EN Official Journal of the European Union C 57/18

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The role of rural municipalities in the development of Europe's regions

(2007/C 57/04)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

Having regard to its Bureau's decision of 25 April 2006, to instruct the Commission for Sustainable Development (DEVE) to draw up an own-initiative opinion under the fifth paragraph of Article 265 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on ‘The role of rural municipalities in the development of Europe's regions’,

Having regard to the 2006 work programme of the Commission for Sustainable Development (1), which emphasises the role played by rural municipalities in maintaining a regional balance, diversifying economic activities and ensuring public services, and which calls for particular attention to be paid to relations between town and country,

Having regard to the Council of Europe's European Landscape Convention (2),

Having regard to the European Parliament's report on multifunctional farming and CAP reform of 22 May 2003 (3),

Having regard to the Salzburg Conference of November 2003,

Having regard to its opinion of 23 February 2005 on the Council's draft regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005, on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (4),

Having regard to the Council's decision of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013) (2006/144/EC),

Having regard to the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — Bridging the Broadband Gap (5),

Having regard to the own-initiative opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 15 March 2006 on ‘Tourism and culture: two forces for growth’, CESE 400/2006,

Having regard to the final declaration adopted at the end of the DEVE seminar in Alexandroupolis on 26 June 2006 on ‘Rural development and the Lisbon Strategy’ (6),

Having regard to the Proposal for a Council Decision on Community strategic guidelines on cohesion (7),

Having regard to its draft own-initiative opinion (CdR 259/2006 rev. 1), adopted by the Commission for Sustainable Development on 6 October 2006 (rapporteur: Mr Santarella, Mayor of the Municipality of Candela (IT/UEN-AE)),

Whereas:

1) vast areas of the Member States of the European Union are represented by rural municipalities. The number of rural municipalities increased following the last EU enlargement, and is likely to grow further with the forthcoming accession of Bulgaria and Romania. For this reason, rural development policies deserve ever greater attention, at Community as well as national level;

2) the European institutions are taking a very serious look at the issue of tailoring Community policies to the public's real interests. In this context, it makes sense for the EU to give greater consideration to the interests of its many constituent local authorities, including those with smaller populations and less economic clout;

3) against the current economic backdrop of tough competition between production systems and between regions, rural municipalities and their populations are particularly vulnerable and are in danger of being left behind when it comes to the challenges of competitiveness;

4) rural municipalities play an important role in protecting the land, combating the depopulation of rural and geographically disadvantaged areas and reducing the risk of hydrogeological imbalance;

5) rural municipalities can be key in making the most of the region's resources, protecting and promoting the gamut of cultural values, traditions and local characteristics, carrying out wealth-generating activities that make the most of local conditions while also boosting economic growth and employment;

6) in order to address problems associated with poorly resourced administrative structures in areas with lower populations, rural municipalities have developed their own forms of organisation, management, partnership and inter-municipal cooperation, and these ought to be supported and practices disseminated, not least using appropriate legislative and financial instruments;

7) the concept of the ‘sustainable community’ (8) is currently central to a new debate on the strategic objectives of balanced and sustainable economic and social growth in the rural environment; it is above all in this setting that such a concept can come into its own;

unanimously adopted the following opinion at its 67th plenary session, held on 6 and 7 December 2006 (meeting of 6 December):

1. The Committee of the Regions' views

The Committee of the Regions

1.1 General comments

1.1.1 notes the difficulties inherent in defining a rural area or a rural municipality and highlights the fact that all the Member States use different definitions that often have nothing in common but a reference to the contrast with urban areas, some using population density or a specific percentage of economic activity devoted to farming in a given area as objective criteria;

1.1.2 refers to the definition of rural area already contained in a previous opinion (9), which in turn quoted the European Charter of Rural Areas: ‘… the term “rural area” denotes a stretch of inland or coastal countryside, including small towns and villages, where the main part of the area is used for: agriculture, forestry, aquaculture and fisheries; (…). The agricultural (…) and non-agricultural parts of a rural area form a whole distinguishable from an urban area, which is characterised by a high concentration of inhabitants and of vertical or horizontal structures’;

