Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 15 February 2006 - Strasbourg

15. Strategic guidelines for rural development (2007-2013) (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Mrs McGuinness, on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, on the proposal for a Council Decision on Community strategic guidelines for Rural Development (Programming period 2007 2013), [COM(2005)0304 C6-0349/2005 2005/0129(CNS)] (A6-0023/2006).

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I would like to start by expressing my thanks to Parliament for the support it has provided over recent months in our common goal of further establishing rural development as the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. I am convinced, as I am sure you are, that it is a policy that really adds value to the European area.

Thanks to the excellent cooperation between Parliament, the Council and the Commission, our rural development regulation was adopted last autumn. The strategic guidelines which are before you today are an essential element in taking further the process of developing national strategies and rural development programmes in the different Member States.

I would like to thank Parliament, and in particular, the rapporteur, Mrs McGuinness, for their help in bringing the opinion forward in a very timely manner. We are still well on the way to delivering our rural development programmes on time.

Our strategic guidelines for rural development for the period 2007 to 2013 are meant to guide Member States in the development of their own national strategies and programmes. I am convinced that our policy will offer many opportunities to make the rural development policy a success, but we will have to use it in the right way. We must use it to help unlock the innovative capacity of our agri-food and forestry sectors and the economic, environmental and social potential of our rural areas and the people who live in them. It is an extraordinary potential and it is our responsibility to do everything we can to mobilise it.

The Community strategic guidelines will be a first step towards achieving this, firstly by identifying and agreeing the areas where the use of European Union support for rural development will create good added value. Secondly, by making the link with both the reform of the common agricultural policy and the necessary restructuring, the strengthening of the second pillar provides opportunities both for farmers and for jobs and growth. I have made it very clear that rural development should contribute to the Lisbon and Göteborg strategies, and I think we are doing just that. Thirdly, consistency with other European Union policies will be ensured, in particular in the field of cohesion and environment.

Let me now say a few words about the amendments. The report proposes many helpful suggestions and I am very grateful for this. In my view, many of the amendments tabled by Members reflect important issues that are not reflected adequately in the Commission proposal. These can be taken either wholly or partially into account. On the other hand, there are a number of proposed amendments which we feel are already dealt with adequately in the current text. I see this as a clear indication of the very broad consensus between the Commission and Parliament about the aims of our rural development policy.

Let me conclude this introduction, therefore, by expressing my agreement with the issues raised by the rapporteur in her report: the role of modernisation measures, the need for measures to help to encourage young farmers and farming families to stay in rural areas, and the importance of putting the heart back into our villages, sustainable farming and preservation of the rural heritage. Above all, a vibrant, commercial and sustainable agriculture is essential for the development or our rural regions, in which we have a huge common interest.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Mr President, at the outset I should like to thank all those who have assisted with this report and the colleagues who put forward amendments, which were extremely helpful.

In my past life as a journalist I had the great pleasure of reporting on the many success stories of rural development, which, as you said, Commissioner, unlocked the potential of rural areas. I mention, in particular, those under the Leader Programme. Rural development in action is much more interesting than the theory behind it. However, we need to have rules, and that is why in this report we have set out strategic guidelines to allow Member States to plan their programmes from 2007 onwards. I believe that the guidelines offer the flexibility that Member States need in order to draw up those programmes. Each Member States has different needs because rural areas differ right across the 25 Member States.

We talk about the two pillars of the CAP – agriculture and rural development. Some people speak of two different policies, but it is important to remember that it is a single policy with two different pillars. I am glad to hear you say, Commissioner, that agriculture is still of huge importance. We should not ignore the reality that a vibrant, commercial and sustainable farm sector is a vital component of rural life. Of course, rural development has a much wider remit: it provides for restructuring of rural regions and it allows for environmental protection and for measures to improve the quality of life for rural people.

Just last week I presented certificates to mature students in Tullamore, a town in the midlands of Ireland. These courses were promoted by the local Leader group. Each and every one of the students spoke about what a great value it was to them and how it had improved the quality of their lives and that of their community. Benefits will flow from that. It is another example of rural development in action – and it does work.

