Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The CAP second pillar: outlook for change in development policy for rural areas’ (follow-up to the Salzburg conference)
Date: 2004-06-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: common agricultural policy, economic and social cohesion, regional policy, rural development, sustainable development

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/53

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘The CAP second pillar: outlook for
change in development policy for rural areas’ (follow-up to the Salzburg conference)

(2004/C 302/13)

On 29 January 2004, the European Economic and Social Committee, acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules
of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on: ‘The CAP second pillar: outlook for change in develop-
ment policy for rural areas (follow-up to the Salzburg conference)’.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject.

In a letter to the Committee from Mr Silva Rodriguez of DG Agriculture dated 3 May 2004, the European
Commission asked to have the EESC's views on the subject as quickly as possible. Given the urgency, the
European Economic and Social Committee, at its 410th plenary session of 30 June and 1 July 2004
(meeting of 30 June 2004), appointed Mr Bros as rapporteur-general and adopted the following opinion by
127 votes in favour, with nine abstentions:

1. Introduction

1.1
In November 2003, the European Commission orga-
nised a conference in Salzburg on the future of Community
rural development policy against the backdrop of EU enlarge-
ment. Like the Cork conference, which had called for a ‘living
countryside’, (1) the Salzburg event was an opportunity:

— to bring together the key players involved in framing and

implementing rural development policy;

— to issue a declaration, putting forward key policy guidelines

for rural development players;

— to lay down priorities for assistance under a ‘rural fund’
ahead of the budget debate on the financial perspectives for
2007-2013.

Thus, the Committee is proposing that any consideration of
changes to rural development policy for the period 2007-2013
should build on the conclusions of this conference.

1.2
Given the increasing diversity of rural areas in the wake
of EU enlargement, but above all recognising that social issues
and employment are of paramount importance in the new
Member States, the Committee feels it is essential to focus on
the consistency and interlinkage between regional policy and
the second CAP pillar.

The Commission has published two documents: one sets
1.3
out
the financial perspectives for the future programming
period (2), the other is the third cohesion report (3). As these
documents show, regional policy plays a full part in the Lisbon
strategy, which is designed to put in place a competitive and
knowledge-based economy. Future rural development policy

(1) The European Conference on Rural Development, Cork, Ireland, 7-9

November 1996;
http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/rur/cork_en.htm

(2) COM(2004) 101.
(3) COM(2004) 107.

is dealt with under the section on Sustainable management and
protection of natural resources which refers to the sustainable
development strategy. This section also covers the first CAP
pillar and Community environment programmes.

The Gothenburg European Council of 15 and 16 June
1.4
2001 (4) provided,
in its conclusions, for the adoption of a
European sustainable development strategy and, as part of that,
agreed that the common agricultural policy ‘… should, among
its objectives, contribute to achieving sustainable development
by increasing its emphasis on encouraging healthy, high-quality
products
production
methods.’ (5)

environmentally

sustainable

[and]

The conclusions of the June 2003 Agriculture and Fish-
1.5
eries Council
in Luxembourg confirm that the second CAP
pillar is to be strengthened in order to ‘… promote the environ-
ment, quality and animal welfare and to help farmers to meet
Union production standards starting in 2005.’ (6) This own-
initiative opinion will thus have to consider — and examine in
greater depth — the three lines of action taken up in Salzburg,
i.e. the competitiveness of the farming sector, environmental
protection and the contribution to economic and social cohe-
sion in rural areas.

In the Salzburg conference final declaration, rural devel-
1.6
opment players also stressed that a significant simplification of
EU rural development policy was both necessary and urgent.
As part of that simplification, more responsibility must be
given to programme partnerships to define and deliver compre-
hensive strategies.

(4) Gothenburg European Council, 15-16 June 2001; see:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/gothenburg_council/sustainable_en.htm
(5) Gothenburg European Council, presidency conclusions, 15 and 16

June 2001, point 31. document no: 200/1/01.

(6) 2516th Council meeting — Agriculture and Fisheries — Luxem-
bourg, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 25 and 26 June 2003; 10272/03 (Presse
164), page. 7, point 3.

C 302/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

1.7
In this own-initiative opinion, therefore, the Committee
proposes (i) examining the consistency between future regional
policy and future rural development policy in order to limit the
number of grey areas; (ii) taking a closer look at the three main
lines of action put forward for future rural development policy
and (iii) focusing specifically on the various facets of adminis-
trative simplification.

