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)’
Date: 2005-02-23
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: agri-environmental plan, fund (EU), rural development

C 164/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

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 Euro-
pean 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 Commis-
sion 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

consumer-focused rather than producer-focused, as was the
case in the past; c) the quality of food has to be improved and
there has to be better protection for nature, the countryside,
the environment and water.

1.1
Considerable rural diversity is a feature of the European
Union. Rural development policy has to reflect and safeguard
that diversity, which also encompasses rural areas' social struc-
ture and environment. A living countryside benefits not only
the rural population, but also society as a whole.

In the EU, a rural development policy is slowly being
1.2
established which represents more than simply an extension of
agricultural policy. The rural economy needs to branch out
into other activities in addition to food production, given the
dwindling economic importance of
farming in many rural
areas. That is the only way to keep Europe's rural areas alive,
from an environmental, economic and social point of view.
Three objectives have to be met: a) rural populations have to
be given long-term prospects by increasing the number of jobs,
expanding infrastructure and providing a wider variety of
employment; b) agricultural production has to become more

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

1.3
A realistic approach is also important. This means being
aware of the role played by European agriculture in main-
taining the regions, as well as the regional impact if that role
were to disappear owing to the application of strictly economic
criteria to agricultural and forestry activities. Rural development
policy alone therefore cannot resolve all the difficulties faced
by the EU's rural areas. In some places, the issues go beyond
the Regulation's scope and will require joint efforts from a
number of different funds. Coordination — at regional level —
between rural development policy and regional policy (2)
is
thereby essential. However, the CoR calls for additional propo-
sals for the proofing of other EU and national policies to
ensure greater complementarity with EU and national rural
development policies. Likewise, the EAFRD should be proofed
against other policies to ensure mutually beneficial objectives.

(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

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/19

The 2003 Salzburg conference gave a new and powerful
1.4
boost
the
to rural development policy. The Committee of
Regions welcomes the fact that the Salzburg conclusions have
been substantially incorporated into the Regulation. The appli-
cation of the policy to all regions of the EU, together with the
simplification of the implementation of the policy and the
financial arrangements are key positive aspects. The Committee
of the Regions also gives its support to the partnership arrange-
ments defined in Article 6 of the Regulation. It is very impor-
tant to involve local and regional authorities in all stages of
rural development policy. This is the best way of ensuring that,
in the regions concerned, measures are implemented which
bring about a higher level of social and economic cohesion
within the individual regions concerned, and between these
regions and surrounding regions.

The following comments on the regulation should be
1.5
seen in this context. The main priority is to establish a genuine
rural development policy.

2. Towards a multi-sectoral rural development policy

2.1
The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact that
the Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Treaty
Article 159, earmarks a substantial portion of the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) for regions
covered by the new ‘convergence’ objective.

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the proposed
2.2
new legislative measures
rural development
in respect of
policy, but deplores the fact that, in the preamble to the Regu-
lation, rural development policy is viewed initially as a policy
which complements and accompanies market and income
support policies, rather than being recognised as an autono-
mous policy. A related issue in this context is the question of
whether adequate budgetary resources are available to pursue
an ambitious rural development policy.

any

fragmentation of

The Committee of the Regions endorses the benefit of a
2.3
It is important to
strategic approach to rural development.
resources. Questions do,
prevent
however, have to be asked with regard to the added value of a
European strategy. The Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies and
the Salzburg conclusions already provide an adequate frame-
work at EU level. It is up to the Member States, the regions and
local authorities to flesh out the implications of this framework
in respect of rural areas and rural development policy. This is
the only way to tackle the conflicting objectives of, on the one
hand, securing a more strategic approach to rural development
policy at EU level and, on the other hand, maintaining adequate
flexibility at the national, local and regional levels.