Rural areas are different from urban areas, but the policy priorities for rural regions have to fit in with the overall objectives, as you have set out, of competitiveness and economic growth, environmental sustainability and quality-of-life issues. Because of time constraints, I will not go through all of the details. However, improving the competitiveness of agriculture, forestry and food is a priority. We need ongoing investment in research and development across all of the range of activities in rural regions.

In the report, we stressed the importance of job consolidation and maintenance, just as we stressed the importance of job creation. When we reform agriculture there will be changes in employment in rural areas. A quality environment is key to the future of rural regions. So, too, is the ongoing restructuring of the agriculture sector. Where we have measures in place to try to encourage young people into farming, we must ensure that they are sufficient to do just that. Across the European Union we hear of young people not wanting to farm. We may regret that in the future, as it has implications, not just for food production, but also for the quality of our rural environment and landscape. We want young people because we want a living countryside. Without people, we have very little else.

We also allow for regional specialities to be promoted; organic farming by traditional means is provided for as well. Once again, the priority is to ensure that these measures and this production are market led and that the measures we put in place under rural development programmes add value to these local products. Non-food uses are also very important, and other reports discussed here tonight spoke of renewable energies and biomass.

Ensuring that the rural communities have access to basic services, such as childcare and education, is also very important. We need to talk about the quality and affordability of those services.

A key requirement in rural regions is access to information technology: to IT training and broadband. I spoke earlier about the great success of rural development in the town of Tullamore but, in case you think all is wonderful in rural Ireland, in terms of broadband penetration, we are unfortunately languishing in 17th place in the European Union. Broadband, in my view, is just as essential as electricity to rural regions, and yet many parts of rural Europe do not have this basic facility. It means that they cannot provide jobs and that small and medium-sized enterprises are held back.

With regard to the budget, we did not have access to the final details when this report was being drawn up. We now know that there is a reduction EUR 20 billion in funding for rural development for the period 2007 onwards, compared with what the Commission had forecast. It is a bad signal to send to rural areas.

I have huge concerns about the possibility for Member States to cut 20 % of market support measures and direct payments and to allocate it to rural development. That is robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is, in my view, a renationalisation of agriculture policy by the back door. It is also unworkable in its current form. It now emerges that Member States who opt for this voluntary modulation can spend the money in any way they choose, without regard to the rules or indeed national cofinancing; this is regrettable.

We must make rural development work for people and the places in which they live. In so doing, we will continue to see the fruits of the policy and ensure that rural development has a future beyond 2013.

(Applause)

  Elspeth Attwooll (ALDE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development. – Mr President, Commissioner, the thanks of the Committee on Regional Development are due to Mrs McGuinness, not just for the quality of her final report, but also for her close cooperation with us in producing it.

Although the original Commission proposal contains much of value, we have concerns about certain aspects. These include, in particular: the need for more recognition of the diversity of rural areas; greater clarity on the activities to which the individual axes are addressed; fuller attention under Axis 1 to forestry, the fuel chain and renewable energy resources; additional detail under Axis 2 as to the environmental goods to be promoted, including preservation of the cultural, as well as the natural, heritage; and a heavier emphasis under Axis 3 on measures to improve the quality of life and social inclusion in rural areas in parallel with, and as an aspect of, maintaining and developing employment.

On a broader level, the committee wishes to stress the promotion of both sustainability and territorial cohesion with the need for an integrated approach that would embody appropriate spatial planning and foster coherence between the actions engendered by all sources of European funding. In that context, we emphasise the importance of the partnership principle and of the broadest possible involvement of all competent authorities and appropriate bodies in developing strategies at regional and/or national level as appropriate to the Member State concerned.

We are delighted by the extent to which the report addresses our concerns and commend its content to the Commission, recognising, with thanks to the Commissioner, that she has already touched on some of these issues in her introduction. We commend it to the Council and to Parliament as a whole.

  Agnes Schierhuber, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I too would very much like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs McGuiness, for her report. As the Commissioner has already said in her introductory remarks, this report looks at the strategic guidelines as a bridge between the provisions of the Council regulation on rural development and the implementation of those provisions in the Member States in the form of national strategies and programme planning documents.

One major problem is the lack of the Financial Perspective. I know, Commissioner, that you are not happy with the Council's decision in December to reduce funding for rural development, but we need to finally set up the financial framework so that the programmes can be started on time in the Member States.