A. INTERLINKAGE BETWEEN REGIONAL AND RURAL DEVEL-

OPMENT POLICY

2. Regional policy: from the principle of economic cohe-

sion to the principle of territorial solidarity

2.1
The 1986 Single European Act accelerated the integra-
tion of the Member States' economies. However, the widely
differing levels of regional development within the Union and
the introduction of interregional competition gave rise to a
proper cohesion policy, designed to offset
single market
constraints in southern European countries and less-favoured
regions. Economic and social cohesion policy was subsequently
placed on an institutionalised footing by the Maastricht Treaty
on European Union, which entered into force in 1993.

At the same time, the EU's growing trade relations and
2.2
the gradual opening-up of the single market intensified compe-
tition between the European regions despite the fact that they
did not all enjoy the same advantages. Thus,
in the 1990s,
structural policy sought to address the following key concerns:

— through the Cohesion Fund, to help regions with lagging

development integrate into the single market.

2.4
The declaration of the EU Member States' spatial plan-
ning ministers (Potsdam, 10 and 11 May 1999) (1) and the June
2001 Gothenburg European Council conclusions setting out a
European sustainable development strategy underscored the
need for territorial cohesion in the interests of balanced and
sustainable regional development within the EU. This process
culminated in the Convention's proposal to include territorial
cohesion as a Union objective (see Article 3 of the draft Consti-
tution for Europe). (2)

2.5 Moreover, Regulation 1260/1999 laying down general
provisions on the Structural Funds (3) recognises that building
on local potential in rural areas remains a key objective for
promoting the development and structural adjustment of
regions whose development is lagging behind.

2.6
Given the way in which the principles underpinning
structural policy have evolved — i.e. in providing support for
growth and sustainable development — the Committee asks
the Commission and the Council to make it clear, in the inter-
ests of territorial cohesion, that rural development must remain
one of the top priorities of regional policy. Hence, this policy
must fully address the difficulties rural areas face in the fields of
job creation, continuing training and access to new information
technologies.

— to reduce the development gaps by supporting job creation

in less-favoured areas;

3. Rural development policy: from the ‘Green Europe’ to

the Luxembourg compromise

— to compensate for the handicaps facing regions that do not
have the same advantages or the same access to the global
market;

— to support wealth creation in less-favoured areas.

Building on elements of existing structural policy, the

2.3
reform adopted in 1999 (Agenda 2000) sought:

— to increase financial transfers from the regions with the
greatest advantages to regions with lagging growth (fewer
objectives and 75 % of funding earmarked for Objective 1);

— to expand economic links between these regions (Interreg

III); and

3.1
In the space of almost fifty years, farming has undergone
major changes which, over time, have shaped the Community's
agricultural structural policy. From 1962 to 1972, the Com-
munity was involved only in coordinating the nascent market
management measures. From 1972 to 1985, activities fell into
two further main categories: (i) horizontal measures applicable
in all Member States (vocational training, early retirement etc.)
and (ii) regional measures designed to mitigate natural struc-
tural handicaps and promote agriculture as a whole.

(1) Potsdam, May 1999,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/
reports/som_en.htm

(2) Article 3: The Union's objectives: ‘ 3. The Union […] shall promote
economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among
Member States.’
http://europa.eu.int/futurum/constitution/part1/title1/index_en.ht-
m#Article3

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/1999 of 21.6.1999 laying down
general provisions on the Structural Funds; OJ L 161, 26.6.1999,
pp. 1 - 42.

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/55

From 1985 to 1999, agricultural

3.2
structural policy
evolved into the agricultural dimension of the new regional
policy strategy as a result of a number of factors, i.e. the search
for a balance between the necessary improvements in the
competitiveness of Europe's farming sector on the one hand
and matching production potential with market requirements
on the other, environmental protection and the development of
less-favoured regions. Structural policy therefore not only
actions
involves horizontal measures, but
designed to conserve rural areas, protect the environment and
develop rural and tourist infrastructure and farming activities.

also includes

of measures has been widened to include promoting product
quality, improving production standards (environment, animal
welfare), implementing Natura 2000 and stepping up measures
for the setting-up of young farmers.

3.8 Moreover, modulation is now mandatory at European
level and should mean the transfer of almost EUR 1.2 billion
over the whole year from market policy to rural development
policy.

3.3
Building on the Cork conference, Agenda 2000 made it
possible to establish an integrated rural development policy
using two legal
instruments (EAGGF–Guarantee and EAGGF-
Guidance). These instruments are designed to secure greater
consistency between rural development policy (second CAP
pillar) and market policy (first CAP pillar) among other things
by promoting a more diversified rural economy.