2.4
The Committee of the Regions welcomes the proposal
that ensures Member States must consult with their regional
and local authorities. However, the Committee of the Regions
expresses its concern over the time given to the Member States
to draw up the national strategy plans and rural development
programmes. The Committee of the Regions also deplores the
fact that the national strategy plans must be submitted before
the rural development programmes can be sent to the Euro-
pean Commission since these two measures are closely
the Regions
connected.

the Committee of

In this context,

proposes that the same procedure be adopted as is applied in
the case of regional policy; in the latter context Member States
may submit the strategic framework together with the opera-
tional programmes (Recommendation 1)

2.5
In the longer term, the aim should be to introduce a
single regional fund, thereby removing the distinction between
funding for
regional development policy and funding for
regional policy. For each region, the aim would be to address
the opportunities and problems of the whole region on the
basis of a single cohesive strategy covering the whole territory
of the region.

Rural development policy is formulated on the basis of
2.6
one or more rural development programmes. On the basis of
an appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of the region and/
or Member State concerned, the rural development programme
introduces measures to address the needs of the region and/or
Member State concerned. This action may conflict with the
provisions of Article 16 of the Regulation, which stipulates a
minimum Community financial contribution in respect of each
of the priority objectives (15 % in the case of axes I and III and
25 % in respect of axis II). The Committee of the Regions
endorses the need for balance in expenditure on regional devel-
opment policy. From this perspective, it is advisable above all
in the case of the third priority objective — namely encoura-
ging diversification in the economies of rural areas — to
prescribe a minimum contribution. Appraisals of the various
regional development programmes covering the period 2002-
2006 did indeed indicate that this very component of regional
development policy was less well developed. The appraisal of
strengths and weaknesses carried out in connection with the
abovementioned programmes must, however, also be a factor
in determining how resources are to be distributed between the
various priority objectives. The CoR therefore urges that the
option of diverging from the percentages stipulated in Article
16 be taken up in cases where such a course of action is
adequately justified on the grounds of the abovementioned
analyses (Recommendation 3).

It is also imperative that the distribution of resources
2.7
does not impede those projects which, taken overall, fall within
the scope of the Regulation but nonetheless go beyond the
scope of one individual priority objective. The stipulation in
Article 71(6) that a specific action may only be financed under
one priority axis does, however, appear to render the above-
mentioned objective impossible. The Committee of the Regions
therefore proposes that this Article be amended accordingly
(Recommendation 19).

The level of detail

2.8
in the Regulation is sometimes
remarkable, especially in comparison with the regulations
dealing with regional policy. It may be better to entrust respon-
sibility for dealing with some particular issues to the persons in
charge of drawing up the rural development programme. Cases
in point are the provision whereby only small and micro-enter-
prises are eligible for support
in respect of measures to
improve processing and marketing, the provision in Article 50
whereby only one of the children of farmers is eligible for
support in respect of diversification and the maximum levels of
EU support as stipulated in Annex I.

C 164/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

2.9
One of the conclusions reached at the Salzburg confer-
ence was that a living countryside is vital for agriculture, just as
agriculture is a vital component of a living countryside. It is
that regional development programmes pay
very important
adequate attention to the setting-up in business of young
farmers. There is currently no integrated policy covering young
farmers. One example of such an integrated policy would be
the introduction of a start-up package bringing together, in a
single scheme, all matters relating to the taking-over of an
enterprise and setting up new farmers in business.

depopulation. Attention needs to be paid to the retraining of
farmworkers as an adjunct to job-creation, and to the possibi-
lity of part-time farming. The rural development programme
must provide scope for such retraining and/or for diversifica-
tion, inter alia so as to include non-agricultural activities,, not
least
less from assistance
provided under the Structural Funds, (in particular the Euro-
pean Social Fund (ESF)). In regions where ESF funding is more
concentrated, the ESF programmes concerned should explicitly
provide for retraining and multi-jobbing of farmworkers.

in those regions set

to benefit

The Committee of

the Regions takes note of

2.10
the
proposal to discontinue the use of the socio-economic criteria
for designating ‘other areas with handicaps apart from moun-
tain areas’ and to bring the basis for calculating the allowances
into line with agri-environmental payments. The reasons under-
lying the European Commission's proposal are clear but the
Committee of
the Regions expresses its concern over the
impact which the change in the criteria may have on farming
businesses in the areas concerned.
the
proposed changes have a major socio-economic impact, provi-
sion should be made for the introduction of other policy
measures to mitigate this impact. At the very least, considera-
tion should be be given to the establishment of a transition
period for phasing-out of aid to farmers in areas which will in
the near future no longer be eligible for support.