The greater flexibility in relation to the priorities is important for us all. The Community strategic guidelines form the basis for establishing national strategies. An important aspect in this is that, on the one hand, the EU's priorities have been taken into account but, on the other, the Member States have been left with sufficient room for manoeuvre.

This is not just about creating new jobs, but also about safeguarding existing employment opportunities in agriculture and forestry and safeguarding all related industries, which are very important to the employment situation in our rural regions, so that we can achieve the goals that Mrs McGuiness talked about so decisively. Our aim must continue to be to work together to achieve the objectives of Lisbon and Gothenburg.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (HU) Mrs McGuinnes has done an excellent job with this report. I would like to thank her for the excellent cooperation, as in the report she had taken into account all the comments of the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.

I am extremely delighted that this report is in full agreement with the earlier report of Mrs Schierhuber. I know that the issue of rural development is extremely important to the Commissioner. We all talk about the fact that rural development has been the greatest loser of the seven-year budget. It is shocking that while all of us – both the Commission and Parliament say that rural development, the second pillar, ought to be given more money, exactly the opposite is happening. And this is why the report of Mrs McGuinnes is so important, because if there is no more money in the system, and in fact there is less money, then the system should at least be more flexible, and it should express the diversity of Member States better. In this respect, this report is very good and very useful. Incidentally, as an MEP from a new Member State, I deeply regret that the rural development fund of old Member States has been decreased by 15-20%, but the rural development fund of new Member States has only been increased marginally, to a very modest extent, even though everybody had said that they would be compensated by an increase for the long, protracted phasing-in period agreed in Copenhagen. Well, there has been no compensation, and unfortunately, the rural development fund of old Member States has been drastically reduced, perhaps forcing them to apply modulation, but obviously, this is no consolation.

The issues raised by Mrs Schierhuber are very important: jobs should not only be created, but also preserved. And in this respect it is very good that the McGuinnes report supports activity diversification. In other words: we should not just give money to clear an apple orchard, but also to enable the farmer to plant a marketable crop in its place. This is a very important issue in this report, because it facilitates the preservation of jobs. The strengthening of quality products and of local products is also very important. At this moment in time we still have an excessively market-profit-oriented view.

We would like to thank Mrs McGuinnes that the transitional regulations currently in place in new Member States will continue to remain in effect. By the way, my experience as a future rapporteur for integration issues of new Member States (these issues will be debated in the second half of this year) is that these are very much required in the new Member States. I support the report of Mrs McGuinnes.

  Kyösti Virrankoski, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FI) Mr President, the rapporteur, Mrs McGuiness, has drafted an excellent report on the Commission’s proposal on guidelines for rural development. My sincere thanks go to her for that.

More than half the population of the EU live in the rural areas of Europe, and these regions generate almost half the Gross Value Added in the EU. These regions, however, lag behind others when certain indicators are applied. For example, unemployment is greater in these areas.

The European countryside faces big changes. A comprehensive reform in agricultural policy has been initiated, and as a result agriculture is becoming less able to employ and sustain the population in rural areas. Special action is therefore needed to restore the vitality of the countryside.

The Commission is proposing several different possible solutions. The strategic guidelines are based on the EU Regulation on the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the text of which was adopted last year. In it three axes are defined, as well as a Leader Community initiative. The report in many respects improves on the text submitted by the Commission.

The debate on the report is nevertheless overshadowed by the Council’s terrible proposal for the EU’s financial perspective for the next seven-year term. The Council has cut the figure for appropriations proposed by the Commission and supported by Parliament by a full EUR 19 billion; in other words, more than 20%. It is therefore completely wrecking the great efforts that Parliament and the Commission have made to establish a policy on rural development and sustaining rural populations. As a consequence, we have to wait until this issue is revisited in the finance negotiations between Parliament and the Council, and the situation is corrected as is only right and proper. We must insist on this. It is not just the need for general development of the countryside, but also greater self-sufficiency in energy for the EU, and other challenges, that depend on this.

  Kathy Sinnott, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – Mr President, I congratulate my colleague on this report. I agree with many of the proposed amendments and with the overall direction, but I have some concerns.

Firstly, I am disappointed that the minimum allocation for the Leader axis in the budget will be reduced to 5%. It is proposed in the financial perspective that Member States can increase the rate of modulation by up to 20%. Given the ongoing difficulties in the agricultural sector, more resources are required. If the rates are increased, as I hope, we must ensure that ample money is allocated to axes 3 and 4, as well as 1 and 2.