The option of direct aid modulation was also intro-
3.4
duced. This tool makes it possible to increase funding for agri-
environmental, early retirement and afforestation measures, and
measures to support less-favoured areas, through a levy on the
for reductions in institutional prices
compensatory support
adopted under the common organisations of the markets in
agricultural products.

Regulation 1257/1999 on support for rural develop-

3.5
ment from the EAGGF (1) makes the following key points:

— rural development measures must accompany and comple-

ment market policy;

— the three accompanying measures introduced by the 1992
CAP reform must supplement the scheme for less-favoured
areas (natural constraints) and areas with environmental
restrictions;

— other rural development measures may form part of inte-
for Objective 1 and

grated development programmes
Objective 2 regions.

For the 2000-2006 programming period, the twenty-
3.6
two measures that Member States may include in their rural
development programming divide up as follows: (2) 39.2 % for
improving competitiveness and promoting change in the
farming sector, 35 % for less-favoured areas and agri-environ-
mental measures and 25.8 % for adapting and developing rural
areas.

3.7
The CAP reform adopted in June 2003 reinforced one
of the tasks of regional development policy, namely to back
moves to adapt agriculture to the needs of society. The scope

for rural development

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No. 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on
support
from the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and
repealing certain Regulations; OJ L 160, 26.6. 1999, pp. 80 - 102.
(2) Fact Sheet: Rural Development in the European Union, page 9,
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 2003.

In the light of

the Committee
3.9
would stress that the primary purpose of the second CAP pillar
must be to support agriculture as it adapts to meet the under-
lying changes in public expectations.

these developments,

3.10
The Commission communication on the 2007-2013
financial perspectives presents a stable and modest budget,
maintaining EU own resources at 1.24 % of GNP. The
Committee backs the Commission's proposal and stresses that
cutting Community resources would send out the wrong signal
just as EU enlargement was taking effect.

The same also applies to rural development policy. The
3.11
only ‘extra’ resource for this policy would be the application of
modulation. This basically means allowing financial transfers
only between the first and second CAP pillars. Hence,
the
Committee would urge the Council and the European Parlia-
ment to ensure that adequate financial resources are made
available for this policy as otherwise it would be devoid of
substance.

Furthermore, future rural development policy will be
3.12
implemented by a new and probably 25-strong Commission.
There would be a real risk of these two policies becoming
disjointed if the two CAP pillars were each managed by a
different commissioner. The Committee reiterates its opposition
to any move to establish separate directorates-general and
appoint different commissioners for agriculture and sustainable
development issues.

4. Multifunctional agriculture:

its role in rural develop-

ment policy

In its earlier opinions (3), the Committee has already reit-
4.1
erated the point that agricultural markets are, by their very
nature, unstable and frequently subject to price fluctuations.
Hence, the mechanisms in place to regulate supply and the
market are essential for farms to be able to meet the conditions
of sustainable agriculture. The Committee would stress that
maintaining a policy that supports the regulation of markets in
agricultural products is also conducive to the success of any
rural development policy.

(3) A policy to consolidate the European agricultural model, CES

953/99, OJ C 368, 20.12.99, pp. 76-86.
The future of the CAP, CES 362/2002, OJ C 125, 27.5.2002, pp.
87-99.

C 302/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

4.2 Moreover, the last CAP reform of 26 June 2003 broke
the link between production and public support for agriculture.
This change reinforces the need to secure farming's economic
development in order to better reflect new requirements —
such as biodiversity, the conservation of specific landscapes,
and job creation by this sector. The Committee therefore notes
that agricultural production is a prime factor in securing a
living countryside, as it establishes a direct link between human
activities and the local area.

the need to avoid any ‘rurbanisation’ of the countryside, i.e. the
application of the same development measures in rural as in
urban areas. The Committee is currently working on an own-
initiative opinion on agriculture in peri-urban areas (1). Moves
to diversify the rural economy as part of rural development
policy should therefore focus on a few issues closely linked to
farming, including services to the farming community designed
to improve people's quality of life, promote agri-tourism and
support agriculture-based multiple jobbing.

4.2.1
Regionally-based production systems and measures to
enhance the value of farm products — including the expansion
of protected designations of origin (PDOs), protected geogra-
indications (PGIs) and direct sales — are elements of
phical
multifunctional agriculture that help promote rural develop-
ment.