1.1.3 takes note of the fact that the EU uses the criterion established by the OECD to define rural municipalities, namely: municipalities with fewer than 150 inhabitants per km2. This definition excludes peri-urban areas, however, where the population density is higher;

1.1.4 points out that this opinion aims to examine rural municipalities in the widest meaning of the term, thus including peri-urban areas whose economies are predominantly rural;

1.1.5 highlights the fact that according to the European Commission, rural areas account for approximately 90 % of the area of the EU and 25 % of its population. What is more, in the new Member States, the farming sector's share of employment is three times higher than in the 15 pre-enlargement Member States and is even greater in the applicant countries;

1.1.6 notes, however, that in these areas per-capita income is approximately one-third lower than the European average and services are less-developed, and stresses in this respect that many rural communities are marked by a high level of structural unemployment, low per-capita income, strong depopulation trends and a low level of development in the commercial, industrial and tourism sectors;

1.1.7 maintains that although rural municipalities are weak in GDP terms, recognition must be given to the strengths of rural economies, which lie in keeping these areas alive, attracting investment and tourism and taking initiatives to conserve and protect the environment;

1.1.8 underlines the fact that the EU's rural areas are under great pressure to change: globalisation and the resulting developments in agreements under the WTO will inevitably lead to a heavy and steady reduction in subsidies for the farming sector, rendering the CAP inadequate in its current form;

1.1.9 also fears that, in the context of international competition, investors will tend to direct their resources toward the areas from which they expect the greatest financial returns; this means that they will tend to favour densely populated and urban areas, to the detriment of rural areas.

2. The challenges facing rural municipalities

The Committee of the Regions

2.1 A public asset

2.1.1 believes that investing in rural development is not simply about securing immediate profit in economic terms, but rather about securing a ‘public asset’ that comes without a price-tag and that involves optimising historical and cultural heritage, maintaining the landscape, preserving biodiversity and protecting the wellbeing of flora and fauna;

2.1.2 maintains in this respect that the social structures of rural centres must be preserved so that cultural heritage is not lost but is nurtured and passed on to new generations;

2.2 Employment

2.2.1 stresses that promoting entrepreneurship of a kind that is suited to rural areas and that does not lead in the long term to the urbanisation of peri-urban areas is vital to prevent depopulation and to help the countryside flourish;

2.2.2 points out that support must be given for locally-available vocational training, retraining and specialisation, as well as business diversification using local potential, so as to address the ageing of the rural workforce by creating new jobs and employment opportunities for young people locally and staving off rural depopulation;

2.3 Competitiveness

2.3.1 believes that improving the competitiveness of rural areas means investing in the modernisation and promotion of quality while also protecting the environment and cultural and architectural heritage in a way that complements urban development;

2.3.2 stresses that economic growth in rural areas requires investment in research and development so as to apply new technologies and processes, while also pooling positive experiences;

2.3.3 believes it is necessary to help rural areas to achieve the Lisbon strategy objectives by promoting innovation in small and medium-sized businesses, investing in equipment, machinery and training, and thus modernising the entire production chain and generating knock-on effects;

2.3.4 considers it would also be useful to continue along the path opened up by the LEADER programme, which has enabled cooperation between public and private sectors for local development in rural areas;

2.3.5 believes that rural municipalities should support local entrepreneurship that assists with rural development but that does not lead in the long term to urbanisation;

2.4 Diversification in agriculture

2.4.1 stresses the usefulness of developing a fully diversified local economy;

2.4.2 believes it is necessary, to this end, to encourage farmers to adopt management systems that enable them to respond more effectively to market trends, to foster entrepreneurship and to make farms and related businesses more dynamic by framing new commercial strategies, while encouraging the pooling of good practice and promoting business assistance and benchmarking schemes;

2.4.3 believes it essential to facilitate access to credit for farming businesses, including by means of special revolving funds;

2.5 Food quality

2.5.1 judges food quality to be an important factor in job creation, given the major growth potential of high-quality processed and non-processed farm products;

2.5.2 considers that it is necessary to improve information on product quality and to invest in quality labels, organic farming and production methods that are respectful to the environment and animal welfare, in order for the agri-food sector to seize the development opportunities offered by new technologies;

2.5.3 recognises that organic farming is one of the most dynamic sectors in Community farming and that more and more farms are planning to switch to organic production, which is why incentives should be used to promote this type of farming;