Concerning diversification, not all those leaving farming and/or rural dwellers are entrepreneurs, or interested in being so. There needs to be provision for helping people into employment and this should be reflected in the guidelines under point 3.3. Also, although support for renewable energy is highlighted in points 3.1 and 3.3 of the guidelines, it is futile to provide support for renewable energy at a local level if national policy is prohibitive to the development of the sector. We must therefore coordinate these. It is imperative that the guidelines highlight the need for consultation with those involved at local level in the preparation of the national guidelines and also in the subsequent preparation of rural development programmes.

Lastly, I should like to say to the Commissioner that in Ireland it is hard to take her recommendations on organic farming seriously, when she will not allow us to declare the island a GMO-free zone.

  Janusz Wojciechowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, I congratulate Mrs McGuinness on her excellent report on an extremely important issue. In recent times, the Union has tended to neglect rural and agricultural problems. We have often heard, even in this House, that it is not worth spending nearly half of the Union’s budget on helping rural communities and farmers who account for barely 6% of society. The strategic guidelines now hold out the hope that rural and agricultural problems will receive better treatment in the future.

After all, the development of rural areas is not just a matter for farmers. It concerns society as a whole. Without rural development and support for farming there can be no food security, sustainable growth or effective environmental protection.

I am hopeful that the future of rural communities and farming in Europe will be well-served by the document we are debating today, particularly in the new Member States which are in greatest need of support for their rural areas.

  Peter Baco (NI). – (SK) The Strategic Guidelines of the Community for the area of rural development in the 2007–2013 programme period constitute a worthwhile and necessary document. I support the amendments of our Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, as they enhance the Council proposal. I also admire the good work done by Mrs McGuinness, the rapporteur.

According to the strategy, rural development should accompany the implementation of a new, market-oriented common agricultural policy, and should support the key role of the market within this policy. This is all very well. The budget cuts proposed for the CAP in the Financial Perspective, however, are causing justifiable concern over the real benefits of rural development. Further concern results from the course of negotiations in the WTO, where it appears that European farmers could be put at a disadvantage in their competition against the rest of the world. There are also risks, however, arising from the restrictive nature of ongoing reforms, as was the case for sugar reform, as well as other reforms that are in the pipeline.

Studies also suggest that there is a risk of the rural economy being weakened because of the transition to single payments per farm, etc. It goes without saying that the above risks are greatest in the new member countries. For example, in my country, Slovakia, following the transition to single farm payments, agricultural output is expected to fall by a further 17%. These are dramatic figures, since we have increased the importation of food by a half over the past two years due to the discriminatory influence of the CAP in the new Member States, and the export-import balance in Slovakia’s agricultural sector trade has deteriorated by one-third. The worst-off are the most backward, typically rural regions that are falling behind virtually in front of our eyes. At the same time, all of the EU resolutions have stated that our policies should be working to narrow the gap that the more backward regions are facing.

According to the findings of the Slovak non-governmental organisation ‘Rural Parliament’, the countryside depends entirely on the prosperity of agribusinesses for its development. Rural areas develop where agribusinesses flourish. Where business is slow in the countryside, entire rural areas are on the decline, and rural development becomes impossible. The problem of the new Member States is therefore that of a deficient rural economy resulting from the uneven effects produced by the role of the market as embodied in the CAP.

  Giuseppe Castiglione (PPE-DE). – (IT) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by thanking Mrs McGuinness for the excellent work she has done in her report.

In the new Union it is important to ensure a strategic approach with regard to intervention policies. This approach should be translated into clear objectives, incisive measures and appropriate action, the results of which can be assessed objectively.

The identification of priority actions to be undertaken must not, however, result in an inflexible programming exercise and in a restriction for the Member States. On the contrary, it is important to guarantee the Member States some flexibility, which enables them to make decisions about how they will intervene on the basis of what is actually happening at national, regional and local levels.

It is crucially important for the purposes of rural development that we revitalise, and restore the competitiveness of, our agricultural production when compared with that of the other countries, which have significantly lower production costs. In that context, moreover, it is important to foster accompanying measures that facilitate innovation, research and development.

