REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS on the implementation of the national strategy plans and the Community strategic guidelines for rural development (2007-2013)
Date: 2011-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: development policy, quality of life, rural development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.7.2011 
COM(2011) 450 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE 
COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE 
COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

on the implementation of the national strategy plans and the Community strategic 
guidelines for rural development (2007-2013) 

{SEC(2011) 943 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Context and overview .................................................................................................. 2 

Implementation of the Community's priorities ............................................................ 5 

Horizontal issues ........................................................................................................ 10 

Outlook....................................................................................................................... 13 

EN 

1 

   EN 

This 2011 report is the first report from the Commission to the European Parliament, 
the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of 
the  Regions  on  the  implementation  of  the  National  Strategy  Plans  (NSP)1  and  the 
Community strategic guidelines (CSG) for rural development (2007-2013)2.  

This  Commission  report3  is  based  on  the  analysis  and  appraisal  of  the  summary 
reports submitted by Member States (MS) in 20104 as well  as from  other available 
information,  notably  the  financial  and  physical  common  monitoring  indicators  and 
some outcomes from the European Network for Rural Development. 

It  provides  a  summary  of  the  main  current  developments,  trends  and  challenges 
relating to the implementation of the national strategy plans and the CSG.  

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  data  used  in  the  2010  summary  reports  by  MS  are 
aggregates  from  the  beginning  of  the  programming  period  in  2007  to  the  end  of 
2009. The adjustments of the NSP and the related Rural Development Programmes 
(RDP)  which  followed  the  CAP-Health  Check  (HC)  and  the  European  Economic 
Recovery  Plan  (EERP)5  are  not  taken  into  consideration  in  this  current  report.  The 
modifications were indeed finalised at the beginning of 2010 only.  

1. 

CONTEXT AND OVERVIEW 

1.1 

The Community's priorities for rural development for the period 2007-2013 

On February 2006 the Council of the European Union adopted Strategic Guidelines 
for  rural  development  for  the  period  2007-20132,  based  on  the  three  core  thematic 
priorities laid down in the Council Regulation on support for rural development by 
the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD6): 

Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector. The EAFRD 
should contribute to a strong and dynamic European agrifood sector by focusing on 
the  priorities  of  knowledge  transfer,  modernisation,  innovation  and  quality  in  the 
food chain, and on priority sectors for investment in physical and human capital. The 
measures grouped in 'axis 1' shall contribute mostly to the competitiveness objective 
of the RDPs. 

Improving the environment and the countryside. To protect and enhance the EU’s 
natural resources and landscapes in rural areas, the resources devoted to this priority 

1 

2 

3 
4 

5 

6 

See Title II, Chapter II of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for 
rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 
Council  decision  of  20  February  2006  on  Community  strategic  guidelines  for  rural  development 
(programming period 2007 to 2013) (2006/144/EC). 
See Article 14 "Commission report" of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005. 
See  Article  13  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1698/2005  of  20  September  2005.  These  summary 
reports  set  out  the  progress  made  in  implementing  the  national  strategy  plans  and objectives,  and  the 
contribution to the achievement of the Community strategic guidelines. 
See http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/healthcheck/index_fr.htm for information on the CAP Health check 
and the European Economic Recovery Plan, and for access to the related legislation adopted in 2009. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 

EN 

2 

   EN 

                                                 
should contribute to three EU-level priority areas: biodiversity and the preservation 
and  development  of  high  nature  value  farming  and  forestry  systems  and  traditional 
agricultural landscapes; water; and climate change. The measures grouped in 'axis 2' 
of the RDPs shall contribute mostly to the environment objective. 

Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification of the 
rural  economy.  The  resources  devoted  to  the  fields  of  diversification  of  the  rural 
economy  and  quality  of  life  in  rural  areas  should  contribute  to  the  overarching 
priority  of  the  creation  of  employment  opportunities  and  conditions  for  growth. 
Interventions  should  in  particular  be  used  to  promote  capacity  building,  skills 
acquisition and organisation for local strategy development and  also help  to  ensure 
that  rural  areas  remain  attractive  for  future  generations.  In  promoting  training, 
information and entrepreneurship, the particular needs of women, young people and 
older  workers  should  be  considered.  The  measures  grouped  in  'axis  3'  of  the  RDPs 
shall contribute mostly to the wider rural development objectives together with axis 4 
(see below). 

