Verbatim report of proceedings

Monday, 6 June 2005 - Strasbourg

17. EAFRD support for rural development

  President. The next item is the report (A6-0145/2005) by Mrs Schierhuber, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council regulation on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (COM(2004)0490) – C6-0181/2004 – 2004/0161(CNS)).

  Charlie McCreevy, Member of the Commission. Mr President, at the outset let me apologise for my fellow Commissioner, Mrs Fischer Boel. She has been delayed, but will be here before the end of the debate.

I wish to begin by thanking Mrs Schierhuber and the members of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development for all their work on this report.

The committee adopted the report with 129 amendments. I shall comment only on some of the major points. Some amendments reduced the minimum percentages of funding for the three axes, maintained the proposed funding for LEADER and eliminated the reserve for this approach. This should give more flexibility to the programming priorities of the Member States. I understand this need and I also welcome the fact that the European Parliament agrees on the need for minimum percentages. This is crucial if we want to ensure balanced programmes that address the wide variety of challenges in rural areas.

The Commission is prepared to accept the reduction of the minimum percentages. However, I consider that the reduction for Axis 3 – quality of life and diversification of the rural economy – from 15 to 8% is too large, and would affect negatively the necessary balance between the axes, i.e. Amendments 17, 43, 44, 115, 117 and 118. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, could contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interests of our farmers and their families and is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy.

Other amendments bring together the strategic and operational planning and reduce reporting procedures to two reports for the whole financial period – Amendments 34 to 41. I am sceptical on the first point, since the strategy would precede the operational planning. However, I am prepared to compromise on a reduced frequency of the strategic monitoring, biannual instead of annual. I would stress that robust reporting is essential for accountability and for explaining to Europe's citizens the contribution of our policy to agriculture and rural areas.

I can in principle accept the main amendments to Axis 1 – Amendments 54, 63, 65 (in part), 66 and 67. They concern the extension of support for young farmers to subsidised loans, the requirement that forest management plans be a function of the size of the holding, the extension of support to minimum- sized enterprises for the processing and marketing of agricultural products (in the forestry sector, however, the support will remain limited to micro-enterprises), the inclusion of reparcelling among eligible support for infrastructures, focussing predominantly on operations aimed at improving competitiveness, support for the cooperation between actors in the food chain and for the transfer of knowledge.

I come now to Axis 2, which concerns Amendments 73, 79 and parts of 69, 76 and 81. The Commission is in principle prepared to accept or partially accept amendments on: the inclusion of the conservation of genetic diversity, the inclusion of payments linked to the Water Framework Directive, not to consider the requirements for pesticide and fertiliser use as additional to mandatory requirements but as part of them, a more flexible approach towards the duration of agri-environmental commitments, the eligibility of high nature value areas among non-productive investments, and the inclusion of loss of income criteria for Natura 2000 payments in forestry.

Finally, some of the proposed amendments are difficult to accept for various reasons. A number of them go beyond the scope of the Commission's proposal and existing norms, thus risking diluting their policy effects. Others make unnecessary specifications which are already included in more general concepts.

In conclusion, I can accept or partially accept some of the fundamental amendments proposed in your report. The other amendments I cannot accept.

I wish to thank the Members of the European Parliament again for their positive and constructive contribution to European rural policy.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by thanking in return the Commission, all the members of the Committee, all the Groups, and especially the Council, the secretariats, all their staff and all those who helped them do the groundwork, for working together so well. It was good to produce this report together.

Over half the population of the European Union lives in rural areas, which account for around 90% of its territory. We all want to make the regions with their towns and villages active and attractive and to keep them that way and give rural areas a bright future – I am very pleased to see you have now arrived, Commissioner – and a flourishing and above all productive agriculture and forestry is the most important prerequisite for this.

The 2003 reform of the common agricultural policy introduced lasting changes in European agriculture and forestry. Rural development has assumed even greater importance as this reform has progressed. This report contains the 2007–2013 programming period for rural development. I was particularly concerned to keep to the timetable for the vote here in plenary so that the Council and Commission can have a dossier available before the end of the Luxembourg Presidency. Farmers need the security to plan ahead.

This is the first major programming for agriculture in the EU of 25. Rural development is important for all Member States, but for the new States in particular. It is particularly important in relation to the Financial Perspective for the period commencing 2007.

May I remind you that the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development tabled a total of 342 amendments, the Committee on Regional Development 75 and the Committee on Budgets one, so it is something of an achievement that we now have only 130 of them. The fact is that we need this sort of interdisciplinary cooperation and we need willingness to cooperate in rural areas. There is much that is positive about the Commission proposal: the combination of financial instruments into a single fund, simplification for greater ease of understanding and much more besides. Also the three axes structure and the Leader approach.

We reached three major compromises in our deliberations in the Committee on Agriculture. The first is the weighting of the axes, the second is Leader and the third is cofinancing as proposed by the Commission. We concluded that in order to preserve subsidiarity it is important to reduce the appropriations for the axes, that is 10, 20 and 8. For Leader we see a minimum appropriation of 7%, but we want the Leader reserve deleted. It is also important that Parliament will be sending the Council and Commission an important political signal if a majority in this House adopts this. I was always concerned that this report should cover both northern and southern regions, both eastern and western. This report also clearly acknowledges that the CAP reform’s modulation releases money that should be used primarily for Axes 1 and 2. I know that the Commissioner agrees with me on the need for support for young farmers. Our future generations are at stake and I hope that you, Commissioner, will be able to agree to Parliament’s estimate of EUR 55 000 per farm. It is the need for greater competitiveness that prompts us to extend it to small and medium-sized farms and, in forestry, to small and very small enterprises, not to mention, Commissioner, to the less-favoured areas, where we want a study to get a suitable redefinition of less-favoured areas and also to achieve the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives.