The emphasis placed on the areas of excellence and quality of agricultural products, particularly those produced locally and regionally, is consistent with the Community’s overall strategy. Quality must be understood not only as food safety and consumer protection, but also as value added to the competitiveness of businesses and as the expression of local traditions and of the cultural heritage of rural communities. One need only think of local crafts, environmental protection, agricultural specialities and the related traditional production techniques.

These objectives clearly need to be coordinated with the need to help young farmers and women enter the rural professions, by passing on traditional knowledge and skills to them, and by improving the quality of life in rural areas through the promotion of services and infrastructure.

Lastly, we must welcome the crucial aspect of bringing the experience gained through Leader to the system of local governance, building on the best practices of earlier programming exercises.

  Marc Tarabella (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, having analysed the report by Mrs McGuinness, whom I wish to commend for her work, I should like to highlight certain points.

Firstly, it falls to us to ensure that the EU's rural strategy is formulated and interpreted as the benchmark for any Community policy or programme relating to rural areas. The Commission’s proposal, sadly, limits its ambition to the implementation of the future regulation on rural development and accordingly makes it impossible to integrate rural, regional and social development policies.

As regards the Lisbon Strategy, the rural strategy ought to make a greater contribution to socio-economic and territorial cohesion for all rural communities. Local conditions must be improved and supported, in particular by strengthening existing knowledge-exchange networks, or setting up new ones, and by improving the living conditions of rural communities. These conditions should not, however, encourage migration from cities to the countryside.

Mr President, I feel that citizen involvement should be encouraged and citizenship fostered. These issues are crucial to the construction of a democratic local identity in the areas concerned.

Lastly, the Commission should establish a forum for dialogue with the existing European networks and support their activities without undermining their independence. This would boost relations with the stakeholders on the ground.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, first of all I wish to congratulate the rapporteur on her report and her excellent cooperation.

Personally, I am adamant that the rural economy, SMEs and rural networks should play a real and meaningful role in achieving the Lisbon goals. Rural development is not just an adjunct; it is not just an add-on to compensate for falling numbers in agriculture, though it may well help to achieve that. In its own right, it must contribute to increased prosperity in rural areas. In that context, I agree fully with the rapporteur that funding for rural development should not involve robbing the first pillar to pay for the second pillar. Rural development should stand on its own two feet.

I am happy about the inclusion of my amendment on the necessity to ensure consultation, cooperation and, where appropriate, compensation for farmers when their activities are restricted owing to the enhancement of landscapes and habitats. I have always believed that if the EU requires that of farmers, it must pay compensation.

Finally, I have one minor quibble with the rapporteur when she says that agriculture must remain central to the economies of rural areas. While food production, using the European model and food security, are of paramount importance, this should not sideline the contribution of rural development. Rural development has an increasing role to play in the maintenance of farmers’ livelihoods and farm family incomes and incomes of rural dwellers, so we need to build a sustainable income stream to complement agricultural income. That has a life of its own and needs an adequate fund of its own; hence my disappointment at the cut in the budget for rural development.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, in the European Parliament I represent Poland, which is home to six of the ten poorest regions in the Union. Five of these regions are located in the eastern Poland. They are characterised by a poorly developed infrastructure, a fragmented agricultural structure and high unemployment, some of which is hidden on peasant family farms. The additional funds in excess of EUR 800 million earmarked in the 2007-2013 budget for eastern Poland are not a solution to the backwardness of this region. The support we need must be at least equal to the aid given by the Union to marginal and sparsely-populated regions in the old Member States. As well as financial assistance, eastern Poland, which includes the poorest Lubelszczyzna region, needs a stable agricultural policy and protection for its farmers. It is high time that provision was made for its development.

  James Hugh Allister (NI). – Mr President, funding for rural development is a key issue. It should not, as the rapporteur has said, involve robbing the first pillar in order to fund the second. Nor must we lose sight of the fact that the core and single most important component for the development of rural regions is the maintenance of sustainable agriculture at the very heart of their economies. Thus a funding formula reliant on a smash-and-grab raid on the single farm payment through excessive modulation is simply not acceptable, particularly in circumstances where there is no necessity for matching national funding.