5. Rural development policy: its features and limits

these jobs are firmly rooted at regional

4.3
In a Union of 25 Member States, farming will employ
more than 13 million people directly, and more than 5 million
indirectly in its upstream and downstream sectors. By their
very nature,
level.
Processed agrifood products also make up a growing share of
intra-Community trade, strengthening the link between the
farming and the agrifood sectors. The maintenance and distri-
bution of farming activities across rural areas is thus becoming
a priority if their integration into the regional economy is not
to be held back.

In an EU of 27 Member States, 190 million hectares —
4.4
45 % of the land mass — will be given over to farming. In
2001, more than 10 % of the utilised agricultural area (UAA)
was subject to agri-environmental measures. Agricultural land
makes up 15 % of areas classified under the habitats and birds
land in the fifteen ‘old’ EU
directive. 38 % of agricultural
Member States has also been designated as ‘nitrate-vulnerable
zones’. These measures meet local environmental protection
and/or spatial planning requirements. Clearly, then,
farming
will always play a key role in land management.

4.5
The Committee would again make the point that one
aim of multifunctional agricultural production is to maintain a
living countryside. The Commission and the Council must
make that clear before embarking on any new departure in
rural development policy.

5.1
The conclusions of the third cohesion report show that
disparities in sustainable output, productivity and job creation
which persist between regions stem from structural deficiencies
in the key factors of competitiveness. The Committee would
stress that rural development policy must also be guided by
these principles in order to help foster structural developments
in rural areas.

EU enlargement exacerbates

5.2
the issue of economic
development in rural areas because of the high level of ‘hidden
unemployment’ in the new Member States. This further compli-
cates the distinction between regional policy and rural develop-
ment policy. The Committee proposes that the issues common
to regional policy and rural development policy should be set
out clearly in a new Structural Funds regulation and that the
number of measures eligible for funding under one or other of
these policies should be limited so as to establish greater clarity
between them.

5.3 While agriculture cannot claim to be the sole guarantor
of rural development, it does remain a sine qua non of any
successful rural development policy. The link between jobs —
both direct and indirect — and the local region and the sheer
size of the areas concerned mean that back-up for agriculture
as it adapts to meet changing public expectations remains a
priority. Moreover, the first and second CAP pillars are also
conducive to achieving rural development targets by main-
taining or strengthening farming activity.

5.4
EU enlargement also presents a key challenge for the
future of the CAP. The Committee stresses that exchanges of
experience and the transfer of good practice should also play a
special role in establishing the conditions for implementing the
second CAP pillar for the future period.

4.6 While backing the Salzburg conference conclusions on
diversifying the rural economy, the Committee would stress

(1) Draft EESC opinion on agriculture in peri-urban areas, CES
1324/2003 (to be adopted at the September 2004 plenary session)

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/57

5.5
The Committee would also stress that because of their
permanent natural handicaps sparsely populated regions such
as islands, Arctic areas and upland areas are still pursuing the
goal of completing the single market. Regional policy and rural
development policy must reflect this in the way in which they
are implemented, not least by proposing a higher level of co-
financing to take account of these constraints. The Committee
is also currently working on an own-initiative opinion (1)
looking more specifically at how to better integrate regions
suffering from natural handicaps into the regional economy.

5.6
The Committee would also stress that rural development
policy and regional policy are not the only ways in which the
authorities can promote harmonious territorial development
within the European Union. The Committee notes that firmly
implanting public services in a region also helps secure terri-
torial cohesion.

6.2
For the new Member States, a temporary rural develop-
ment programme has been adopted for the period 2004-2006.
As well as the four new flanking measures, this programme
farming partnerships,
to encourage
will provide support
support for semi-subsistence farms, technical assistance, and
top-ups to direct aid under the CAP first pillar.

7. New approaches in the three areas focused on at the

Salzburg conference

7.1
As the single market consolidates and the internal
market gradually opens up to farming economies with
comparative natural advantages or lower environmental stan-
dards,
the European agricultural model
continue to become ever more competitive.

is essential

that

it

B. A CLOSER LOOK AT THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

6. Measures adopted under the Luxembourg compromise

of 26 June 2003

The Committee therefore feels that support for farming
7.2
investments as part of
rural development policy should
continue to be strengthened. It is important to support invest-
ments that enable farms to take account both of environmental
requirements and of
improvements in animal welfare and
working conditions, especially where they help reinforce
farming activity in a particular area.