In the event

that

The Committee of the Regions welcomes the fact that
2.11
it is now possible for other landowners, in addition to farmers,
to take up agri-environmental measures. These players may
represent the missing link in land management where the aim
is to cover all the land in an area (and not only agricultural
land). In this context, the Committee of the Regions explicitly
proposes that provision be made for other reward schemes for
agri-environmental measures in view of
the
current reward scheme — based as it is on the additional costs
and income foregone due to the fulfilment of the commitments
entered into — is not always applicable. One possibility is to
provide for an allowance based on actual output and related
benefits (Recommendation 8).

the fact

that

The Regulation no longer provides for a take-up incen-
2.12
tive for agri-environmental measures,
i.e. the possibility of a
20 % increase in the allowance. This is unwelcome given the
usefulness of such measures and their importance for rural land
management. The Committee of the Regions proposes that this
incentive be restored (Recommendation 8).

2.13
There are very significant differences between countries
with well-developed and less well developed forestry sectors.
The Commission proposals are not sufficiently flexible to
encourage afforestation in countries with low levels. The devel-
oping forest industry in such countries will be jeopardised and
the environmental advantages lost if allowances are not made
for such differences.

2.14
Every year many farmworkers seek work outside agri-
culture. In some regions, this may exacerbate the problem of

2.15
Rural Areas in the Union offer valuable natural and
cultural heritage, which can play a key role in diversification of
the rural economy. However, the ability of the local tourism
sector to use these attractions in a sustainable way and to
provide the tourist with a high quality experience is often
hampered by poor
inappropriate
product development. Therefore,
is essential that specific
reference to training is made under the tourism measure in
Article 52 of the Regulation (Recommendation 12).

service delivery and/or
it

Internet

2.16 Women play a major role in the diversification of the
economy in rural areas but frequently also come up against
specific problems, such as more limited access to the capital
required in order to set themselves up in business.
In the
Committee of the Regions' view, the Regulation should help
secure greater
involvement of women in rural economies
in
(Recommendation 11). The
promoting the diversification of rural economies. Many rural
areas do, however, enjoy little or not access to the Internet. The
Committee therefore welcomes the Commission's proposal that
the ERDF be used to equip rural areas with sufficient ICT infra-
structure. This will greatly help to bridge this ‘digital divide’;
resolving this problem would also make the areas in question
more attractive to new enterprises and could enable existing
enterprises to tap into new markets. Complementary measures
could be adopted under the EAFRD as part of the priority to
diversify the rural economy.

is also invaluable

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

regional level …

3.1
The Committee of the Regions attaches considerable
importance to the involvement of local and regional authorities
in the drawing-up and implementation of rural development
programmes and considers that this role should be reflected
more strongly in the Regulation (Recommendation 13). The
Committee of
the Regions calls for national strategies to
provide adequate scope for measures which are tailor-made to
meet the needs of the regions and of local areas (see also point
2.2 above). The Committee of the Regions believes that it is
important
the need for
balanced spatial development throughout each region. A surfeit
the
of prescriptions at EU or national
strategy to be pursued may impede the introduction of regional
initiatives which are geared to addressing local opportunities
and problems.