There are four particular points that I want to support: first of all, the use of funds to encourage new entrants, to assist the essential transition of farm families from one generation to the next; secondly, the prioritisation of funding to allow for the modernisation of farms and help with meeting higher animal welfare and environmental standards; thirdly, maximum regional flexibility on the implementation of the rural development programme must be secured and built upon; and fourthly and finally, the proposal for village renewal and the preservation of rural heritage is vitally important in revitalising and sustaining the rural communities.

This is a good report. It is obviously the product of hard work by the rapporteur and I congratulate her on her efforts.

  James Nicholson (PPE-DE). – Mr President, I wish to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on an excellent report. The future of the rural economy depends on the success or otherwise of our future policy from 2007 to 2013. I must say I am concerned that there will not be sufficient funds to achieve a positive outcome to sustain the future under the second pillar. Rural society has been on a downward spiral for many years, and you do not need me to rehearse the problems again.

All I know is that there are no easy solutions and we cannot wave a magic wand. The rural economy has evolved over the years and there is now a heavy reliance on environmental projects. This can be a help, but on its own is no panacea for all the problems facing the rural dweller. I believe there is now too much emphasis placed and too much pressure put on such projects. There is no doubt of the need to diversify, but there are not many new ideas out there. Yet we must persevere and try to achieve our targets and we require a greater vision in the projects we support, because in the past too many projects in rural areas turned out to be white elephants.

As far as we in Northern Ireland are concerned, we will not see any change unless we achieve a totally different approach from our planning services. They are living in the past, looking through rose-tinted glasses and looking back to a time that no longer exists. If we are to achieve anything in this, we must be adventurous and innovative; we must encourage the development of more small and medium-sized enterprises and more micro-industries in rural areas. If a farmer, his son or his daughter has an opportunity or an idea to develop their farm or to diversify, they should be encouraged to do so and to expand and not be forced into the nearest town or village. This is the way forward. We cannot afford to live in a time warp.

One other concern of mine is that some Member States will give these proposals good support and others, including my own, will do what they have always done with such initiatives: nothing! The way forward for rural development is one of vision and confidence; above all, we must look to the future!

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner and the rapporteur, Mrs McGuinness, the report that we are debating today contains the guidelines to be followed by the Member States in drawing up the national strategic plans. Mr Castiglione said something very clear: that the actions mentioned in its annex will provide a guide that will allow criteria to be unified, and this unification of criteria is going to promote the harmonious application of the new rural development Regulation, but it is also going to enable each Member State to take its own decisions on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity.

We Spanish socialists are satisfied with the reference to the multi-functional role of agriculture and we are also pleased that the conservation and protection of soil has been included as a priority. Soil is actually an environmental resource which must be considered together with water, air and biodiversity. This consideration is necessary in order to curb the processes of erosion and desertification, which lead to the kind of disasters that have been mentioned here this evening, such as forest fires and floods. Furthermore, this care of the soil will allow us to maintain good agricultural and environmental conditions.

I am particularly pleased, Mrs McGuinness, that the incorporation of women into the labour market is taken up as a horizontal priority, and expressly referred to as such. I am also pleased that the consolidation of existing jobs has been added to the reference to the creation of new jobs.

With regard to the need to establish services to maintain the population and to receive new inhabitants, we Spanish socialists agree that this may be the case and, furthermore, we agree that a fair proportion of the Structural Funds should be allocated to these areas in order to guarantee the balance between the development of rural areas and that of urban areas which is so necessary. It is clear, Commissioner, that good investment in infrastructures would contribute to an improvement in the quality of life of these areas and to countering depopulation.

I live in a rural area, I have been Mayoress in a rural area and I can tell you that nothing could be more necessary or more motivating for the inhabitants of these areas.

  Alfonso Andria (ALDE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to begin by congratulating the rapporteur on her excellent work and on her excellent report. I welcomed and approved, among other things, the emphasis given to young farmers, micro-businesses and crafts.

The task awaiting the European Union at a difficult time for the agricultural sector – which is made all the more critical by the health threats and the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the WTO negotiations – is one of focusing primarily on young people and of doing everything in its power to ensure that they are not forced to abandon the countryside.

It is therefore crucial to diversify economic activities, to create new job opportunities in rural areas, to support local initiatives such as farmers’ markets and to focus on high-quality and niche products, in addition, of course, to crafts.