There is a lot more besides. We also want more money, because we support Natura 2000, but that will only work with more resources in rural development. The Rural Development Programme cannot replace the other programmes, structural funds and the like; we must all be there for the rural areas together.

A productive agriculture and forestry is essential for an active and attractive rural area. A policy for rural areas is a policy for the entire population in all of Europe’s regions and is the way to ensure they will survive.

Finally, three amendments were tabled for plenary. I can accept Amendments 130 and 131, but unfortunately not 132.

  Armando Dionisi, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the rural development policy is the most innovative element of the Community’s new agricultural policy, and it is crucial that the EU budget does not sacrifice this most ambitious of challenges for the future of our rural areas. Cutting the funds allocated to rural development means taking away resources from food safety, environmental protection, measures to enhance the countryside, product quality and job creation.

The report endorsed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development attaches great importance to support measures for young farmers, who should be encouraged to remain in the countryside and to farm in a competitive and sustainable manner. Mrs Schierhuber’s efforts to maintain funding for rural development are commendable, but reducing the minimum percentages of expenditure on three axes causes misgivings. It would have been more appropriate to keep the Commission’s proposal; lowering the rates means allowing Member States more discretion in their management of resources, and consequently a weaker and less incisive EU policy.

In addition, with regard to the LEADER programme, the Commission’s proposal establishing a reserve fund for countries with lower spending levels, in order to enhance and reward the best projects, should be kept. It is crucial, moreover, that the national action plans should be consistent with the Community’s strategic objectives, and the strengthening of partnerships is an essential tool in fulfilling these objectives.

Finally, in order to transform rural development into a genuine territorial policy, the policy must be consistent with, and integrated with, all of the other Community policies. It involves fundamental elements of the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategy, which we cannot abandon if we hope to revive Europe, its objectives and its values.

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (ES) Mr President, as has already been said, the Commission's proposal establishes three main priorities: increasing the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors, improving the environment and land management, and improving quality of life and promoting agricultural diversification.

I would like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur, Mrs Schierhuber, on the wonderful work she has done, not only because of the document we are going to vote on during tomorrow's sitting, but also because she has been able to produce a balanced text which fully incorporates the compromises reached in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. Furthermore, it makes very significant improvements to the Commission's text that will help to provide more flexibility and make the management of programmes more effective and efficient.

Amongst other improvements, I would like to refer to the reduction of minimum spending percentages for each axis — which I believe to be positive — the possibility of combining national and/or regional programmes, increasing equality between men and women and the appeal to the Member States to facilitate access by women to joint ownership of farms.

With regard specifically to each axis, I would highlight the increase in assistance for the installation of young farmers, which Mrs Schierhuber has just referred to: the EUR 55 000 granted in the form of a premium or an interest subsidy of loan and the flexibility to help them to comply with the rules. I would also stress the extension of assistance to medium-sized companies for marketing and processing, as well as any form of producers association. In this regard, I believe that it is they, at the end of the day, who are in the best position to provide added value for local products.

I would like to refer to an issue that is of crucial importance: the recovery of the depopulation criterion in the least-favoured areas which, whichever new definition the Commission provides for these regions in the future, must be treated as a priority, because the abandonment of rural areas by their populations is an undeniable sign of their backwardness.

With regard to the funding of NATURA 2000, which Mrs Schierhuber has also referred to, the report calls for an increase in the resources allocated, since the Commission has on several occasions rejected our proposal to provide NATURA 2000 with its own financial instrument.

I would finally like to refer, in axis 3, to the support for the activities of women in rural areas. I believe that this is a fundamental element to which we must dedicate all of our efforts and that we must provide many guarantees in order to ensure that women are fully incorporated.

I also wished to refer to the rural development measures, to the LEADER approach as a whole, which is going to be enhanced by this Regulation, because it helps to make the European Union visible to the citizens and at this point in time visibility is something that we must not diminish.

The thing that surprised me in particular about the French ‘no’ was the fact that 70% of French farmers had voted against the draft European Constitution. We have the obligation to correct the situation and I believe that this report makes a good contribution in this regard.

  Kyösti Tapio Virrankoski, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, Mrs Schierhuber has produced an excellent report on the EU’s new regulation relating to the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. I also wish to express my sincerest thanks for the constructive cooperation shown by the Committee on Agricultural and Rural Development.

The main focus of the EU’s agricultural policy is moving in the direction of rural development, as direct subsidies and market measures have been strictly confined to the framework of the Brussels compromise, as it is known. The intention is to cut direct aid and market measures by around 5% every year, which is an annual saving of EUR 1.5 billion as far as the EAFRD is concerned. In all, more than 11 billion a year has been set aside for rural development in the EU’s future financial frameworks.

The need, however, is a desperate one. The Commission proposed that measures should be targeted at three policies: the improved competitiveness of agriculture and forestry, land management, or enhancement of the countryside and the environment, and the diversification of the rural economy and enhancement of the quality of life in rural areas. The Commission proposed that a certain minimum amount of financing should be allocated to each policy. The committee reduced these threshold amounts to the lowest value possible, because Member States have to be guaranteed sufficient flexibility in order to draw up their own individual programmes.

