mutually beneficial use of the trees, crops and livestock. The draft regulation recognises the existence of this third system of land use which differs from both agriculture and forestry. Community support is however restricited to the initial establishment of agroforestry systems. With this recommendation support for the conservation and maintenance of agroforestry is added.

Recommendation 7

Article 36

Reason

The environmental role of agriculture and its importance for the conservation of fauna and flora and the upkeep of the landscape should be socially recognised. It should not be treated as a minor activity whose exercise could be limited.

Recommendation 8

Article 37(4)

Reason

Given the importance of agri-environmental agreements for stewardship of the countryside, it is a good idea to continue encouraging participation in such agreements. It is important to broaden the basis for calculating support, since the current system is not always applicable.

Recommendation 9

New Article 46 a

Reason

See Recommendation 6

Recommendation 10

New Article 46 b

Reason

See Recommendation 6

Recommendation 11

Article 49(a)

Reason

Women play an important role in diversification of the rural economy, but often encounter specific problems, such as limited access to capital. The amendment is intended to allow support for measures to remove these obstacles. The rural development strategies implemented under the EAFRD approach successfully address rural heritage, in its widest possible sense, above everything else. Historical and cultural heritage, which are also of concern to rural development groups, must be included along with natural heritage.

Recommendation 12

Article 52

Reason

Rural areas can offer fantastic natural heritage and other attractions. However, the ability of the local tourism industry to use these attractions in a sustainable way and to provide the tourist with a high quality experience is often hampered by poor service delivery and/or inappropriate product development. While Article 56 may make reference to ‘vocational training’ it is essential that specific reference to training is made under the tourism measure. Increasingly people are booking travel, accommodation, holiday and leisure products and services online as well accessing information. Smaller rural tourism service providers are at a disadvantage without the training and wherewithal to cater for online bookings and marketing.

Recommendation 13

Article 58

Reason

Many of the measures set out in Article 49 are core responsibilities of local authorities. In previous rural development programmes, local authorities in some Member States were marginalised in the process and not directly involved in delivering local development strategies. Ensuring the active involvement of local authorities in the EAFRD will provide for a more comprehensive and coherent approach to the development of many rural areas. Failure to have a specific reference to local authorities may undermine delivering on the objectives of the EAFRD.

Recommendation 14

Article 63(1)

Reason

Article 63(1) stipulates that measures carried out under the LEADER approach must meet all the goals of the Regulation, which is inconsistent with Article 62(a). The amendment aligns the wording of the two articles.

Recommendation 15

Article 70(2)

Reason

It does not make sense to create a performance reserve for the LEADER approach.

Recommendation 16

Article 71.4

Reason

Recognition of the exceptional and serious nature of outermost Europe's development problems, which is enshrined in Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty (future Article III-424), calls for this to be addressed specifically and appropriately in agriculture policy after 2006.

Therefore, the specific problems of agriculture in the outermost regions merit greater assistance than other regions. For this reason, it is necessary to maintain the level of aid so that the major structural deficiencies deriving mainly from remoteness and isolation can be overcome as effectively as possible.

Recommendation 17

Article 87

Reason

The Regulation stipulates that the programme will run for seven years and is to offer the Member States the possibility to implement its national rural development strategies during this period, taking into account the objectives set. To ensure the sustainable development of the countryside and to achieve the strategic objectives, it is important that these programmes run for several years. For this reason the proposed Regulation covers a longer period, not merely one year.

This raises the question of whether there is any sense in annual programme reviews, especially as the measures are geared to achieving lasting goals. It is not logical to draw conclusions about the programme's implementation after only one year. It would be more sensible and quite sufficient to carry out a mid-term evaluation of the programme's implementation and how to improve quality. An annual evaluation as laid down in the Commission proposal would merely increase unnecessary red tape and run counter to the objectives of simple and clear programming with minimal bureaucracy.

Recommendation 18

Article 92

Reason

This article is superfluous if the performance reserve is being abolished.

Recommendation 19

Article 71(6)

Reason

The deleted sentence would rule out projects that were outside the scope of one priority axis but fell within the scope of the Regulation as a whole.

Recommendation 20

Annex I referring to Article 46a and 46b

Text proposed by the European Commission

None.

Reason

To remain consistent with new Article 46a(1).

Brussels, 23 February 2005.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB

----

(1)OJ C 256 of 24.10.2003, p. 18

(2)  As outlined in the Proposal for a Council Regulation laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund, COM(2004) 492 final

(3)  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 30 June 2004, NAT/243

----