As Mrs Attwooll, the draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Regional Development, sharply underlined, we also need to ensure the sustainable use of water resources and to put the emphasis firmly on training by investing sufficient funds in this area.

Lastly, I agree with the bottom-up approach used by the Commission in its proposal. Indeed, rural development must not ignore the specific characteristics of the various regions, the strategic positions of local actors who set the guidelines for each area or, particularly, the development model for towns, which represent the real driving force of the entire regional economy.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, I would like to draw your attention to the significance of rural development problems in the new Member States.

In Poland, rural areas became a kind of shock-absorber for the economic transformation that took place in the 1990s. These areas saw a considerable influx of workers after the mass closure of workplaces that occurred at that time. This means that Poland’s rural regions need enormous financial support and a number of instruments to create employment in that environment.

I am pleased that it is proposed to allocate more than EUR 80 billion for this purpose in the 2007-2013 Financial Perspective, and that some 10 to 20 billion of this should go to Poland. This policy must, however, go hand in hand with rational measures within the context of the common agricultural policy to stabilise traditional farm livelihoods, since only a stable livelihood on farms will enable the latter to make effective use of the support that is available from rural development funds.

  Ambroise Guellec (PPE-DE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, in common with all Members of this House, I agree on the objectives of the new rural development funds and on the need to strengthen the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. I should like to add my voice to the congratulations offered to the rapporteur and welcome the input from the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development. I am particularly grateful to Mrs Attwooll for helping to clarify a text that strikes me as decidedly overladen and not always easy to understand, not least by those who will have to implement it on the ground. The experience of the ongoing Leader programmes is a salutary lesson in the dangers of an excessively fussy, nit-picking set of guidelines.

I personally wanted to emphasise the need to take territorial cohesion into account. In order for this to become a reality, a balance must be struck between territories in line with the principle of equality among all citizens of the EU no matter where they live. Rural areas must not be defined in terms of the difference between them and urban areas. On the contrary, the relationship between the urban and rural environments needs to be strengthened by developing, inter alia, public services and in particular complementarity and transport accessibility. The quality of life required to sustain an active population in the rural sectors entails cooperation and the joint implementation of essential financial resources.

Lastly, new territorial indicators are required to improve the process of evaluating and deciding upon measures to strengthen territorial cohesion. In addition to gross domestic product, there is also a need to include employment rates, the decentralisation index and the level of public-service provision. We await the Commission’s proposals in this regard, and not solely from you, Commissioner.

  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, I must first congratulate Mrs McGuinness on her outstanding work, and I wish to commend her for her willingness to listen and her openness. This new strategic approach on rural development is designed to channel resources along well-defined priority axes. I feel that this will help to improve the effectiveness of measures in rural areas and coherence between the Member States.

It was also important to reaffirm the importance of rural development policy as the second pillar of the new common agricultural policy. Nevertheless, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the financial perspective, I am dismayed to note that the sum proposed for funding rural development policy, some EUR 20 billion, represents a sharp drop in relation to the Commission’s proposal. The solution put forward by the Council to address this significant reduction is the optional supplementary modulation transfer of up to 20% from the first to the second pillar, and this is left entirely to the discretion of the individual Member States.

This proposal raises a number of concerns: firstly, this modulation is technically impossible for market expenditure; secondly, it would mean drastic reductions in direct aid; lastly and most importantly, the fact that this optional modulation would comply with neither the EAFRD regulation already adopted by the Council after seeking an opinion from Parliament, nor the strategic guidelines on which we shall be having our say tomorrow, would be unacceptable. As with the EAFRD funds and the funds based on mandatory modulation, there must be national cofinancing and compliance with rules on minimum spending per axis and integration with national strategic plans.

  Ljudmila Novak (PPE-DE). – (SL) Each region has its own natural features, so every country needs to make its own strategic plan for rural development. However, the Community’s strategic guidelines should provide some general support and guidance for individual countries in this respect.

The countryside is one of the key factors in preserving the cultural, ethnological and natural heritage through which our lives are enriched. Since we wish to preserve and develop the countryside in the future, we must ensure that the working and living conditions do not lag behind those of the urban centres. This demands greater investment in education, a reduction in the bureaucracy involved in new investments and the provision of an appropriate infrastructure.