The central task of the EAFRD is to improve preconditions for agricultural competitiveness in different parts of the EU. For this reason, the development of the Least Favoured Areas scheme, for example, is more relevant than ever, as aid under the common agricultural policy mainly focuses on the EU’s best farming regions. In the same way, the importance of environmental aid for agriculture is growing, as environmental issues become more and more relevant to the present time.

The purpose of the EAFRD is to improve the opportunities that rural life can offer. That is why my group believes that aid measures should be targeted specifically at private individuals and the organisations they establish, not the state. Furthermore, financial support for business should focus specifically on micro and small enterprises. With these comments, we give our heartfelt support to the adoption of Mrs Schierhuber’s report.

  Ilda Figueiredo, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) Mr President, in the successive reforms of the common agricultural policy, which have had terrible consequences for family farming and for small and medium-sized holdings, one of the most recent and most worrying developments of which is the untying of production aid, the Commission has repeatedly overlooked the importance of agriculture in ensuring a settled population and economic and social cohesion in rural regions. It has also paid no attention and offered no support to the so-called cohesion countries, in which people are deserting the countryside in increasing numbers.

The budget proposal tabled by the Commission for the new Rural Development Fund within the framework of the financial perspective for 2007-2013 is woefully inadequate, for example in the way it takes substantial amounts from this fund to finance the Natura 2000 network.

It is particularly important to Portuguese farming and farmers that the budget for Axis 1 and for agricultural and forestry production, covering uncultivated land and their representative organisations, be increased. Community funding for Natura 2000 must be based on the corresponding much-needed increase in financing within the framework of the financial perspective for 2007-2013, as part of the Rural Development Fund and the Structural Funds, which ought to be the main sources of financing, or as part of the LIFE+ programme. In other words, the most appropriate solution would be to set up a specific Community fund in the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective for Natura 2000, thereby promoting the protection of biodiversity, as we did in the proposal that we tabled in the Committee on Agriculture.

We object to the Commission’s plan to lay the groundwork for entities that have nothing to do with the rural world to be able to receive support that ought to be earmarked for farming, production and the rural world – in other words, for agricultural and forestry production and for farming as a whole – encompassing a huge and complex range of entities that can apply for funds within the framework of rural development.

We should like to stress once again that genuine streamlining and limiting of the maximum payment per farmer in the common agricultural policy will help not only to redistribute the aid more fairly among the Member States, farmers and farms, but also to increase support to the market for small and medium sized farmers and the amounts available for rural development, in particular for compensation payments and support for organic farming.

  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, in rural Ireland, family farming is the basis of community life. Through successive anti-farming policies, we are seeing a dismantling of Irish family farming and, as a result, of our rural communities. Everyone wants rural development, but in the context of beleaguered Irish farming, the only rural development I welcome is one that supports family farming, while enriching rural communities with complementary social, educational, transport and employment projects and infrastructure. But, looking at this rural development plan, which seeks to promote the complementary activities, while reducing and taking money from the primary activity – family farming – I can only say the plan is crazy, and in the Irish context, will destroy the very rural communities it purports to enrich.

Instead, let us return to a bit of sanity, where we understand the value of farming, where farmers farm and are rewarded for their labours by a fair price for their produce. Farming is one of the oldest, most basic and most essential activities. In Ireland we seem to think that all the so-called ‘better jobs’ are the future and unwisely we starve out family farming. We are mad. We need both. Let us have the high-tech jobs, let us even bring the software development company to the rural area, but let us have cows, sugar beet, and furrows of maize and orchards of apples in the fields around it. Then we will have a future.

  Liam Aylward, on behalf of the UEN Group. – Mr President, in the explanatory statement, the rapporteur states that over half of the population of the 25 Member States of the European Union live in rural areas, which account for 90% of EU territory. Agriculture and forestry are the cornerstones of land use and the management of natural resources, and they serve at the same time as the basis for economic diversification there.

I am in total agreement with the rapporteur. However, I would add that in my country, Ireland, small and medium-sized family farms are the very backbone of Irish society. Down the years they have given us security of basic food supplies, they have contributed to protecting the environment, and they have promoted rural interests. I would add that one in eleven people in the workforce in Ireland is employed in the agricultural sector. I would add that the agri-food sector is a vital player in the Irish economy, accounting for 8% of gross domestic product and furthermore that 7% of Irish exports, and about one fifth of Ireland’s net foreign earnings, come from traded goods from Irish agriculture. Also I want to emphasise that in 2004 Irish agricultural exports exceeded EUR 7 billion. In a word, agriculture in Ireland is a vital national interest. Continued rural development in my country is therefore vital.

On the key issue of funding of the agricultural fund for European development, I have some misgivings, because unless there is unanimous agreement in Council on the financial prospectus for the period 2007 to 2013, this whole project could find itself in limbo land.

In view of recent developments, notably the massive rejection of the Constitutional Treaty by the French farming community, who, it must be said, have been one of the main beneficiaries of the common agricultural policy down the years, perhaps the Commissioner could tell us if, in the event that there is no rapid agreement on future financing, there will be a ‘plan B’ for rural development

Only last week the Agriculture Council adopted conclusions on the European Union forestry action policy. The Council of Ministers acknowledged, inter alia, that the economic, ecological and social relevance of the forest sector in the EU and the contribution that forest and forestry can provide to the Lisbon objectives of sustainable economic growth and competitiveness, as well as to the Göteborg objectives of safeguarding the quantity and quality of the national resource base. Consequently I do not support the Commission’s approach to forestry in its rural development programme. Its proposed premium period of ten years is far too short and its proposed grant rate is too low. In fact the Commission proposals represent a reduction on existing grant rates.