Beyond the thematic priorities, the Strategic Guidelines also highlighted the need for: 

- Building local capacity for employment and diversification - while contributing to 
the thematic priorities. This horizontal axis, also called "Leader Axis" (Axis 4) should 
play  an  important  role  in  improving  governance  and  mobilising  the  endogenous 
development potential of rural areas, through Local Development Strategies. 

-  Ensuring  consistency  in  programming.  Synergies  between  and  within  the  axe 
should be maximised. Where appropriate, other EU-level strategies should be taken 
into account. Means to improve governance and policy delivery should be mobilised. 
In particular, European and national networks for rural development should be set up 
as  a  platform  for  exchange  of  best  practice  and  expertise  on  all  aspects  of  policy 
design, management and implementation between stakeholders. 

-  Complementarity  between  Community  instruments.  In  order  to  foster  synergy 
between  structural,  employment  and  rural  development  policies,  MS  should  ensure 
complementarity  and  coherence  between  actions  to  be  financed  by  different  EU 
funds.  

These  Strategic  Guidelines  provided  the  framework  on  the  basis  of  which  MS 
prepared  their  NSP,  which  translate  the  EU  priorities  into  national  priorities,  and 
serve  as  a  reference  for  the  RDPs.  These  implement  the  priorities  through  sets  of 
selected measures grouped by axis (see table 17 with the list of measures per axis). 
The programmes can be national or regional and were approved by the Commission 
in 2007 and 2008. Their implementation is monitored and evaluated on the basis of 
the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF). 

7 

All the tables are presented in the Commission Staff Working Paper 

EN 

3 

   EN 

                                                 
1.2 

Overview of the initial budget and operational targets 

The  overall  EAFRD  budget  amounted  to  90.98  billion  EUR  (prior  to  HC  EERP 
modifications)8 for the whole programming period 2007-2013. To ensure a balanced 
strategy  the  EAFRD  has  minimum  spending  levels  for  each  thematic  axis  to  be 
applied in each RDP (10%, 25% and 10% respectively for axis 1, 2 and 3). For the 
Leader  axis  a  minimum  of  5%  (2.5%  for the  new  MS)  of  the  EU  funding  for  each 
programme  is  reserved.  The  contributions  of  the  EAFRD  to  the  RDPs  are 
(co-financing9).  These  EAFRD 
complemented  by  national  public 
contributions  aree  financed  in  the  context  of  shared  management  between  the 
Member States and the Union.10 

funding 

Once the programming was made at MS level, the financial breakdown between the 
different  axe,  as  well  as  the  definition  of  the  main  targets  for  2013,  resulted  in  the 
following, as at-June 200811: 

- Axis 1 'improvement of the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector' 
accounts for 36% of the total EAFRD. This axis is expected, by 2013, to contribute 
to  590,000  investment  projects  for  the  modernisation  of  agricultural  holdings,  to 
support 68,000 enterprises for adding value to agricultural and forestry products, and 
to result in 2.2 million participants successfully completing a training activity related 
to agriculture and/or forestry. 

- Axis 2 'improving the environment and the countryside' is predominant with 46% 
of the total EAFRD. The planned result is to have 45 million Ha of agricultural land 
under agri-environment management, 600,000 Ha of new afforested land, 1.1 million 
Ha  of  agricultural  land  supported  to  meet  NATURA  2000  requirements  and  an 
increase in production of renewable energy of 20 500 ktoe12. 

8 

9 
10 

11 

12 

Since then, the EAFRD budget for the 2007-2013 programming period has been increased (notably by 
the HC and the EERP) to 96.2 billion EUR. 
All financial data in the report relate to EAFRD only. 
Article  4  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1290/2005  on  the  financing  of  the  common  agricultural 
policy. 
Part of the funds allocated to LEADER, technical assistance and direct payments have been attributed 
proportionally to the three main axe in the figures and table below. 
2013 targets for agriculture and forestry established by the MS in their programmes. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
- Axis 3 'quality of life in rural areas and diversification of the rural economy' has a 
lesser share with 18% of the total EAFRD. By 2013, it is expected to contribute to 
providing  improved  services  to  71  million  inhabitants  of  rural  areas  and  to 
supporting 32,400 projects of village renewal projects. 

The  share  of  the  Leader  axis  is  6%  of  total  EAFRD  funding.  Support  for 
implementing local development strategies is counted proportionally under the three 
main axe to which this support contributes.  