2.5.4 believes that conventional crops must be protected and promoted and income sources boosted by making the most of local specialities to produce and market quality products;

2.5.5 points out that rural municipalities can play a major role in promoting typical local products, by planning initiatives and events focusing on the quality of products and their dissemination on the market, starting at local and regional level;

2.6 Information and Communication Technology

2.6.1 is of the opinion that the new technologies must be harnessed to further rural development;

2.6.2 believes that little use is made of these technologies as yet in rural communities, either by public authorities or business;

2.6.3 notes that private operators, put off by low population levels that might mean investment shows little return in the short and medium term, are not keen to invest in advanced technologies in rural areas;

2.6.4 for that reason believes it is necessary to prepare Community framework policies and national and regional support policies for the dissemination of modern communications and technologies that can bring the more remote areas closer to the rest of the economic system;

2.6.5 considers, therefore, that investment is needed to extend broadband cover, and to provide the rural population with access to IT equipment and facilities and the necessary training to be able to use it fully, and believes that information technology can assist with local marketing and with nurturing new business activities and distance selling of rural products;

2.7 Renewable energy

2.7.1 is aware that the conservation of natural resources and their proper use and reuse can hold out considerable potential for the development of rural areas;

2.7.2 believes, in this context, that water, wind and biomass are strategic resources and that setting up systems for the supply of alternative non-fossil fuel sources of energy can provide opportunities for many public authorities responsible for energy supply and management to manage facilities directly or in partnership;

2.7.3 stresses that the use of local energy sources would make local communities more self-sufficient and safe in terms of energy supply;

2.7.4 stresses the vital need to address these issues seriously in rural areas, as they could generate innovative growth in terms of safeguarding the environment, using and reusing farm waste and creating new jobs;

2.7.5 draws attention to recent studies which show that in addition to well-established alternative fuels derived from the direct cultivation of products such as colza or maize, it can also be profitable to produce fuel from farm and forestry waste and other energy crops; and stresses that the best results in terms of economic and social knock-on effects are achieved when collection, processing and use are kept local;

2.8 Protecting the landscape and the land

2.8.1 refers to the European Landscape Convention and stresses that the rural landscape is a fundamental part of the European Union's heritage;

2.8.2 recalls that the Convention's self-appointed aim is ‘to promote landscape protection, management and planning, and to organise European cooperation on landscape issues’, so as ‘to achieve sustainable development based on a balanced and harmonious relationship between social needs, economic activity and the environment’;

2.8.3 emphasises that the landscape is not just part of local culture but is also an important economic resource contributing to the creation of jobs, as natural and cultural attractions can be promoted through activities that develop sustainable tourism;

2.8.4 reiterates the role which local communities play as custodians of the landscape and in warding off the risks of erosion, and stresses the need to disseminate a risk-aware and proactive culture of land management;

2.8.5 believes that — given the growing importance of initiatives designed to harness the landscape and the land with a view to supporting the rural tourism and agri-tourism sector as a whole, as stressed in the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Tourism and Culture: two forces for growth’ — local authorities can work on regional marketing campaigns, encouraging a sustainable level of tourism as a resource that can boost the local economy while respecting the environment;

2.8.6 believes that incentives should be used to encourage the renovation of abandoned houses. Rural depopulation has in recent decades led to the desertion of entire villages. If these are to be repopulated and gain new life, massive redevelopment of their housing stock and historical buildings will be required;

2.9 General interest services at local level

2.9.1 notes that, in many parts of Europe, shrinking populations make it difficult to maintain a sufficient supply of services for rural municipalities. Infrastructure networks — for water supply in particular, but also for waste disposal and recycling, and for public transport — require a sufficiently large number of users. If people move away, it is likely that demand will fall and the cost for users will increase. Realistic solutions based on the subsidiarity principle must be sought, to maintain the viability of rural areas as places in which to live and work;

2.9.2 points out that public-private partnerships between local authorities and economic players may be a way to develop the infrastructure and links to energy and IT networks, thereby raising the standard of living in rural areas;

2.9.3 believes that the existence of adequate public, social and neighbourhood services can spur new families to set up home in the country although they work in town, thus reversing the rural exodus that has gone hand in hand with the gradual reduction of essential services such as schools, post offices and doctors' surgeries;