Can we not do better? Because we need to do much better than this. Contradictory approaches are almost impossible to explain to the non-initiated general public, and, in my opinion, completely undermine our collective credibility.

Finally, let me record my opposition to the proposed minimum expenditure levels in the Commission’s proposal. I believe that they are contrary to the principle of subsidiarity. I believe that they do not take account of flexibility to respond to diverse rural needs. In fact I would prefer no prescribed minimums at all.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Mr President, it is a time of unprecedented change in agriculture. Agriculture in my constituency of Northern Ireland still remains our most significant industry. Therefore it is vital that the rural development regulation aids, rather than aggravates, our situation. This funding must not be prioritised unfairly to the new Member States, with gross disadvantage to the EU-15. ‘We pay, they spend’ simply will not do. Indeed, I believe the allocation of rural funding should bear some proportionality to the budgetary contributions of Member States. I want to see Axis I, in particular, accentuated, not diminished, with money actually getting to farmers, not being hijacked into government departments. Rather, money from Axis I should be ring-fenced and targeted to the agricultural community, which is directly involved in farming. Remember that it is the farmers who, through a whopping 9.5% modulation from the single farm payment in 2006, are going to be key funders.

I also want to see maximum regional flexibility permitted within the regulation. Flexibility, minimum regulation and a belief that farming and rural development are allies, not alternatives are, in my opinion, the way to proceed.

  Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to begin by warmly thanking our rapporteur, Mrs Schierhuber. She has done a great piece of work with this report, which seeks to strike a balance between many different interests, all of which have something to be said for them.

Sixty per cent of the population and 90% of the territory of the EU. These two figures really do bring home the importance of rural development as the second pillar of the European Union’s agricultural policy. The EU population can be content only if the rural population is content. In the light of recent political developments and the failed referendum, we must not only be more aware of the need for acceptance of European policy, it must quite definitely be to the fore everywhere.

In view of the empty coffers and the fighting over distribution, I must also point out that, historically, the EU budget was an agricultural budget. The policy areas that were added later must not be allowed to overshadow this historic core of Europe. That is why there are also calls for rural development funds, which are part of agricultural funding, to remain primarily with farmers in projects related to farming. I therefore expressly support Mrs Schierhuber’s proposed financial appropriations for all three main axes. It is very important that the support available for very small enterprises should also be extended to medium-sized undertakings in rural areas. We must also join the rapporteur in calling for Natura 2000, financing for which has still not been settled, not to be funded out of second pillar resources but out of additional money.

At this point I would like once again to extend my sincere thanks to Mrs Schierhuber and to everyone else who has worked so hard on this important report. In the light of the above points, this report has earned our support.

  Katerina Batzeli (PSE). – (EL) Mr President, Commissioner, the echo of the 'no' to the European Constitution from two nations which, possibly for different reasons, voted against it, is particularly loud in plenary of the European Parliament.

It is a fact that it has created insecurity among citizens as to what is going on within these walls – in other words, as to how the Community institutions take decisions – and insecurity as to the continuation and stability of European social, economic and development policies.

One of the policies which does not guarantee a stable, long-term economic and business framework is the CAP. The common agricultural policy is being amended and reformed not mainly as a result of the need to resolve its inherent problems but, above all, due to outside pressure, such as that being exerted by the World Trade Organisation, bilateral trade agreements and the financial perspectives of the European Union. An effort is being made, through the financial perspectives in particular, to express new renationalisation trends in the European Union, by reducing the Community budget and renationalising the financing of Community policies such as the CAP. Although this policy is criticised for having created financially privileged farmers in certain areas of the European Union, instead of discussing the question of the redistribution of Community resources in order to reduce these blatant discrepancies, its cofinancing is being promoted, which will exacerbate these discrepancies.

If rural development is to strengthen the rural economy and keep pace with sustainable regional development, it needs resources and integrated planning. The resources proposed by the Commission and in the Presidency's compromise proposals will not result in a stronger rural development policy, which will give new opportunities and will introduce innovations so that the rural sector can approach the Lisbon targets.

The reclassification of disadvantaged regions, excluding the criterion of employment, makes a sitting target of the Commission, which appears to be taking decisions solely on the basis of technocratic criteria, such as soil composition. No account is taken of the real problems of the countryside, which has been struck by rising unemployment. The duration of development programmes should be seven years, in accordance also with the implementation of the CAP, in order to give producers and the food industries a constant timeframe.

I absolutely agree with the comments and proposals in Mrs Schierhuber's excellent report. The 'no' vote in the two recent referenda cannot take us backwards; it must convince us to say 'yes' to the major structural development policies for a Europe of cohesion and solidarity.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, I should like to add my thanks to Mrs Schierhuber for the enthusiasm with which she has, as usual, presented her report. I too am in favour of maintaining a liveable countryside in Europe, and I can therefore endorse the Commission’s three objectives. However, I fail to appreciate why the Commission has to prescribe that a certain percentage must be used for one objective and another percentage for another objective, and so on for the whole of Europe. Certainly after the referendum in the Netherlands and perhaps that in France as well – to which, indeed, a few people have already referred – it is necessary to keep rules from Brussels to an absolute minimum. We are quite capable of deciding for ourselves and the Commission can establish afterwards whether the funds were spent wisely or not.