At  measure  level,  the  main  measure  remains  the  agri-environment  payments  (214) 
which accounts for 20.3 billion EUR for the whole period. The next most important 
measures in terms of budget are the less favoured area supports (211+212) with 12.6 
billion  EUR,  and  the  modernisation  of  agricultural  holdings  measure  (121) 
accounting for 9.7 billion EUR. 

Figure 1: 
EERP, broken down by measure (billion EUR)13  

Overall  rural  development  budget  (EAFRD)  before  the  HC  and  the 

s
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

20,0

17,5

15,0

12,5

10,0

7,5

5,0

2,5

0,0

1
2
1

3
2
1

5
2
1

2
1
1

3
1
1

1
1
1

1
4
1

i

1
s
x
a
s
r
e
h
t
o

4
1
2

2
1
2

1
1
2

1
2
2

6
2
2

7
2
2

i

2
s
x
a
s
r
e
h
t
o

2
2
3

1
2
3

2
1
3

1
1
3

3
1
3

3
2
3

1
1
5

1
1
6

i

3
s
x
a
s
r
e
h
t
o

3
1
4

1
3
4

i

4
s
x
a
s
r
e
h
t
o

2. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMMUNITY'S PRIORITIES  

2.1 

Overview of results, difficulties and solutions 

The  total  EAFRD  payment  realized  by  the  EU27  MS  for  the  2007-2009 
programming  period  amounts  to  19.4  billion  EUR14,  representing  21.3%  of  the 
overall  2007-2013  budget  of  90.98  billion  EUR.  Given  that  the  timeframe  under 
consideration represents 33% of the payment period (3 years out of 915), this number 
indicates  a  slightly  late  uptake.  However,  programme  implementation  normally 

13 
14 
15 

see legend of measures in table 1 of the Commission Staff Working Paper 
MS Payments related to 2007, 2008 and 2009 calendar year. 
Payments can be made 2 years after the last commitment (end 2013), thus until the end of 2015. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
needs  more  time  in  the  first  years  before  it  reaches  normal  speed,  especially  given 
that many RDPs were approved near the end of 2007 and 41 RDP (out of 94) were 
only approved in 2008.  

The  picture  is  far  from  homogeneous  among  the  MS  (Fig  2.):  only  2  MS  have 
spending levels above 40%, while 3 MS have spent less than 10%. It must be noted 
that  in  several  cases  payments  have  been  made  for  commitments  of  the  previous 
programming period 2000-2006 as foreseen in the transitional rules. This might lead 
to a slight distortion of the picture regarding the level of uptake for certain MS and 
measures. 

Figure 2: 
to the overall 2007-2013 allocation 

Overall execution of the EAFRD budget by the end of 2009 compared 

2007-2009 EAFRD expenditures

n
o
i
t
a
c
o

l
l
a

l
l
a
r
e
v
o
3
1
0
2
-
7
0
0
2

f
o
%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

LU IE AT BE FR DK FI DE SI SE SK CZ EU
27

LT HU UK CY NL EE ES LV GR PL PT

IT RO BG MT

Some axis 2 measures have peaked more quickly than others due to the transitional 
measures mentioned above. On the other hand, axe 1 and 3 have been significantly 
slowed down by the financial crisis which reduced the availability of national funds 
on  the  MS  side.  It  made  it  more  difficult  for  beneficiaries  to  obtain  the  necessary 
private  funding.  As  regards  axis  4,  a  typically  slow  start  is  observed,  which  is 
explained  by  the  establishment  of  local  strategies  and  the  selection  of  the  Local 
Action groups prior to any project implementation (see table 3).  

Figure 3: Overall rural development budget (EAFRD) before the HC by axis (billion 
EUR) and share of the uptake by end 200916 

16 

Part of the funds allocated to LEADER, technical assistance and direct payments have been attributed 
proportionally to the three main axe in the figures and table below. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
s
n
o

i
l
l
i

B

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

total budget
uptake

AXIS 1

AXIS 2

AXIS 3

The uptake of the output indicators against the overall targets for 2013 established by 
the  MS  in  their  programmes  is  globally  in  line  with  the  financial  level  of 
implementation. The complete uptake of output indicators is represented in table 2.  