2.9.4 draws attention to the key role of education and stresses that the presence of high-quality human resources, providing rural areas with under-estimated potential, is a necessary precondition for development; to this end, considers it necessary to maintain local secondary schools and facilitate access to establishments further afield;

2.9.5 believes it is essential to assist with the development of early childhood services: the lack of childcare facilities can prevent women from working and can be a reason for the poor development of the labour market in rural areas;

2.9.6 considers local public transport to be of strategic importance: rural communities that are served by efficient public transport to and from neighbouring urban areas can resist depopulation and even encourage a reverse trend;

2.9.7 considers services for senior citizens to be a key factor in encouraging retired people to move to the country, where they can enjoy a better quality of life and health and bring additional income to rural areas, and believes that older people should be encouraged to stay in rural communities by developing an infrastructure including health centres, meeting and recreation places and support services;

2.9.8 believes that all necessary means should be used to develop and improve access to culture in rural municipalities;

2.10 New governance in the rural context

2.10.1 believes that a debate on the development of local government in rural areas would be useful;

2.10.2 notes that, in many Member States, the organisational structures of local authorities, which tended to be rather small and rudimentary, have evolved in recent decades in order to increase their clout and capacity for governance, not least by setting up inter-municipal associations of various kinds; also considers that this phenomenon, which in institutional terms implies administrative decentralisation, should be monitored closely and on a permanent basis in cooperation with national associations of local authorities;

2.10.3 points out that this phenomenon has resulted increasingly in administration and management involving inter-municipal cooperation and associations. These include associations of municipalities, partnerships, consortia and other forms of theme-based network;

2.10.4 stresses that in some cases this can provide a way of supplying high-quality basic services: new joint bodies can create the preconditions for optimising resources and services that were previously managed by individual organisations on a tight budget;

2.10.5 highlights the fact that new organisations already exist in almost all the Member States, established by the State or in partnership with private institutions, for the joint management of general interest services in the field of energy or water supply, transport, waste, education, health care and social welfare, environmental protection, sports facilities or land-use management;

2.10.6 also notes the creation of organisations that focus on pooling resources, solidarity and inter-municipal partnership as part of a regional dynamic, and encourages such forms of (inter-municipal) cooperation, not least through Community programmes and benchmarking initiatives.

3. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

3.1 considers the establishment of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to be a very positive step for the future development of rural areas and in particular of rural municipalities, although its funding has been far below what was anticipated, and it does not believe it to be the definitive answer to the formation of the EU's rural development policy; with a view to securing practical and lasting results, calls on the European Commission to tie the rural development strategy and the EAFRD in with the investment in research, culture and the environment in rural areas, that is already supported by the other Structural Funds and other Community policies; calls for further emphasis to be put on the European Social Fund, education and employment;

3.2 recommends that cohesion policy measures complement actions supported by the EAFRD, in particular regarding the third axis, which relates to quality of life and economic diversification, and the LEADER axis. The European Commission has stipulated that Member States and regions must ensure that Structural Fund measures are coherent with those of the EAFRD's three axes. Rural municipalities have few resources and a limited number of staff: Community, national and regional funding should offer them financial instruments and measures to help them survive and prosper;

3.3 hopes to see increased cooperation between the two Commission directorates-general responsible for regional policy and agricultural policy, so as to maximise the impact of the Union's financial measures for the development of rural areas and towns. As mentioned above, the EAFRD cannot solve all the problems facing rural areas on its own; that is why the involvement of other funds must be secured;

3.4 hopes for a further general streamlining of rural financing;

3.5 calls on the Commission to recognise the associations that represent municipalities as active partners in the setting of new priorities, to promote awareness of EAFRD and Structural Fund programmes and to promote their practical implementation in rural areas, including outlying areas and those with a low population density;

3.6 hopes that the present opinion will contribute to the formulation of a strategy to make Europe's rural municipalities into modern ‘sustainable communities’, thereby securing for them the profile that is rightfully theirs, recognition for their role and support for their growth in the European context. As well as strengthening their role in protecting the local environment and creating prosperity by increasing employment and entrepreneurship opportunities in the countryside, this approach would buttress their cultural values, traditions and local characteristics in general, while also preserving a healthier quality of life;