With regard to the report in general, there are a few too many gifts for the different regions for my liking. There is no disadvantaged region in Europe that has not been mentioned. We could well end up with a lack of funds for the ordinary regions in Europe, which have countryside of their own. I do not think that the amendment that argues in favour of an increase in the total sum for rural policy has any realistic changes, but, fortunately, a caveat has been added to say that that is conditional on the outcome of the vote on the report on the Financial Perspectives.

I should also like to stand up for sound quality policy in Europe. Certainly if liberalisation is on the increase, and we prescribe entirely different conditions for the rest of the world, it is unfair to expect European farmers to compete freely. Someone who sells to us will need to do so under our conditions, but those conditions will need to be known and that is where European quality policy comes in.

  Bairbre de Brún (GUE/NGL). – (The speaker spoke in Irish)

I should like to welcome Agnes Schierhuber’s report on the Commission’s proposal for the EAFRD. I endorse the view expressed in her report, which sees the Commission’s proposal as positive, but in need of some specific improvements.

I welcome the Commission’s proposals that aim to enhance the environment and the countryside through support for land management. Equally important is the aim of enhancing the quality of life in rural areas and promoting diversification of economic activities, through measures targeting farm sector and rural actors. I also welcome the fact that through the establishment of a single rural development fund, bureaucracy and duplication are reduced.

I welcome the proposals in Mrs Schierhuber’s report to promote equality of opportunity and the participation of women in farming and in the wider rural economy. Support for organic farming is also important.

The Commission’s proposed budget of EUR 88.75 billion for 2007-2013 at 2004 prices was also welcome. We would still face considerable problems even with this amount. It is vital that such funds are used to meet the objectives of improving the quality of life of our family farming communities and the protection of our rural environment.

There is a need for the aims and objectives of Natura 2000 to be mainstreamed into all aspects of EU agricultural and rural development policy and funding. Farmers, foresters and other land managers should be appropriately supported for protecting and maintaining Natura 2000 sites. Resources should be put into the fund for the 2007-2013 period that will enable this to happen. Otherwise, we seriously run the risk of repeating past mistakes.

(The speaker spoke in Irish)

  Mieczysław Edmund Janowski (UEN).  – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the field of human activity that we are debating today is a special one, as agriculture amounts to nothing less than the means of our biological existence. At the same time, however, we all know that agriculture is not only significant in economic terms, but also in social, environmental and cultural terms.

I should therefore like to pay tribute to Mrs Schierhuber for the effort she has put into drafting such an excellent report. We are well aware that the current trend is for more and more of those living in the countryside to have only loose ties with agriculture, with the result being a large overlap between agricultural policy and regional policy. It therefore needs to be possible to carry out multiple agricultural activities in a rational manner in rural areas, thus ensuring that agricultural products of the highest possible quality can be produced and processed. At the same time, people living in such areas ought to be guaranteed adequate living conditions. Further issues that must not be neglected in rural areas include family and social ties and cultural concerns, as well as ecology and tourism.

There are a number of issues to which I should like to alert the House. The Member States must be aware that adequate funding should also be set aside in national budgets and used solely for rural development. Secondly, use of EAFRD funding at local level to promote integration or SMEs should be as wide as possible. My third point is that geographic conditions should be taken into account when distributing funds, for example the unique nature of mountainous or semi-mountainous areas. Fourthly, serious consideration needs to be given to the education system in the countryside, and to the provision of agricultural advice. The fifth point I should like to make is that rural areas need infrastructure, or in other words roads, water supplies, sewage systems, telephone lines and Internet access, and that this infrastructure must meet today’s requirements. Basic medical care must also be available in these areas, as well as access to cultural and recreational facilities and high-quality education, to reiterate a point I made earlier.

I propose that more funding be set aside to regenerate rural areas. If it were placed under the control of local communities, such money would certainly not go to waste.

  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE-DE). – (NL) Mr President, what we need to do today, I believe, is to send a very clear signal to Europe’s countryside. Whatever major changes may occur in the market, Europe must remain visible, tangible and recognisable. What became apparent last week was that ‘market, market, market’, in other words money alone, does not bring Europe any closer or touch the hearts of the people. There is more to it: a social dimension and a liveable countryside. That is why it is such a splendid thing that this programme is so broad-based and that the Committee on the Regions, on which I had the privilege of sitting, has adopted amendments which making explicit provision for regional and local involvement and, at the same time, for an integrated approach. Not only agriculture, but also natural landscape and tourist activities play their part in this development, and we must actively encourage new features, such as Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for the sake of business innovation. Switching to different functions in the countryside will definitely have an impact in the sort of rural and urban areas that we have in the Netherlands, where plenty of proposals are ready to be tabled in order to make changes by engaging in reconstruction in rural areas. These include achieving the Gothenburg and Lisbon objectives, maintaining strong agriculture, and, not least, all the innovation that is possible in processing right down the food chain.

I should like to endorse Mr Maat’s earlier suggestion that more flexibility be tolerated between the columns and also in the subsidy percentages.