General implementation difficulties, solutions found 

Beyond the time gap needed to approve the RDPs, the most frequent issue raised by 
MS  is  the  economic  crisis.  This  led  to  difficulties  in  the  uptake  of  investment 
measures due to beneficiaries' lack of own resources, difficulties in obtaining loans 
by  the  applicants  and  to  budgetary  constraints  restricting  public  initiatives.  The 
private  sector  has  been  in  general  less  keen  on  taking  risks,  and  some  investments 
may have been shifted to less ambitious projects, or simply postponed. The difficult 
situation in the dairy sector in 2009 also had a negative effect on the implementation 
of RDPs.  

High administrative costs and procedural complexity are underlined by some MS as 
impediments  to  smooth  implementation.  Moreover,  some  RDPs  experienced  a  lack 
of sufficient capacity in the management and control authorities, some difficulties in 
the  setting  up  of  the  monitoring  system  and  legal  uncertainties.  In  particular,  some 
MS pointed out gaps in implementation at MS level of the environmental legislation 
(such  as  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  NATURA  2000…)  relevant  to  certain 
measures  (e.g.213)  and  the  need  to  obtain  interpretation  of  the  state  aid  rules 
(notably.for renewable energy production projects).  

Lack of awareness and experience by potential beneficiaries can also result in slow 
uptake  notably  in  some  EU-12  MS  (i.e.  slow  progress  on  human  capital  measures; 
inadequate applications), or in the overall EU-27 when new measures are introduced. 
Some  MS  envisage  offering  a  sufficiently  critical  mass  of  training/Farm  Advisory 
Services activities to overcome these issues.  

Solutions  have  been  or  are  being  found  and  are  already  substantially  introduced  in 
the  programmes  through  modifications.  In  the  face  of  the  financial  crisis,  MS 
introduced  different  programme  adaptations  such  as:  change  in  the  state  aids 
coverage,  the  level  of  grants,  the  intervention  rates  for  less  attractive  measures, 
adjustment  of  selection  criteria,  increase  in  the  EU  co-financing  rate  and/or 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
reallocation of the funds. As regards the initial administrative and legal difficulties, 
most of them have now been dealt with. 

2.2. 

Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sector 

The total EAFRD axis 1 expenditure registered for the 2007-2009 period amounts to 
16.3% of its 2007-2013 overall allocation (EU27 average).  

The main results for this objective, at the end of 2009, are: 

•  Number  of  participants  who  successfully  completed  a  training  related  to 

agriculture and/or forestry: 696,000 (32% of the 2013 estimated target).  

•  Number of holdings introducing new products or new techniques: 33,400 (10% of 

the 2013 estimated target). 

Implementation of measures17  

Measure 121 (Modernisation of agricultural holdings) is the biggest axis 1 measure 
in terms of budget allocation (9.7 billion EUR). The payment uptake of this measure 
is  23%  of  its  total  budget  with  106,000  modernisation  projects  already  supported 
(18%  of  the  2013  target).  Its  positive  uptake  demonstrates  the  high  interest  of 
farmers  for  investments.  Where  implementation  rates  were  below  the  estimates  the 
main  justification  given  by  MS  was  the  economic  crisis  which  had  a  negative 
influence  on  the  investment  capability  of  the  holdings.  In  some  other  MS  the 
implementation rate seems to be faster than expected, requiring the need to increase 
the estimated budget for M121 (see table 3).  

Measures  123  (Adding  value  to  agricultural  and  forestry  products)  which  is  the 
second  biggest  axis  1  measure  in  terms  of  allocation,  has  an  uptake  of  9.6%  and 
7,060  holdings  supported  (out  of  68,000  as  the  target  for  2013).  Among  the  other 
Axis  1  measures,  we  observe  the  following  uptake  level:  141  (Semi-subsistence 
farming,  29%  and  8,885  semi-subsistence  farm  holdings  supported),  113  (Early 
retirement,  28%  and  17,385  beneficiaries)  and  112  (Setting  up  of  young  farmers, 
20% with 36,660 young farmers supported). 

2.3. 

Improving the environment and the countryside 

The total EAFRD axis 2 expenditure for the period 2007-2009 represents 32.6% of 
its overall allocation. An implementation level significantly above the EU27 average 
has been achieved in several MS (see table 3). Other MS have a rate below 20% in 
particular  where  axis  2  measures  are  new  or  relatively  new  for  beneficiaries  and 
administrations in these countries. 