Preserving the cultural landscape is an extremely important task, so we cannot simply leave it to chance and to those increasingly rare individuals who, despite the low incomes, are prepared to involve themselves in this. Our forebears worked the land not simply for survival, but also out of love for it. Today that is no longer enough. Young people must see the prospect of advancement and a decent income, as well as adequate social security. There is still very poor provision of social security for women, and it is equally unacceptable that mothers employed on farms still do not have the same rights and benefits as women employed in other sectors.

Farmers must possess a great deal of knowledge to carry out their trade and to perform additional rural activities. In spite of this, the kind of work is the least valued in society. If we want young people to see some prospect and opportunity for themselves in the countryside once more, we must increase respect for agricultural work and respect for the countryside as a whole.

  Zita Gurmai (PSE). – (HU) Over half of our population lives in rural areas. Rural development throughout the European Union is a challenge for each Member State. The complete achievement of its goals would not only benefit the development of rural areas, but would also boost the entire economy of the European Community and contribute to the improvement of the quality of life of all citizens.

Efficient rural development programmes not only improve competitiveness and provide a solid support for sustainable development, but also strengthen social cohesion and the healthy development of all social strata. This particularly applies to new Member States, whose productivity has not caught up yet with that of the old Member States. The efficient utilisation of the increased assistance granted to the second pillar facilitates the reduction of the existing differences. When we take stock of the methods and instruments required, we must pay particular attention to the natural diversity of regions within the enlarged European Union. Therefore, Member States must be given an appropriate opportunity for the flexible handling of the instruments of rural development. This will allow them to create the development programmes most suited to the particularities of the regions. The involvement of private capital is indispensable to the execution of programmes and to the consistent implementation of structure change and modernisation.

The creative utilisation of alternative resources and supporting a wide range of training opportunities are also crucial to the implementation of truly equal opportunities between men and women, and, by expanding the labour market, they are crucial to the involvement of as many women as possible in the process of solving rural development tasks. I propose that this excellent report be accepted.

  Tomáš Zatloukal (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, rural regions make up 92% of the territory of the EU-25. These regions create 45% of Gross Added Value and provide 53% of employment. They lag behind, however, when it comes to socio-economic indicators; income per inhabitant is around a third less, the service sector is less developed and higher education levels tend to be lower. In the period 2007 to 2013 we must aim to invest in the future, which means investing in people. This involves know-how, new ways of delivering win-win environmental services and the creation of more and better job opportunities. Particular attention should be paid to the removal of barriers for those whose access to the labour market is currently hampered because of their gender, age or disability.

The diversification of economic activities, the protection of the rural cultural heritage and investment in infrastructure for local services are preconditions for improving the quality of life in rural areas, and help to counter rural depopulation. It is essential to present the EU’s rural areas as attractive locations for investment, work and living. They can offer enormous growth potential in the areas of tourism, accommodation and workspaces. The new programming period offers a unique opportunity to refocus support from the new rural development fund towards economic growth, employment and sustainability. We must have financial instruments in place with sufficient funds for fulfilling these targets. It is already obvious today that funding for the third axis, namely that of improving the quality of life in rural areas and the diversification of the rural economy, falls short of what is required. I thank the rapporteur for her work.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I can assure you that at this late hour I will not go into detail. However, for those brave people who are still here, we need to give a decent reply to some of the questions raised.

First of all, regarding the economics, it is quite clear that the outcome of the financial perspectives has not been very encouraging to many of us. It is correct that there has been a reduction of almost EUR 20 billion for the next financial period, which is all the more reason we have to ensure that the funds are spent as efficiently as possible, and I hope that the strategic guidelines can help us to do that. Now we need to continue with the planning.

I could not agree more with the rapporteur’s views on broadband. The rural development policy has a role in bridging the digital divide. This year I will be exploring that with my colleague, Commissioner Reding, to see what can be done.

Finally, on the question of voluntary modulation, I completely agree with Mrs McGuinness. It is quite clear that if we enter into this discussion on voluntary modulation, which is not even cofinanced by Member States, that will be the first step towards a re-nationalisation of European agricultural policy, so that farmers in the different Member States will have completely different competitive possibilities. That is not acceptable.

I congratulate Mrs McGuinness on her report. It has received a good response from the Members who were here earlier this evening. I have very much enjoyed listening to the debate.

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 10 a.m.