Finally, Europe is currently being haunted by the spectre of renationalisation. It is already rearing its head as a reaction to common European policy, but will be even more prominent in 2013 when the next financial battle will be fought. I am opposed to it on the grounds that it leads to less Europe, less recognisability and less closeness to those people in the countryside, a large majority of whom, while looking to Europe, have said ‘no’ to the Constitution. Not because that is not what they want, but because there is uncertainty in the policy, and that would be counterproductive.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (PSE). – (HU) I can only congratulate Mrs Schierhuber on her work. She has prepared an excellent report that would provide an excellent conceptual framework for the distribution of rural development resources, if there were actually any resources to distribute. Compared with the Commission’s proposed allocation of 88 billion euros, the most recent negotiating framework, submitted by the Luxembourg Presidency, proposes a drastic reduction to a mere 73-75 billion euros for the period 2007-2013. This reduction is a very major one for all Member States, but it is particularly disadvantageous to the new Member States, given that we believed this allocation would offset the discriminatory Copenhagen agreements, as indeed was also promised by Mrs Fischer Boel at her hearing. I know that this does not depend on her. In the light of the discriminatory direct payments system, this discriminatory payments system will mean that, over seven years, agricultural support per farmer in the old Member States will amount to 48 000 euros, while in the new Member States it will be just 14 000 euros per farmer. In other words, farmers in the old Member States will receive three times more over seven years in direct payments and rural development funds than farmers in the new Member States. If this reduction does indeed go ahead, please do not let it affect the resources going to the new Member States.

  Anne Laperrouze (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, I welcome, as Mrs Schierhuber does in her report, the creation of a single fund to finance the rural development policy and stronger strategic guidelines.

With regard to the allocation of funds for 2007-2013, I find it regrettable that the financial perspectives propose a reduction in resources. It is also regrettable that the proposal for a regulation no longer provides a period of grace for young farmers, as was the case during the 2000-2006 programme. That is why I support a return to the previous instrument.

One solution, when compliance with standards requires investment, could be to allow a period of five years after setting up for this investment. During this period, young farmers could continue to benefit from investment aid and would not be penalised for failing to comply with the standards clearly identified in the agricultural development plan.

Finally, as I am convinced that rural areas are becoming more and more attractive, I have presented some amendments that aim to make this regulation more favourable to rural development, particularly by adding impetus to its non-agricultural component, including craft trades and micro-enterprises.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I welcome this excellent report and congratulate the rapporteur. Rural development is going to make a very important contribution to the future of rural society. The rural community has been under increasing pressure to survive. I believe that when you remove the farmer and his family from rural society, it begins to disintegrate. We have already seen what happens: schools, churches and post offices close and people move away from the countryside to the towns.

I know things must change and I know we have to be prepared for that change, but it has to be for the better. We do not want to see further disintegration. I believe that the Leader programme has in the main been successful and it should be developed to achieve more at local level. There is no magic wand that we can wave to bring about a magic solution. But the one thing we do need for the second pillar of the rural economy is money.

When modulation develops to a larger budget, this must be deployed as direct support to secure the future of the small family farm which is the backbone of the rural economy. We must give hope to young farmers and encourage young people to make farming their future.

The modulation funds must go back to the farmer and must not be thrown away on useless projects that have no hope of surviving. More encouragement should be given to farming families to develop small and medium-sized enterprises on their holdings. The bureaucratic planning authorities which, with their dogmatic beliefs, are destroying and depopulating rural society, need to show more understanding.

  Astrid Lulling (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I congratulate Mrs Schierhuber on her success in putting before us, with conviction and perseverance, indeed with stubbornness, a balanced compromise which the Council will be able to approve before the end of the Luxembourg Presidency.

Since it is a key part of the 2003 CAP reform that agricultural and forestry production should be preserved, especially in what were up until now less-favoured areas, I have argued for retaining the existing definition of less-favoured areas for the time being, with any changes made only on the basis of a comprehensive study. We cannot simply drop compensation payments in those areas because the current definition no longer applies. That would be an outright social, economic and ecological disaster for agriculture in my country in particular, because sadly 96% of the agricultural area is of course less-favoured.

I am therefore relieved that my amendments have been accepted. That is not in farmers’ interests alone; without them, the rural area in which more than 50% of the EU’s total population still live and which makes up 90% of the territory would not exist. The results of the vote in the French referendum in the rural areas should give pause for thought to all who believe the common agricultural policy is too expensive. It will be even more expensive to combat poverty and crime in the large conurbations if we drive the rural population into them too. Support for the countryside and preserving agriculture based on our family farms is money well invested in the European Union.

As my amendments on the subject were not accepted, I must not of course forget to make clear that beekeeping is also farming and that beekeeping, which is very much at risk, also deserves proper support in rural areas. I hope this will also be borne in mind.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (PPE-DE).  –(PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, without rural development there will be no further agricultural development. This theory is backed up by economic and environmental arguments, as well as by social arguments, including those relating to demographic issues.

I come from Lubelszczyzna, a region in eastern Poland that is one of the 10 poorest in the European Union. The majority of people there live in rural areas and run small farms that cover an average of around eight hectares. There is an urgent need for these farms to be amalgamated and their lands merged, as farmers often work several dozen different plots. Instead of receiving assistance, however, to date most of these farmers have been deprived of the opportunity to grow profitable crops, such as flax, hemp and tobacco, and recently even soft fruit.

Direct payments for small farms do not provide any guarantee that the people working there will receive a decent income. The people living in rural areas are therefore even more worthy of our attention than such matters as the management of these areas and agricultural and forestry production. This is all the more true because rural areas are very rich in cultural and environmental terms, in spite of being poor in economic terms. Natural landscapes, local dialects and cultural traditions have been preserved there, as well as the ethical and moral values that European society is so sorely in need of today. We must ensure that these values remain intact for future generations that will follow us.