The main results achieved for this objective at the end of 2009 are notably: 

• 

• 

43 million Ha under successful land management contributing to biodiversity; 

27 million Ha to improve water quality; 

17 

See table 4 for the break down by sex and age as foreseen under the art.81(§3) of the reg. 1698/2005 

EN 

8 

   EN 

                                                 
• 

• 

25 million Ha to adress climate change issues; 

30 million Ha to improve soil quality18.  

Implementation of measures  

The  three  biggest  measures  in  terms  of  budget  allocation  are  also  those  with  the 
highest uptake among axis 2 measures: 211 (Natural handicap payments to farmers 
in mountain areas, with an uptake of 42%), 212 (Payments to farmers in areas with 
handicaps,  other  than  mountain  areas,  with  an  uptake  of  40%)  and  214  (Agri-
environment payments, with an uptake of 33%).  

Measures  211  and  212  together  support  50.9  million  Ha,  and  agri-environment  is 
supporting  21.519  million  Ha.  This  high  interest  is  supported  in  EU-15  by  a  long 
experience  accumulated  through  the  successive  programming  periods.  The  high 
uptake  is  also  explained  by  the  payment  of  commitments  from  the  previous 
programming period, which was significant in many MS.  

The  three  measures  are  followed  in  terms  of  uptake  by  measures  215  (Animal 
welfare, with a financial uptake of 33% and 126,700 contracts supported so far), and 
221  (First  afforestation  of  agricultural  land  with  a  financial  uptake  of  20%  and 
72,500 Ha afforested so far).  

2.4. 

Improving  the  quality  of  life  in  rural  areas  and  encouraging  diversification  of 
the rural economy 

The total EAFRD axis 3 expenditure for the period 2007-2009 represents 6% of its 
overall allocation 2007-2013 with significant differences between MS (see table 3). 
According to MS, the main issues explaining this slow uptake are the financial crisis 
(scarcity  of  private  and  national/local  funds)  and  some  administrative  difficulties 
(delays  in  the  definition  of  national  implementing  rules,  control  obligations, 
complexity of applications…). Furthermore, in some MS, implementation of axis 3 is 
made  exclusively  via  Leader,  and  therefore  the  delays  in  Leader  implementation 
have also impacted on axis 3 uptake.  

The main results achieved for this objective at the end of 2009 are: 

•  Axis  3  contributed  to  creating  jobs  (more  than  4,000)  in  a  context  of  growing 

unemployment in rural areas 20 

•  Population  in  rural  areas  benefiting  from  improved  services  supported  by 

EAFRD: 23 million21 

•  An additional 1 million households in rural areas have access to internet. 

Implementation of measures22  

18 
19 
20 

21 

Result indicator from the CMEF, a same area could contribute to address several challenges. 
Commitments from 2007 onwards only 
Unemployment globally increased from 7.1% in 2007 to 8.9% in 2009 in the predominantly rural areas 
and from 7% in 2007 to 9% in 2009 in intermediate rural areas (source: Eurostat) 
This includes population benefiting indirectly of the services 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
The biggest measures of axis 3 in terms of total allocations are 322 (Village renewal 
and  development,  financial  uptake  of  5%  and  12,800  villages  where  renewal 
activities took place) and 321 (Basic services for the economy and rural population, 
financial uptake of 7% and 8,700 projects supported). 

The  highest  uptake  among  axis  3  measures  has  been  recorded  for  341  (Skills 
acquisition,  animation  and  implementation  of  local  development  strategies)  with 
14% and 5,500 projects supported, followed by the measure 323 (Conservation and 
upgrading  of  rural  heritage)  registering  the  second  highest  uptake  with  10%  and 
23,500 projects supported so far.  

2.5. 

Building local capacity for employment and diversification 

MS  had  to  select  the  Local  Action  Groups  (LAGs)  two  years  after  approval  of  the 
RDP23 at the latest. At the end of 2009 the selection was completed in 20 MS with 
approximately  2000  LAGs.  The  number  of  LAGs  has  doubled  in  comparison  to 
Leader+  and  half  the  territories  are  implementing  the  Leader  approach  for  the  first 
time.  

Due to the fact that the LAG selection process had just finished in MS, many of the 
selected  LAGs  had  not  yet  started  to  implement  projects  linked  to  their  local 
development strategy.  This  explains  the low EAFRD axis  4 financial  uptake which 
represents  only  2.9%  of  the  overall  allocation  of  this  axis  for  the  programming 
period but a substantial number of projects have been approved lately.  

