Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on The role of rural municipalities in the development of Europe's regions
Date: 2006-12-06
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: economic and social cohesion, regional cooperation, regional disparity, rural community, rural development, rural region

C 57/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

e) the fact that there are homogeneous administrative bodies
which have binding legislative powers throughout their own
territory and whose legislative autonomy is recognised either
by national law or constitutionally and that, by virtue of the
subsidiarity principle, the impossibility of their adhering to
safeguard measures and best practices should be recognised
and the possibility of achieving a GMO-free status must be
provided;

calls on the Member States and regions to ensure
3.10
cross-border cooperation with neighbouring areas to guarantee
the efficient
functioning of co-existence measures in border
parts;

in this context, recommends that the Commission set
3.11
up a website containing links to the existing national location
registers in Europe.

Brussels, 6 December 2006.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE

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

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

(2007/C 57/04)

Having regard to its Bureau's decision of 25 April 2006, to instruct the Commission for Sustainable Devel-
opment (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),

(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.

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/19

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)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

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;

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;

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;

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;

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

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 dissemi-
nated, not least using appropriate legislative and financial instruments;

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

notes the difficulties inherent in defining a rural area
1.1.1
or a rural municipality and highlights the fact
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

that all

(6) CdR 209/2006.
(7) COM(2006) 386 final.
(8) Bristol Agreement on ‘Sustainable Communities’, Bristol, 12.12.2005.

economic activity devoted to farming in a given area as objec-
tive 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: agri-
culture, 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’;

(9) CdR 389/96 fin.

C 57/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

takes note of the fact that the EU uses the criterion
1.1.3
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 popula-
tion density is higher;

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;

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;

2.2 Employment

highlights the fact

1.1.5
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, indus-
trial 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 devel-
opments 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;

also fears that, in the context of international competi-
1.1.9
tion,
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

2.2.1
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;

points out that support must be given for locally-avail-
2.2.2
able 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 employ-
ment 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 develop-
ment;

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

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
equipment,
machinery and training, and thus modernising the entire
production chain and generating knock-on effects;

businesses,

investing

in

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;

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

2.1.1
believes that investing in rural development is not
simply about securing immediate profit in economic terms, but
that comes without a
rather about securing a ‘public asset’
price-tag and that involves optimising historical and cultural

2.4.1
local economy;

stresses the usefulness of developing a fully diversified

2.4 Diversification in agriculture

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/21

believes it

is necessary,

to this end,

to encourage
2.4.2
farmers to adopt management systems that enable them to
respond more effectively to market trends, to foster entrepre-
neurship and to make farms and related businesses more
dynamic by framing new commercial strategies, while encoura-
ging the pooling of good practice and promoting business assis-
tance and benchmarking schemes;

2.4.3
farming businesses,
funds;

believes it essential to facilitate access to credit for
including by means of special revolving

support policies for the dissemination of modern communica-
tions and technologies that can bring the more remote areas
closer to the rest of the economic system;

that

therefore,

considers,

investment

is needed to
2.6.5
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;

2.5 Food quality

2.7 Renewable energy

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;

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

considers that it is necessary to improve information
2.5.2
in quality labels, organic
on product quality and to invest
to the
farming and production methods that are respectful
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;

believes, in this context, that water, wind and biomass
2.7.2
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;

stresses that the use of

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

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;

2.7.4
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;

2.5.5
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 disse-
mination on the market, starting at local and regional level;

2.6 Information and Communication Technology

2.6.1
harnessed to further rural development;

is of the opinion that the new technologies must be

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

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;

is necessary to prepare
2.6.4
Community framework policies and national and regional

for that reason believes it

draws attention to recent studies which show that in
2.7.5
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

refers to the European Landscape Convention and
2.8.1
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
economic
relationship between social needs,
harmonious
activity and the environment’;

C 57/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

emphasises that the landscape is not just part of local
2.8.3
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;

providing rural areas with under-estimated potential, is a neces-
sary precondition for development; to this end, considers it
necessary to maintain local secondary schools and facilitate
access to establishments further afield;

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;

2.9.5
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;

2.8.5
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;

considers local public transport

2.9.6
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 addi-
tional
income to rural areas, and believes that older people
should be encouraged to stay in rural communities by devel-
oping an infrastructure including health centres, meeting and
recreation places and support services;

2.9.8
develop and improve access to culture in rural municipalities;

believes that all necessary means should be used to

2.9 General interest services at local level

2.10 New governance in the rural context

2.9.1
notes that, in many parts of Europe, shrinking popula-
tions 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 viabi-
lity 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
stresses that

draws attention to the key role of education and
the presence of high-quality human resources,

2.10.1
government in rural areas would be useful;

believes that a debate on the development of local

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;

that

points out

this phenomenon has

2.10.3
resulted
increasingly in administration and management involving inter-
municipal cooperation and associations. These include associa-
tions 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;

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 57/23

highlights the fact

that new organisations already
2.10.5
exist in almost all the Member States, established by the State or
in partnership with private institutions, for the joint manage-
ment 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;

also notes the creation of organisations that focus on
2.10.6
pooling resources, solidarity and inter-municipal partnership as
part of a regional dynamic, and encourages such forms of (inter-
municipal)
through Community
programmes and benchmarking initiatives.

cooperation,

least

not

3. Recommendations of the Committee of the Regions

considers the establishment of

the European Agri-
3.1
cultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) to be a very posi-
tive step for the future development of rural areas and in par-
ticular 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 develop-
ment policy; with a view to securing practical and lasting
results, calls on the European Commission to tie the rural devel-
opment 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 Com-
munity policies; calls for further emphasis to be put on the
European Social Fund, education and employment;

3.2
recommends that cohesion policy measures comple-
ment 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 Commis-
sion 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;

hopes to see increased cooperation between the two
3.3
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;

hopes for a further general streamlining of rural finan-

3.4
cing;

new priorities, to promote awareness of EAFRD and Structural
Fund programmes and to promote their practical implementa-
tion 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 environ-
ment and creating prosperity by increasing employment and
entrepreneurship opportunities in the countryside, this approach
would buttress their cultural values, traditions and local charac-
teristics 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;

points out that

between rural municipalities

there are considerable differences in
3.8
prosperity
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;

themselves,

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;

in order

calls for instruments and mechanisms for comparison
3.11
and cooperation between small municipalities and regional capi-
tals,
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;

to arrive at

believes it would also be useful

3.12
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;

calls on the Commission to recognise the associations
3.5
that represent municipalities as active partners in the setting of

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

C 57/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

reiterates the need for open dialogue between rural
3.13
stakeholders when it comes to preparing, implementing, moni-
toring and assessing programmes and believes that local autho-
rities 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 there-
fore, that a bottom-up approach is required, to allow all the
players involved to exercise a strong influence on their prepara-
tion;

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

points out

that many Community

cooperation
3.16
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 renew-
able energy sources; and hopes that rural municipalities will
obtain financing and assistance to enable them to invest in

Brussels, 6 December 2006.

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
for
matters between rural areas in the EU;

hopes that the Commission will launch a programme
innovative best practice in economic

the exchange of

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 tradi-
tional 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 Parlia-
ment to consider the needs of rural areas when framing their
future proposals;

calls on the Commission to devise appropriate policies
3.22
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.

The President

of the Committee of the Regions

Michel DELEBARRE