take into account

in respect of

strategies

level

that

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/21

3.2
There is a need for programming, financing and moni-
toring to be tailored to actual need. It is therefore strange that
the Regulation should stipulate that Member States may draw
up a rural development programme either at national or
regional level. It would be better to provide more leeway on
this point, including the possibility of combining regional and
national programmes. Moreover,
in Member States with a
federal structure in particular, it has proven useful during the
current funding period, to take up the option of approving
national framework regulations which could then be imple-
mented in the regional programmes. (Recommendation 2).

complement

3.3
The Committee of the Regions supports the proposal
that the third priority should preferably be implemented by
means of local development strategies. There can be no doubt
that new economic activities are vital for rural areas. Such
farming. The new activities must,
activities
however, be introduced with care in order to avoid impairing
the quality of rural areas. In this context, the Committee shares
the view expressed by the European Economic and Social
Committee (1) that it is essential to avoid any ‘rurbanisation’, i.e.
the application of the same measures in both rural and urban
areas. That is certainly true for areas under urban pressure,
where maintaining the specific features of rural areas is vitally
important
life in urbanised areas. The
problems encountered in these areas, including problems linked
to urban agriculture, require a completely different approach
than that adopted for tackling the problems of more peripheral
rural areas. The Regulation must provide adequate scope for
meeting these requirements.

for the quality of

4. … a clear role for LEADER

it

4.1
The Committee of the Regions attaches great impor-
tance to LEADER and therefore deplores the lack of clarity as
regards the role of the LEADER programme in the Regulation.
On the one hand, the LEADER approach is designated,
in
Article 4.2, as the fourth priority objective but
is also
described, on the other hand, as a methodology for imple-
menting measures taken in pursuance of the first three priority
the
objectives. The Committee of
LEADER approach be given its rightful position, namely as a
separate priority, comparable to the role played by Interreg in
regional policy. Mainstreaming of the LEADER approach runs
the risk of losing the unique character and the added value of
this approach. The Committee of the Regions asks the Euro-
pean Commission to include details on the future role of
LEADER in the Regulation and to clarify the position of
LEADER as a separate priority.

the Regions urges that

4.2
As regards the implementation of local strategies, Article
63(1) appears to indicate that these strategies have to meet all
the goals of the four priority axes. This runs counter to the
provisions of Article 62(a) which states
that a LEADER
approach is to be pursued ‘with a view to achieving the objec-
tives of one or more of
the three priority axes …’. The
Committee of the Regions proposes that this inconsistency be
removed from the Regulation (Recommendation 14).

(1) Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee of 30

June 2004, NAT/243

4.3
The Committee of the Regions supports the proposal to
earmark for LEADER a part of the EU funding available to
Member States, according to the needs of the areas affected.
The Committee of the Regions also welcomes the proposal to
establish a European network for rural development. The
experience gained with the establishment of national LEADER
networks could be utilised in this respect. However,
the
Committee of the Regions cautions against a repeat of the
unacceptable delays in launching the EU Observatory of Rural
Areas
LEADER European Observatory
(LEADER II) and many of the national LEADER networks. The
European Commission and the Member States should make it a
priority to establish these bodies from the very outset of the
programming period. Local authorities have a great deal of
experience in working with the LEADER approach which
should be utilised by Member States when they produce a
framework for LEADER.

(LEADER+),

the

4.4
The Committee of the Regions is against keeping a
substantial part of the available budget in reserve for those
Member States whose LEADER programmes achieve the best
results. This will probably result in priority being given to
short-term, ‘easy’ projects, at the expense of medium- and long-
term projects. For planning to be reliable, it must be established
what resources are available in the relevant Member State
(Recommendations 15 and 18).

5. Conclusions

In the Committee of the Regions's view it is important
5.1
not to jeopardise continuity in the actions and measures during
the transition between the 2000-2006 and the 2007-2013
programming periods. Steps must therefore be taken to ensure
that the multi-annual measures agreed in the old phase, such as
the agricultural environment measures, are funded until the
expiry of the commitment period and that the agreed level of
Community participation (the co-funding rate) is maintained. In
order to have an effective EU rural policy in the new phase, the
Committee of the Regions supports the Commission's proposal
for a budget of € 88,75 billion (excluding modulation) for
financing the EU rural development policy. Renationalisation of
the policy or parts of the policy are strongly rejected by the
CoR.