Specific  difficulties  have  been  pointed  out  by  some  MS.  The  mainstreaming  of 
Leader has notably affected the flexibility of the approach as many MS limited the 
choice of projects to the predefined measures while Leader projects often do not fit 
into  the  eligibility  criteria  of  the  predefined  measures.  This  implied  important 
administrative adaptations (administrative reorganization, training of staff).  

3. 

HORIZONTAL ISSUES 

3.1. 

Ensuring consistency in programming 

Synergies  between  and  within  the  axe  have  been  ensured  throughout  the 
programming process, thanks to: 

• 

• 

• 

the  overarching  requirement  for  consistency  with  the  CSG  for  rural 
development; 

the  reliance  of  the  RDPs  on  an  analysis  of  the  situation  in  terms  of  strengths 
and weaknesses; 

the  provision  in  the  RDPs  of  specific  information  on  the  axe  and  measures 
proposed  for  each  axis  and  their  description,  including  specific  verifiable 

22 
23 

See table 4 for the break down by sex and age as foreseen under the art.81(§3) of the reg. 1698/2005 
With the exception of RO and BG who have 3 years to select the groups 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
objectives  and  indicators  that  allow  the  RDP’s  progress,  efficiency  and 
effectiveness to be measured; 

• 

an ex-ante evaluation of the RDPs. 

The  monitoring  of  the  RDP  implementation  allows  for  checks  to  be  undertaken  to 
ensure that these provisions are respected. 

Cross-effects and indirect contributions of a measure to another axis than the one it 
belongs  to  are,  however,  not  currently  measured  through  the  monitoring  system  in 
place  (e.g.  contribution  to  climate  change  and  adaptation  from  all  axe).  Only 
evaluations can provide more in-depth indications of these additional synergies and 
interlinks. 

Other  EU-level  strategies  have  been  taken  into  account  in  the  NSPs  and  RDPs, 
such  as  the  EU  Forestry  Strategy  and  the  Sixth  Community  Environment  Action 
Programme.  An  increased  use  of  renewable  energy  sources  and  climate  change 
adaptation  and  mitigation  have  been  clearly  addressed  in  the  strategies  and 
programmes,  notably  through  the  establishment  of  quantified  targets24.  The 
contribution  of  the  RDPs  to  organic  farming  is  being  examined  through  a  specific 
study of the European Commission on public support for organic farming. 

It is to be noted that further emphasis on renewable energy and climate change – as 
well  as  biodiversity,  water  management  and  support  to  dairy  restructuring  -  was 
given through the CAP HC, while a contribution to the EU broadband strategy was 
provided through the RDPs under the EERP. New targets were defined in 201025. 

The  National  Rural  Networks  (NRNs)  and  the  European  Network  for  Rural 
Development  (ENRD)  have  significantly  contributed  to  the  consistency  in 
programming, notably by ensuring an exchange of information and practices between 
RDPs' managers and stakeholders and by carrying out joint analyses26. 

Together,  the  coordinated  actions  of  the  NRNs  and  the  ENRD  work  to  improve 
governance  and  policy  delivery.  Further  work  has  been  carried  out  on  the 
implementation  of  Leader,  and  a  Thematic  Working  Group  is  examining  different 
delivery  mechanisms  through  case  studies.  Through  these  networks,  the  dialogue 
between administrations and stakeholders is reinforced. 

Networking is,  however, a relatively long-term process. The establishment  of these 
networks  has  been  relatively  slow,  with  different  timeframes  in  different  countries. 
The  full-speed  running  of  most  NRNs  and  the  ENRD  has  only  recently  been 
achieved.  

The  information  and  publicity  actions  of  the  MS  are  generally  conducted 
separately  from  the  NRNs'  activities,  using  Technical  Assistance.  They  target  rural 

24 

25 

26 

See list of targets in the annex VIII of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1974/2006 
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 
Fact  Sheet:  Overview  of  the  CAP  Health  Check  and  the  European  Economic  Recovery  Plan: 
http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/app_templates/filedownload.cfm?id=5ACE6F64-F5FA-701C-70FD-
E059E8462395 
For more information, please see enrd.ec.europa.eu 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
stakeholders as potential beneficiaries, those who are actual beneficiaries, as well as 
the  general  public  to  inform  about  the  role  played  by  the  Community  in  the 
programmes and the results thereof. 

3.2. 