3.7 recalls that the European Union, whose work is based on the principle of territorial and social cohesion, cannot ignore the challenges which small municipalities face to secure for their citizens a level of income that can keep present and future generations in the area and provide them with adequate services;

3.8 points out that there are considerable differences in prosperity between rural municipalities themselves, and believes it is necessary for the funds to generate a maximum of added value so as to raise the standard of living of people in rural areas;

3.9 with a view to more decentralised implementation of the Lisbon strategy, hopes that greater consideration will be given to the needs of rural areas and that there will be a better policy balance between urban and rural areas when future programmes are framed for them (10);

3.10 points out the extent to which the outskirts of towns in Europe exert excessive pressure on rural areas and would like to see a balance between sustainable agriculture and the economic dynamics of towns;

3.11 calls for instruments and mechanisms for comparison and cooperation between small municipalities and regional capitals, in order to arrive at jointly agreed arrangements for governing relations between areas, particularly when big cities are also concerned, while also strengthening the networks of small urban centres that structure the rural world;

3.12 believes it would also be useful to improve links between urban centres and surrounding areas so as to relieve congestion in big cities and offer people the chance to live outside urban centres; this would also facilitate the marketing of products from rural areas;

3.13 reiterates the need for open dialogue between rural stakeholders when it comes to preparing, implementing, monitoring and assessing programmes and believes that local authorities should be given a greater say in structural policy, as they are in the best position to identify and assess the problems and expectations of their regions;

3.14 takes the view that rural municipalities should play an active part in the partnership organised at local level by both Member States and regions in order to define national strategic plans and national rural development programmes; feels therefore, that a bottom-up approach is required, to allow all the players involved to exercise a strong influence on their preparation;

3.15 hopes that the trend towards exchanges and twinning arrangements between Europe's rural areas will continue to increase. Initiatives of this kind will provide important opportunities to acquire new knowledge, exchange best practice and experience and achieve greater cultural integration. Cultural tourism in rural areas should certainly be promoted by improving the skills of local people to develop the tourist industry and by publicising the unique tourist attractions across the EU;

3.16 points out that many Community cooperation programmes have to date been directed largely at urban areas, and hopes that regional and local authorities will encourage the creation of more rural partnerships so that a growing number of innovative examples of cooperation will involve rural areas too;

3.17 points out that rural municipalities are particularly well placed to try out innovative policies in the field of renewable energy sources; and hopes that rural municipalities will obtain financing and assistance to enable them to invest in renewable energy, in particular solar panels, biomass and wind power, with a view to achieving energy self-sufficiency while also increasing the income of rural communities;

3.18 hopes that the Commission will launch a programme for the exchange of innovative best practice in economic matters between rural areas in the EU;

3.19 asks that Community policies refrain from imposing unsustainable standards on local speciality products made by crafts people and small businesses;

3.20 calls on the European Union to support the creation and development of micro-enterprises that use or make traditional products, and to encourage equality between men and women and job openings for young people;

3.21 considers 2008 to be a crucial year for decisions on the future of the CAP, particularly those relating to the transfer of resources from the first pillar to the second; invites, for that reason, the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament to consider the needs of rural areas when framing their future proposals;

3.22 calls on the Commission to devise appropriate policies to support rural areas in their efforts to combine growth and sustainability and to harness potential that will enable them to create their own development systems, so as not to be simply trailing behind urban areas;

3.23 hopes that the future of rural areas will be given full consideration in the on-going debate on shaping the EU's regional agenda, most especially by taking a practical look at partnership between rural and urban areas, taking into account the balancing role played by small towns.

Brussels, 6 December 2006. The President of the Committee of the Regions Michel DELEBARRE

(1) CdR 54/2006.

(2) Florence, 20.10.2000, CETS No 176.

(3) EP 322.192 A5-0189/2003.

(4) CdR 255/2004.

(5) COM(2006) 129 final.

(6) CdR 209/2006.

(7) COM(2006) 386 final.

(8) Bristol Agreement on ‘Sustainable Communities’, Bristol, 12.12.2005.

(9) CdR 389/96 fin.

(10) CdR 11/2006, p. 4.