5.2
The Committee of the Regions notes that, according to
the draft Regulation, in addition to an ex-ante, mid-term and
ex-post assessment, an annual assessment is also supposed to
be submitted; however, it wonders what is the value added of
an annual assessment.

5.3
One of the aims of the Regulation is to simplify the
legislation governing this area. In order to be in a position to
assess whether this objective has been achieved, it is essential
to have an insight
into the implementing regulations. The
Committee of the Regions would welcome a request for an
opinion on these regulations, in view of the experience which
Committee of the Regions members have had in implementing
policy in this field.

C 164/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

2. Committee of the Regions' recommendations

Recommendation 1

Article 11a(2)

Commission text

CoR amendment

2.
Each Member State shall send the Commission its
national strategic plan before submitting its rural develop-
ment programmes.

2.
Each Member State shall send the Commission its
national and/or regional strategic plans before or at the
development
time
same
programmes.

submits

rural

its

as

it

R e a son

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)

Proposed Commission text

CoR amendment

A Member State may submit either a single programme
for its entire territory or a programme for each region.

A Member State may submit either a single programme
for its entire territory or and/or a programme for each
region. If programming is at national and regional level,
there must be a clear link between the two. Member States
may also submit for approval general framework regula-
tions, which are to be incorporated entirely or in part in
the programmes of the regions.

R e a son

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

Recommendation 3

Article 16

Commission text

CoR amendment

The Community financial contribution to each of the three
objectives referred to in Article 4 shall cover at least 15%
of the Fund's total contribution to the programme for
priority axis I and III referred to in Sections I and III
respectively under Chapter I of Title IV and 25% of the
Fund's
the
priority axis II referred to in Section II of Chapter I.

total contribution to the programme for

The Community financial contribution to each of the three
objectives referred to in Article 4 shall cover at least 15%
of the Fund's total contribution to the programme for
priority axis I and III referred to in Sections I and III
respectively under Chapter I of Title IV and 25% of the
Fund's total contribution to the programme for the priority
axis II referred to in Section II of Chapter I. These percen-
tages need not be applied if there is sufficient justification
based on the results of the analysis referred to in Article
15(a).

R e a son

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

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/23

Recommendation 4

Article 19(c)(iii)

Commission text

CoR amendment

Support targeting the competitiveness of the agricultural
and forestry sector shall concern:
(...)

Support targeting the competitiveness of the agricultural
and forestry sector shall concern:
(...)

(c) measures aimed at

improving the quality of agri-

(c) measures aimed at improving the quality of agricultural

cultural production and products by:
(...)

production and products by:

(...)

(iii) supporting producer groups for information and
food

for products under

promotion activities
quality schemes;

(iii) supporting producer groups,

including manage-
ment bodies of quality marks or instruments and
information and
interbranch associations,
promotion activities
food
quality schemes;

for products under

for

R e a son

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

Commission text

CoR amendment

Adding value to primary agricultural and forestry
production

Adding value to primary agricultural and forestry
production

Support provided for in Article 19 (b)(iii), shall be

1.
granted for investments which:

Support provided for in Article 19 (b)(iii), shall be

1.
granted for investments which:

a) improve the overall performance of the enterprise;

a) improve the overall performance of the enterprise;

b) concern the processing and marketing of products
fishery

covered by Annex I
products, as well as forestry products, and

to the Treaty except

b) concern the processing and marketing of products
fishery

covered by Annex I
products, as well as forestry products, and

to the Treaty except

c) respect

the Community standards applicable to the

c) respect

the Community standards applicable to the

investment concerned.
Where investments are made in order to comply with
Community standards, support may be granted only to
those which are made by microentreprises, as referred
in paragraph 2, in order to comply with a newly intro-
duced Community standard. In that case a period of
grace, not exceeding 36 months from the date on
which the standard becomes mandatory for the enter-
prise, may be provided to meet the standard.

investment concerned.