Complementarity between community instruments 

Other EU Structural Funds (SF) than the EAFRD can play an important role in rural 
areas  such  as  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  with  focus  on  regional 
development,  economic  competitiveness  and  infrastructure,  the  European  Social 
Fund, with focus on the development of human resources and the European Fisheries 
Fund. 

In  most  cases,  ensuring  complementarity  between  these  funds  took  the  form  of 
establishing demarcation lines and co-ordination mechanisms. Only in some cases a 
more strategic vision for the co-ordinated use of EU funds has been chosen by MS. 
The  guiding  principles  were  set  in  the  NSP,  while  RDP  provide  the  detailed 
description. 

Demarcation 

Demarcation criteria have been used by the MS to address the strict EU requirement 
that double funding must be avoided and that no project may benefit from more than 
one EU fund. Depending on the specific axe and measures, the demarcation criteria 
have  been  of  different  types:  type  of  beneficiary;  type  of  projects  (size,  territorial 
scale); type of operation or the type of economic sector 

The  demarcation  has  been  successful  in  ensuring  the  avoidance  of  duplication 
between funds. Only a few difficulties were caused by different interpretations of the 
criteria in certain countries. Demarcation criteria can be adapted in the course of the 
programming period to address possible short-comings or difficulties.  

Coordination mechanisms 

Effective  coordination  is  needed  to  ensure  the  application  of  the  demarcation  lines 
and  the  optimum  use  of  funds  through  mechanisms  such  as  inter-ministerial 
committees or cross-representation on Monitoring Committees, and in some cases a 
common IT tool.  

Some states delegate part of the control to authorities – or even Local Action Groups 
–  at  quite  local  levels.  This  may  enable  local  decision-makers  to  ensure  that  the 
patterns  of  demarcation  and  complementarity  suit  the  particular  circumstances  and 
needs in their territories.  

The  existence  of  a  specific  coordination  body  (e.g.  an  inter-ministerial  body) 
generally  eases  the  coordination  process.  A  source  of  difficulty  is  the  difference  in 
the  level  of  programming,  for  example  where  coordination  is  needed  between  one 
national and several regional programmes. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

Complementarity and synergies  

Some  MS  have  succeeded  in  creating  effective  complementarities,  but  generally  a 
global strategic approach to ensure full complementarities and synergies between SF 
has been missing. 

At  local  levels,  there  are  more  examples  of  a  synergic  approach.  For  example,  in 
some  countries,  the  local  development  strategy  of  a  LAG  can  go  beyond  RDP 
objectives and part of their ambitions could be realised through the structural funds; 
sometimes  a  single  common  LAG  for  EAFRD  and  European  Fisheries  Fund 
programmes  have  been  set  up;  in  some  MS  Leader  groups  are  established  as  local 
development  companies,  delivering  not  only  RDP  measures  but  also  elements  of 
other national programmes which can benefit rural people.  

According  to  some  National  reports,  elements  which  would  help  support  synergies 
between funds are: 

• 

• 

the harmonisation of rules between the different EU funds  as regards eligible 
costs (V.A.T. etc.); 

the consistency between the different systems of monitoring and evaluation to 
allow for an overall assessment of the EU funds on regional and thematic level. 

More  information  from  Managing  Authorities  to  (potential)  beneficiaries  on 
demarcation criteria would also be useful to guide them to the relevant EU Fund.  

4. 

OUTLOOK 

For many programmes implementation only really started in 2008. Figures for 2009 
however already show an acceleration, despite some unfavourable conditions such as 
the economic situation.  

For the individual programmes implementation issues have been regularly discussed 
between Commission and MS. In the Rural Development Committee and through the 
European  Network  for  Rural  Development  further  exchange  on  implementation 
issues has taken place. Many RDP modifications have already been made to correct 
the  first  difficulties  encountered,  and  further  adaptations  have  been  introduced  to 
incorporate  additional  funds  addressing  new  challenges  (Health  Check)  and  the 
economic crisis (European economy recovery package). 

The  Common  Monitoring  and  Evaluation  framework  has  provided  useful 
information  for  reporting  and  for  following  the  progress  of  the  programme 
implementation and achievement on an ongoing basis. Preliminary figures for 2010 
indicate that a majority of programmes has reached cruising speed. The synthesis of 
the  mid-term  evaluations  of  the  RDPs  to  be  available  in  2012  will  provide  more 
information as to what extent the programmes are on track to achieve their objectives 
and to respond to the Community priorities.  

EN 

13 

   EN