6.1
The CAP reform of June 2003 highlighted the stronger
link between the second pillar (rural development) and the
changes to the first pillar. A series of new first-pillar flanking
measures have been introduced, taking the total number from
22 to 26.

7.3
The Committee considers that the provision of agri-
cultural advisory services to support the switch to new produc-
tion standards should be brought forward. The scheme may
not actually be implemented in the Member States until 2006,
while conditionality will apply from 2005.

6.1.1
Two new measures have been introduced in the area
of food quality (voluntary participation in recognised national
quality indicator
to promote these
schemes and actions
products and inform consumers about them). The two other
new measures seek to adapt production methods to European
standards of environmental protection, animal welfare and
animal and plant health.

6.1.2
A number of existing measures have been adapted
(the incorporation of animal welfare considerations into agri-
environmental measures, the consolidation of public support
implementation of the
for the setting-up of young farmers,
habitat and birds directive and the funding of forest invest-
ments to promote environmentally and socially sound forest
management.

(1) Preliminary draft EESC opinion on how to achieve better integration
of regions suffering from permanent natural and structural handi-
caps, R/CESE 631/2004 (to be adopted at the September 2004
plenary session)

Over

the past

few years a number of

7.4
factors —
including the slackening of market regulation in agricultural
products, climatic changes and action to tackle health crises —
have highlighted the importance of bringing farm turnover
under control. Under the 2003 CAP reform, the Commission
undertook to draw up a report to examine the possibility of
allowing a percentage of modulation to be used at national
level for specific measures designed to meet risks, crises and
natural disasters. The Committee notes that the Commission
has to submit this report before the end of 2004 and should
also look at national and Community approaches to developing
agricultural
if
need be, input from the second CAP pillar might be considered
as a flanking measure.

insurance systems. The Committee asks that,

7.5
The second plank of future rural development policy
should be environmental protection and spatial management,
with agri-environmental measures
and compensation for
natural handicaps as a key main tool, drawing on common
yardsticks in the interests of maintaining territorial balance.

C 302/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.12.2004

7.6
CAP reform has introduced the principle that direct aid
to agriculture is conditional on compliance with European
legislation (nineteen directives and regulations) on the environ-
ment, public health, animal and plant health and animal
welfare. The Committee stresses that this new element of the
first CAP pillar must not be confused with agri-environmental
measures (AEM). AEM are not regulatory, but support farmers'
voluntary, participatory activities aimed at using farming
methods designed to protect the environment and conserve
natural areas.

7.7
The Committee feels that the administrative arrange-
ments for AEM implementation should be simplified. The
objectives of the measures should thus be decided in line with
subsidiarity. Mindful of budgetary stability, the Committee also
these
questions the need to further widen the scope of
measures to include other environmental issues. However, par-
ticular emphasis should be put on AEM, which focus on the
diversity of agricultural production systems in order to main-
tain balanced agri-systems.

7.7.1
In the light of the declaration of the Gothenburg Euro-
pean summit, agri-environmental measures should be made
mandatory in each of the national programmes.

C. IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT OF RURAL DEVELOP-

MENT POLICY

8.
The first area in which management conditions have to
be improved is in the continuity of rural development plan-
ning. The Committee therefore supports Commission efforts to
frame the new rural development policy in order to limit as far
as possible the ‘latent period’ between two programming
periods.

8.1
The administrative difficulties in some Member States in
implementing rural development policy show that using a
number of financial
instruments that are subject to different
rules may run counter to moves to make public administration
easier to understand. Thus, the positive move to bring rural
development measures together into a single regulation has
potentially been perceived as a source of extra red tape by
those it was intended to benefit.

The Committee would stress that Natura 2000 should
7.7.2
not be financed to the detriment of existing measures. Hence, it
would like to see the Commission identify new avenues of
finance to offset the costs involved in implementing the habitat
and birds directive.

Simplifying planning means having no more than one
8.2
fund for managing rural development activities. That said, the
Committee would stress that this single fund must be managed
in a way consistent with the management of the Structural
Funds.

The third plank of

7.8
future rural development policy
should focus on diversifying the farm-linked rural economy in
order to help maintain rural populations.

In its third cohesion report, the Commission states that
7.9
three kinds of measures — tourism, the craft trades and rural
heritage — should be covered jointly by regional policy and
rural development policy. The Committee wants to see this
balance maintained. Apparently, rural infrastructure should no
longer be financed by the Structural Funds. The Committee
rejects any transfer of funding for this type of investment from
regional policy to rural development policy.