Where investments are made in order to comply with
Community standards, support may be granted only to
those which are made by microentreprises, as referred in
paragraph 2, in order to comply with a newly introduced
Community standard. In that case a period of grace, not
exceeding 36 months from the date on which the standard
becomes mandatory for the enterprise, may be provided to
meet the standard.

2.
Support under paragraph 1 shall be limited to micro
and small enterprises within the meaning of Commission
forestry
recommendation 2003/361/EC.
production, support shall be limited to micro-enterprises.

In the case of

Support shall not be granted to enterprises in difficulty
within the meaning of the Community Guidelines in
State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in diffi-
culty.

Support under paragraph 1 shall be limited to micro,
2.
and small and medium-sized enterprises within the
meaning of Commission recommendation 2003/361/EC
and agri-food associations. In the case of forestry produc-
tion, support shall be limited to micro-enterprises.
Support shall not be granted to enterprises in difficulty
within the meaning of the Community Guidelines in State
aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty.

Support shall be limited to the maxima laid down in

3.
Annex I.

Support shall be limited to the maxima laid down in

3.
Annex I.

C 164/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

R e a son

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

Commission text

Measures

CoR amendment

Measures

Support under
measures:

this

section concerns

the

following

Support under
measures:

this

section concerns

the

following

(a) measures targeting the sustainable use of agricultural

(a) measures targeting the sustainable use of agricultural

land through:

land through:

(i) natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain

(i) natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain

areas,

areas,

(ii) payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other

(ii) payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other

than mountain areas,

than mountain areas,

(iii) NATURA 2000 payments,

(iii) NATURA 2000 payments,

(iv) agri-environment and animal welfare payments,

(iv) agri-environment and animal welfare payments,

(v) support for non-productive investments;

(v) support for non-productive investments;

(b) measures targeting the sustainable use of forestry land

(b) measures targeting the sustainable use of forestry land

through:

through:

(i) first afforestation of agricultural land,

(i) first afforestation of agricultural land,

(ii) first establishment of agroforestry systems on agri-

(ii) first establishment of agroforestry systems on agri-

cultural land,

cultural land,

(iii) first afforestation of non agricultural land,

(iii) first afforestation of non agricultural land,

(iv) NATURA 2000 payments,

(iv) NATURA 2000 payments,

(v) forest-environment payments,

(v) forest-environment payments,

(vi) restoring forestry production potential and intro-

(vi) restoring forestry production potential and intro-

ducing prevention actions,

ducing prevention actions,

(vii) support for non-productive investments;

(vii) support for non-productive investments;

(c) measures targeting the dissemination and conservation

of agroforestry systems, including:
(i) support for the conservation and maintenance of

agroforestry systems;
(ii) NATURA 2000 payments.

R e a son

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 live-
stock 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 recommenda-
tion support for the conservation and maintenance of agroforestry is added.

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/25

Recommendation 7

Article 36

Commission text

CoR amendment

NATURA 2000 payments

NATURA 2000 payments

Support provided for in Article 34 (a)(iii), shall be granted
annually and per hectare of Utilised Agricultural Area to
farmers in order to compensate for costs incurred and
income forgone resulting from disadvantages in the areas
concerned related to the implementation of Directives
79/409/EEC.

Support provided for in Article 34 (a)(iii), shall be granted
annually and per hectare of Utilised Agricultural Area to
farmers in order to compensate for costs incurred and
income forgone resulting from disadvantages in the areas
concerned related to the implementation of Directives
79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC, and to offer an incentive for
the environmental value of their farming system.

R e a son

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)

Commission text

CoR amendment

The payments shall be granted annually and shall
4.
cover additional costs and income foregone resulting from
the commitment given; where necessary, they may cover
also transaction cost.

Where appropriate, the beneficiaries are selected on the
basis of calls for tender, applying criteria of economic,
environmental and animal welfare efficiency.
Support shall be limited to the maxima laid down in
Annex I.

The payments shall be granted annually and shall
4.
cover additional costs and income foregone resulting from
the commitment given; where necessary, they may cover
also transaction cost.
The payments may be increased by 20% in order to encou-
rage take-up.
If warranted, Member States may propose alternative
support schemes.
Where appropriate, the beneficiaries are selected on the
basis of calls for tender, applying criteria of economic,
environmental and animal welfare efficiency.
Support shall be limited to the maxima laid down in
Annex I.

R e a son

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.

C 164/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

Recommendation 9

New Article 46 a

Commission text

CoR amendment

Support for the conservation and improvement of
agroforestry systems with high environmental value

1.-
The support provided for in Article 34(c)(i) shall be
granted to farmers who make management commitments
guaranteeing the conservation and improvement of agro-
forestry systems with high environmental value, including
commitments relating to animal welfare.
2.-
The Member States shall propose a list of areas that
could be considered as having agroforestry systems with
high environmental value.
3.-
laid down in Annex I.

The support shall be limited to the maximum sums

R e a son

See Recommendation 6

Recommendation 10

New Article 46 b

Commission text

CoR amendment

Natura 2000 payments

The support provided for in Article 34(c)(ii) shall be
granted annually per hectare of agroforestry land,
to
private individuals or associations in compensation for the
costs incurred from the restrictions on use of this land
resulting from the application of Directives 79/409/EEC
and 92/43/EEC.

The amount of
shall be between the
support
maximum and minimum amounts laid down in Annex I.

this

R e a son

See Recommendation 6

Recommendation 11

Article 49(a)

Commission text

CoR amendment

Support under this section involves:

Support under this section involves:

a) Measures to diversify the rural economy, comprising:

a) Measures to diversify the rural economy, comprising:

(i) diversification into non-agricultural activities,

(i) diversification into non-agricultural activities,

(ii) support for the creation and development of micro-
enterprises with a view to promoting entrepreneur-
ship and developing the economic fabric,

(ii) support for the creation and development of micro-
enterprises with a view to promoting entrepreneur-
ship and developing the economic fabric,

(iii) encouragement of tourism activities,

(iii) encouragement of tourism activities,

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/27

Commission text

CoR amendment

(iv) the protection, upgrading and management of the
so contributing to sustainable

natural heritage,
economic development.

(iv) support for greater participation of women in the

rural economy,

(iv)

the protection, upgrading and management of the
rural heritage (natural, historical and cultural), so
contributing to sustainable economic development.

R e a son

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 success-
fully address rural heritage, in its widest possible sense, above everything else. Historical and cultural heri-
tage, which are also of concern to rural development groups, must be included along with natural heritage.

Recommendation 12

Article 52

Commission text

CoR amendment

Encouragement of tourism activities

Encouragement of tourism activities

The support referred to in Article 49(a)(iii) covers the
following:

The support referred to in Article 49(a)(iii) covers the
following:

(a) small-scale infrastructure such as information centres

(a) small-scale infrastructure such as information centres

and the signposting of tourist sites;

and the signposting of tourist sites;

(b) recreational

infrastructure offering access to natural

(b) recreational

infrastructure offering access to natural

areas, and small-capacity accommodation;

areas, and small-capacity accommodation;

(c) the development and placing on the market of tourism

products relating to rural tourism.

(c) the development and placing on the market, including
on-line marketing of tourism products relating to rural
tourism;.

(d) specific vocational training for the tourism sector, in
areas such as customer service and product develop-
ment.

R e a son

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

Commission text

CoR amendment

Local development strategies

Local development strategies

The measures listed in Article 49 shall be implemented
preferably through local development strategies.

The measures listed in Article 49 shall be implemented
preferably with the active involvement of local authorities
through local development strategies.

C 164/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

R e a son

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 develop-
ment 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)

Commission text

CoR amendment

1
In the case of the support referred to in Article
62(a), operations under the strategy must meet the goals
laid down in this Regulation for each of the priority axes.

1.
In the case of the support referred to in Article 62(a),
operations under the strategy must meet one or more of
the goals laid down in this Regulation for each of the
priority axes.

R e a son

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)

Commission text

CoR amendment

3% of the resources referred to in paragraph 1, for an
amount of EUR 2.66 billion at 2004 prices, shall be allo-
cated to the reserve provided for in Article 92.

3% of the resources referred to in paragraph 1, for an
amount of EUR 2.66 billion at 2004 prices, shall be allo-
cated to the reserve provided for in Article 92.

R e a son

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

Recommendation 16

Article 71.4

Commission text

CoR amendment

Notwithstanding the ceilings set out in paragraph 3, the
Fund contribution may be increased by five percentage
points for the programmes of the outermost regions and
the smaller islands of Aegean Sea.

Notwithstanding the ceilings set out in paragraph 3, the
Fund contribution may be increased by five percentage
points for the upto 85% of public expenditure for the
financing of programmes of the outermost regions and the
smaller islands of Aegean Sea.

5.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/29

R e a son

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 specifi-
cally 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

Commission text

CoR amendment

1.
Each year, on presentation of the annual progress
report, the Commission and the Managing Authority shall
examine the main results of the previous year, in accord-
ance with procedures to be determined in agreement with
the Member State and Managing Authority concerned.

Each year, o On presentation of the annual progress
1.
report mid-term evaluation in 2010, the Commission and
the Managing Authority shall examine the main results of
the previous year since the beginning of the programme's
implementation,
in accordance with procedures to be
determined in agreement with the Member State and
Managing Authority concerned.

R e a son

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

Commission text

CoR amendment

1.
The amount allocated to the reserve referred to in
Article 70(2) shall be used to support implementation of
the LEADER approach in programmes.

1.
The amount allocated to the reserve referred to in
Article 70(2) shall be used to support implementation of
the LEADER approach in programmes.

Implementation of the LEADER approach shall be

2.
evaluated on the basis of objective criteria including:

Implementation of the LEADER approach shall be

2.
evaluated on the basis of objective criteria including:

(a) the priority given to the LEADER approach,

(a) the priority given to the LEADER approach,

(b) the territorial coverage of the LEADER approach,

(b) the territorial coverage of the LEADER approach,

(c) the stage

reached in implementing the LEADER

(c) the

stage

reached in implementing the LEADER

priority axis,

priority axis,

(d) the leverage effect on private capital,

(d) the leverage effect on private capital,

(e) the results of mid-term evaluations.

(e) the results of mid-term evaluations.

C 164/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2005

R e a son

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

Recommendation 19

Article 71(6)

Commission text

CoR amendment

An operation financed by the Fund shall not simulta-
neously benefit during its term of eligibility from a contri-
bution from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund or
any other Community financial instrument. An expendi-
ture co-financed by the Fund shall not be co-financed by
way of another Community financial instrument.

An operation financed by the Fund shall not simulta-
neously benefit during its term of eligibility from a contri-
bution from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund or
any other Community financial instrument. An expendi-
ture co-financed by the Fund shall not be co-financed by
way of another Community financial instrument.

An operation may qualify for a Fund contribution only
under one rural development programme at a time. It may
be financed under only one priority axis of the rural devel-
opment programme.

An operation may qualify for a Fund contribution only
under one rural development programme at a time. It may
be financed under only one priority axis of the rural devel-
opment programme.

R e a son

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.

Article

Subject

Amount in euros or rate

CoR amendment

Maximum payment

Maximum Natura 2000 payment

200

200

Per hectare of UAA

Per hectare of UAA

46a (3)

46b

R e a son

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

Brussels, 23 February 2005.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Peter STRAUB