People living in poor regions are in need of particular assistance. It is to be welcomed that the Council regulation on support for rural development by the EAFRD we are discussing also covers such issues as the provision of advice, professional training and tourism, even though it unfortunately does not go far enough in this respect. It is particularly important that we do not neglect the education of young people. We must not forget that we will only achieve our desired results if the measures we take are both comprehensive and well – thought out.

Finally, I should like to pay tribute to Mrs Schierhuber, who has dealt with a difficult subject and many amendments in an exemplary fashion. I would offer her my congratulations.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE).  – (PL) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the European Union was confronted with a major challenge following its enlargement to include 10 new Member States. We have been debating the new rural development policy for over a year. The main goal of this policy is to improve living and working conditions for families living in the countryside and to increase the number of new non-agricultural activities covered. The policy also aims to help restructure and modernise agriculture and to increase agricultural competitiveness, at the same time as protecting the environment.

A solution is needed to the problem of adequate funding for rural areas. Poland in particular is in urgent need of such funding, as it is suffering from structural problems and very high unemployment. The new Member States should be excluded from any cuts the EU makes to funding for rural development. These Member States were told that full direct payments would be phased in over a 10-year period, on the grounds that we were in greater need of funding for rural development, and yet the EU now wishes to curb its spending on the latter.

If the European Commission wishes rural development in the former cohesion countries to bear the brunt of funding cutbacks, it should ensure that this does not take place at the expense of the new Member States.

We can only hope that the introduction of a single funding and programming instrument will make it easier to manage and control the new rural development policy. State forests, which are home to natural landscapes of exceptional value, should also be eligible for support under the new fund, as otherwise our progress towards the Natura 2000 objectives could be adversely affected.

Technical assistance should be provided for authorities and local action groups in the new Member States in order to ensure that the LEADER axis can be fully implemented without any problems.

Particular attention should also be paid to the development of human capital. This is especially true in the case of women and young people, who play a leading role in rural development.

  Ljudmila Novak (PPE-DE) – (SL) The diversity of the landscape in various European countries also dictates a diversity of conditions for work, especially in the agricultural sector. In this way countries with predominantly hilly landscapes cannot match the yield per hectare of those that have much more favourable conditions for farming. Nevertheless great harm would be done to each country and landscape from the environmental and strategic aspect, if, owing to the more difficult working conditions, farming and rural development were neglected. It therefore makes sense to support the proposal of the Committee for Agriculture regarding support for rural development through the assistance of the European Agricultural Fund.

Our fathers and grandfathers worked the land from a need to survive and a love for the land, although the effort they put in was never fully repaid. And nowadays there are fewer and fewer people who would do this for love, but rather, like those in the commercial or public sectors, they want to earn and create for themselves more favourable working and living conditions. For this reason I especially support the proposed support for young farmers, with which they will be able to create the basic conditions for continuing their work.

We know from our experiences in Slovenia that if a young farmer takes over a farm, he will usually also modernise it and continue to farm successfully. If, however, he leaves the farm because he sees no prospects there, he will only rarely come back, since in many cases a living can be earned faster and more easily elsewhere.

However, modern times demand educated farmers, who will know how to get their products into the market economy and will be familiar with legislation, as well as being innovative and environmentally aware. All of this requires a great deal of knowledge and support on the part of society, the European Union, the state and citizens.

All citizens would like to continue to enjoy healthy food and to live in a beautiful landscape and clean environment. For this reason, concern for rural development is a task for the whole of society and not just for farming people. To contribute to this there should be simpler regulations, so that in paying out assistance the intermediaries will not all be earning more than the farmers themselves.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – (ET) Commissioner, I would like to thank the rapporteur for this thorough and professional work. This is a worthy continuation of the reform initiated by the previous commissioner, Mr Franz Fischler.

I strongly approve of proposals for both the Commission and Member States to support small and micro-enterprises. Since the role of these enterprises in the employment rate and development of rural areas is particularly important, the support criteria established by Member States must allow those enterprises preferential access to funding for rural development.

I also endorse the idea of continuing support for young farmers in founding their own companies, by covering the expenses they incur in preparing their business plans.

In addition, I would like to emphasise the need to support private forest owners more effectively, using a new financing system, and to compensate their expenditures in the reproduction and maintenance of forest resources. Representing Estonia, where forest makes up 50% of the mainland, 40% of that being privately-owned forest, I am aware of these people’s concerns.

In financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, a few circumstances should be kept in mind:

Firstly, the European Union must guarantee the financial viability of this regulation; in other words, the funds must make it possible to finance the rural life of both the old and the new Member States.

Secondly, the EU’s budget line for rural development must not be lowered under any circumstances, since that would be at variance with the logic of the common agricultural policy. I would like to emphasise that the new regulation of rural development expands the selection of measures in the areas of forestry, NATURA and non-agricultural jobs, which necessitates an even more rapid increase in funding.

Lastly, in financing, it is important to make a clear distinction between measures with structural consequences and the measures of other structural funds.

  Zbigniew Zaleski (PPE-DE).  – (PL) Mr President, the Commission’s document and Parliament’s report set out a great many key proposals for ways in which assistance could be provided to rural areas, and especially to agricultural areas. I should like to focus on two particular issues that relate to non-agricultural matters. The first of these is infrastructure, or in other words water, roads, sewage systems and telephone lines, all of which are necessary in order to improve standards of living in rural areas. The second is education, since people from the countryside must be given the same educational opportunities as those from towns. Amongst other things, this would help stop the rural exodus.

A new trend has been noted, namely for people to move back to the countryside, but with the sole aim of living close to nature. It is important for country people to be able to work there in order to fulfil themselves professionally, notably within small and medium-sized enterprises.

People are moving away from the countryside. The proposal to encourage people to move back there will help maintain a demographic balance and reduce the negative selection process that stems from rural-urban migration. Communication technologies and new forms of transport mean that a great many people could live and work in rural areas. IT specialists and SME owners are but two examples. In order to do so, however, these individuals must be provided with the appropriate conditions, or at least some form of assistance. If we were to take such action, we would help preserve the tradition of family businesses, and at the same time strengthen family ties. The latter are of inestimable value for modern-day Europe. We would also ensure the survival of the values without which Europe, in the shape of the EU, would be unable to function and would lose its raison d’être.

To sum up, money invested in rural areas will not go to waste. Europe will profit greatly from such investment in many key respects.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I should like to thank you for the very valuable and constructive contribution you have made with your opinion on the rural development regulation. I am convinced that your concerns, particularly substantial on the first and second axes, have helped us to understand better the key issues that are important to the European citizens whom you represent in this Parliament.

I should like to comment on a few of the issues raised here tonight. First of all, the minimum spending rates, which several Members mentioned. The Commission is open to a balance between axes, leaving more margin to the Member States. However, the proposed rate of 8% for Axis 3, compared to the 15% proposed by the Commission, is too little. Please do not forget that measures under Axis 3, if used correctly, can contribute significantly to promoting economic growth and job creation in rural areas. This is clearly in the interest of farmers and their families and it is closely linked to what we want to achieve under the Lisbon Strategy.

Someone mentioned the need for Members to be allowed to prioritise rural development funds on the third axis. They have plenty of room to do this with the minimum rates that we have proposed. But we also need to ensure that Member States have a minimum of balance so that they address the variety of challenges in rural areas.

Regarding young farmers: they need to have the business plan. Apart from agri-environment, the Commission is not willing to make other measures compulsory. If there is a real problem for young farmers in a Member State, the national strategy should address it and propose the appropriate measures. On the other hand, the business plans should not be over prescriptive at this stage. If needed, additional provisions can be included in the implementing regulations. As Commissioner McCreevy already mentioned, we also accept the extension of support for young farmers to subsidise loans.

I also noted your comments on the grace period for young farmers concerning the minimum standards. Let me be very clear on this: there cannot be a blank cheque for young farmers. In principle, they have to comply with cross-compliant standards just as other farmers have to do. However, I am prepared to consider one exception to this principle: when a young farmer takes over a farm that has problems in meeting one standard or another, he can identify this deficit in his business plan and provide for the action needed to address the problems. In this case, it would make sense to give him some time to adapt and during this period we would not penalise him for non-compliance with the standards concerned.

On less-favoured areas, you asked me to look at the inclusion of socio-economic criteria and phasing-out periods for areas that have lost their status. The Commission proposed a change as regards the present intermediate less-favoured areas. Mountain areas and specific less-favoured areas remain as they are today.

Member States are requested to confirm or to modify their current delimination in their programmes. But for the intermediate less-favoured areas, there is an agreement that we need to change the approach in the light of the criticism from the European Court of Auditors, which is also shared by this Parliament. The Commission recognises that more time is needed for this work and that we need to review the criteria we have proposed so far. Let us, however, keep in mind that the criteria we use have to be objective to the WTO to be able to fit into the green box. In this context, a phasing-out period for the existing intermediate less-favoured areas can be considered.

In 2008, the Commission will present to Parliament and to the Council a report accompanied by a proposal in view of an entry into force in 2010.

You also suggested we bring the co-financing rate for the outermost regions and the Greek islands up to 85%, as is proposed in the cohesion policy regulation. Please let me explain why we proposed a slightly different approach. Firstly, like you, I believe that the co-financing rates for these regions should be higher. This is why we proposed a co-financing rate that is actually 5% higher for each axis. However, it is good to maintain a certain differentiation between the axes to express the importance that we attach to the second and the fourth. The cohesion policy proposal does not distinguish between axes and, therefore, has no such differentiation. In addition, we offer in our proposal a number of specific advantages to operators in the outermost regions. Such specific advantages do not exist under the cohesion policy.

Some of you mentioned modulation money to be targeted only against the first and the second axis. This is not possible, because once the modulation amounts are made available they are part of the programming as a whole and should be allocated based on needs identified in the national strategic programmes.

On Natura 2000, we have to strike a delicate balance. Rural development funds can, and should, contribute, but they can never be the only source of funding to solve this problem. It is very important for me to underline that there must be other sources so that rural development is not the only banker.

I believe that with our new regulation, including the improvements made by the European Parliament, we will have a solid basis for our rural development in future. However, we also need the money, which many of you have mentioned tonight. The financial perspective will be the moment of truth. I hope I can count on your support to make it possible to maintain as much money as possible in this very important area.

I thank you once again for your excellent work. I heard Mr Mulder say that the rapporteur had given a vintage performance. I completely agree. It has been a pleasure for me to cooperate with the members of the Committee on Agriculture.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, I would really like to thank you very much for what you have said. I think it shows that we have moved very much closer in the essential things that are important to us all. I think what you said about the less-favoured areas, small and medium-sized enterprises and young farmers in particular was very good. If modulation must be applied to all axes, then we must also pay close attention to the level of their appropriations. Again, Commissioner, my sincere thanks to you and your staff for your support.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Tuesday at 12 noon.