7.10
The Committee also proposes that, to carry regional
policy forward, rural heritage renewal or regeneration schemes
not undertaken as part of an agri-tourism project should no
longer come under rural development policy.

The Committee

to
7.11
strengthen the rural economy should include a number of
services designed to improve quality of life for the farming
community (e.g. farmer replacement services).

that measures

also proposes

The future three-pronged structure of rural development
8.3
policy (agricultural competitiveness, spatial management and
diversification of the rural economy) should also be reflected
when drafting the forthcoming rural development regulation.
This regulation could lay down the principles for support and
the goals of the three strands. It might also list possible types
of activity (investment aid, subsidised loans, multiannual public
support
technical assistance,
financial engineering etc). The arrangements for implementing
each of the measures should be subject to national subsidiarity.
The Committee feels that if the Member States had to manage
a single decision on the basis of a strategic document, this
would have the advantage of establishing a fixed Community
framework for the programming period.

to meet certain specifications,

The current way of adopting amendments to measures
8.4
in the Committee on Agricultural Structures and Rural Devel-
opment (the STAR Committee) is not flexible enough since the
ex-ante assessment procedure is still too long. The Committee
proposes that the new provisions should be based on the State
aid procedure. This means that, when the rural development
plan is adopted at the start of programming, the changes to the
measures could be submitted to the Commission to check their
legality (ex-post evaluation).

7.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/59

Operational programmes should be subject to national
8.5
or
infra-national subsidiarity, depending on the way each
Member State is organised. The Commission would thus be
responsible for ensuring that the measures taken did not distort
competition in any way,
the
support arrangements and ensuring consistency with the Struc-
tural Funds. The Committee would also point out that, given its
past record in this field, the Commission could support moves
to pass on experience as part of technical assistance, not least
for the new Member States.

for verifying the legality of

8.6
The Committee wants to see a cut in the number of
steps involved in ratifying programmes by having clear-cut
responsibilities for each level of decision-making: Commission,
Member States and regional and local authorities.

8.7
Having a single fund for rural development measures is
also designed to simplify financial management. This new fund
should share the same main features as the Structural Funds,
i.e.:

— it should be based on a projected yearly timetable;

— it should be subject to multiannual planning;

— its payment methods should be more flexible than those of
the EAGGF — Guarantee Section (commitment appropria-
tions — payment appropriations).

development policy

8.8 Moves to simplify the administrative management of
also cover monitoring. The
rural
Committee backs the Commission's approach set out in the
third cohesion report, particularly as regards proportionality in
monitoring. Below certain thresholds, the Member State would
have the option of using its national control systems for the
programmes concerned. The Committee would stress that these
guidelines should apply to rural development policy manage-
ment, provided they secure the same effective monitoring —
and thus sound use — of Community funds.

Brussels, 30 June 2004.

8.9
The performance reserve for the Structural Funds intro-
duced as part of Agenda 2000 is seen more as a measure used
in frustration when the administrative implementation of
programmes is not going according to plan. Moreover, alloca-
tions of this reserve based solely on appropriation take-up
could be harmful by encouraging rapid planning followed by a
implementation. This is not consistent
strict monitoring of
with multiannual
rural development programming. The
Committee therefore feels that the performance reserve prin-
ciple should not be applied to future rural development policy.

is

also

Partnership

consistent with

8.10
simplifying
programme implementation. The Committee hopes that each
Member State, mirroring what is happening in regional policy,
will strive to secure cooperation both between the various
administrative tiers and also with the social partners and orga-
nised civil society representatives in the framing, implementa-
tion and follow-up of the programmes.

Since it was launched in 1989,

8.11
the Commission's
Leader initiative has proved successful, not least thanks to the
priority it gives to seeking out new avenues for development in
rural areas. The current programming phase has also high-
lighted the multiplier effect of sharing experiences in facilitating
partnerships between local action groups in the different coun-
tries. The Committee feels that the Leader initiative should
continue backing local initiatives by exploring new avenues for
development in rural areas, not least through the inclusion of a
specific strand in rural development policy: how to foresee
training needs in a specific area, the search for new outlets for
farm products, the development of synergies between economic
players operating in the same area: these are just some of the
other subjects that might shed new light on future rural devel-
opment policy. The Committee therefore backs the continua-
tion of the Leader initiative as part of development policy with
a view to identifying innovative solutions for rural development
areas.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH