Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru | National Assembly
for Wales
Y Pwyllgor Newid Hinsawdd, Amgylchedd a Materion
Gwledig | Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs
Committee
Ymchwiliad i
ddyfodol Polisïau Amaethyddol a Datblygu Gwledig yng
Nghymru | Inquiry into
the Future of Agricultural and Rural Development Policies in
Wales
AAB 03
Ymateb gan Economaidd a Chymdeithasol
Ewrop
Evidence from European Economic and Social Committee
Rue Belliard/Belliardstraat 99 — 1040 Bruxelles/Brussel
— BELGIQUE/BELGIË
Tel. +32
25469011 — Fax +32 25134893 — Internet:
http://www.eesc.europa.eu
|
|
On 22 January 2015, the European Economic and Social Committee,
acting under Rule 29(2) of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw
up an own-initiative opinion on
Rural Development
Programmes – Sticking Plasters or Green Shoots of
Recovery?
(own-initiative
opinion).
The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development
and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 13 July
2015.
At its 510th plenary session, held on 16 and
17 September 2015 (meeting of 17 September), the European Economic
and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 192 votes to
3 with 10 abstentions:
* *
1.
Conclusions and recommendations
1.1
The EESC welcomes the continuing commitment of the EU, Member
States and regions to address some of the challenges facing rural
areas through a wide ranging Rural Development Programme (RDP). It
recognises the efforts of Commission and governmental staff in
drafting and adopting the new programme. However, given the real
crisis facing many disadvantaged rural areas, there is
disappointment at the delay to submission, approval and start of
the programme across several states and regions. We therefore
recommend that the Commission, together with state and regional
authorities, commissions an independent review of the process to
avoid future new scheme delays.
1.2
The RDP depends for its success on the effectiveness of the
Partnership Principle. The shared ownership of the programme
between public and private stakeholders, the social partners and
NGOs, under Treaty obligations and other commitments, is essential.
The EESC notes that there have been improvements in engagement over
previous programmes, but partnership is still variable across the
EU.
1.3
The role of monitoring committees needs to be transparent. Members
should be robust in scrutinising targets, with access to the
financial guidelines. Membership should be inclusive with an
ability to reflect clusters of interest, where appropriate.
1.4
In accordance with Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013, and in particular
Article 5 thereof on partnership and governance, the EESC believes
that the Commission should monitor its application during the
preparation of partnership agreements and the implementation of
programmes, including through participation in the monitoring
committees.
1.5
The breadth of programmes based on local needs and priorities is
welcomed, as is an increasing use of the Community-led Local
Development (CLLD) model for inclusive community involvement. Best
practice of efficient working in the use of the model should be
disseminated.
1.6
The budgetary constraints imply a complementary, non-duplicative
role to the remainder of the CAP budget. We recommend maximum use
of governmental, private and voluntary co-funding sources, with a
streamlined process for applicants. Managing authorities should
facilitate access to Cohesion Policy and other European investment
funds where projects fit wider criteria.
1.7
As already noted by the EESC[1],
fifteen Member States have transferred funds from direct payments
to RDPs, while in five other Member States the transfers have gone
from the second to the first pillar. Both options are legitimate
– since allowed by the co-legislators – but they do not
have the same value: RDPs serve the objective of a more balanced
territorial development within each EU region. A study of the
coherence and effectiveness of this flexibility is recommended,
including its impact on competition within the Single Market.
1.8
Prioritisation of spending will vary greatly across states and
regions. This opinion stresses the importance of sustainable
development of economic activity, the environment and social
justice with a strong emphasis on adding value to land-based
resources. We recommend that the Commission undertakes a mid-term
analysis of progress against targets for the above priorities,
whilst honouring existing commitments. Authorities should be able
to make adjustments to enable new projects to achieve a successful
completion of the programme and to learn lessons for any subsequent
rural framework policy.
1.9
There is a serious concern that the RDPs will be unable to deliver
improved territorial cohesion. The more remote and economically
marginal areas, both within and between states and regions, lack
the structural capacity to capitalise on the funds and support
available. Further targeted resources, for longer periods are
required, including cross border mentoring, twinning, capacity
building for advisory structures and innovative private and social
enterprise loans and investments.
1.10
The well-established LEADER model is respected and the EC funded
Rural Development Networks are encouraged to further disseminate
good practice.
1.11
Strong emphasis on keeping jobs and creating new employment
opportunities in rural areas is clear across programmes as is the
importance of investments, knowledge exchange, training, mentoring,
and closer ties with research establishments. Measures to
incentivise young people to seek a future in rural areas are
important, along with measures to facilitate the integration of all
people with special needs or with physical or mental disabilities.
Financial incentives that support generation renewal are crucial.
Furthermore, rural schools and colleges need closer links with both
traditional and changing skill-needs of their areas.
1.12
Succession planning needs to be addressed, integrating RDP
opportunities for testing business models with national, regional
rules on asset transfers. Mobility of labour is encouraged if
supported by quality training and adherence to employment
rights.
1.13
The contribution of women to the success of the programme should be
specifically targeted and supported. Their role is crucial to
ensuring that people can continue living in rural areas, not only
in terms of the diversification and processing of farm products,
but also in terms of the contribution they make to local
territorial development by providing craft and rural tourism
opportunities, not to mention as a key driver for innovation.
1.14
Measures to enhance the environment, its ecosystems and cultural
landscapes, are welcomed. Support for local products, accurately
labelled, for rural tourism and small scale and community renewable
energy schemes should bring sustainable economic and community
benefit. Rural regeneration can only happen if underpinned by
efficient, profitable agricultural, forest and rural businesses.
More effort will be required to improve understanding between
farmers and forest owners producing food or renewable raw
materials, environmental and recreational goods, and consumers from
an increasingly diverse European citizenship.
1.15
Tackling the impacts of climate change on agriculture and forestry,
and vice versa, are priorities in the programmes. Projects to
capture carbon, improve water and soil quality, reduce emissions,
enrich ecosystems and develop the circular economy are welcomed.
Improvements have to be long term and measured scientifically over
several agri-environment and other schemes, integrated with
production.
1.16
Tackling social injustice depends on wider governmental and EU
funds and policies, including provision of better Internet,
transport and education services.
1.17
Village economic and community renewal is essential and the RDPs
should also be tested for their inclusiveness of all rural
citizens. Civil society involvement and entrepreneurship are vital
to the sustainability of rural areas.
2.
Introduction
2.1
Rural Europe is the life blood of all European citizens, not just
those who live and work there. It provides secure food, timber,
minerals and water supplies. It provides a diversity of habitat,
renewable energy, recreational access, historical landscapes,
crafts, and above all, multi-skilled and diversely cultured people.
Some 115 million (23%) of EU citizens are categorised as living in
rural areas.
2.2
However, there is much variation between rural areas in terms of
economic prosperity and social cohesion. Some are affluent and
dynamic, others fragile, depopulating and fractured. Many are asset
rich and cash poor, characterised by sparse settlements with
limited access to public services. This is especially true for the
more remote and mountainous regions and islands. The gravitational
pull of modern economic and social activity towards towns and
cities is unrelenting. This makes it difficult for governments,
especially if implementing unsuitable urban solutions, to ensure
rural communities are sustainable. Mobility and free movement of
people are vital principles for the European Union. However it has
unintended consequences for the poorest rural regions as too many
people, especially the young, leave in anticipation of better
living prospects without ever returning.
2.3
Europe needs a vision to restore confidence in rural wellbeing,
based on green growth, promoting the circular economy, a greater
understanding of community needs and smarter support services. This
opinion seeks to address why there is variability in success rates
and what the prospects are of real improvements during the new
funding programme. Are lessons being learnt for the three pillars
of sustainable development, economic, environmental and social
justice? Is there a real sense of ownership and partnership among
all stakeholders?
3.
General comments
3.1
Measures to rebalance rural-urban economic opportunity and
stabilise social cohesion by Member States and regions are numerous
and the EU has, through the first (Regulation (EU) 1307/2013)
and second pillar (Regulation (EU) 1305/2013) of the CAP, as well
as its Structural/Cohesion Funds, made continuous efforts to
reverse the decline, though with limited and variable success. The
current EU support for rural development, financed by the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), established by
Regulation (EU) No°1306/2013, is estimated before inter-pillar
transfer at EUR 95.6 billion, which represents 23% of the CAP
budget.
3.2
The 2014-2020 programmes build on years of experience of what works
and what does not. The Commission supports the European Network for
Rural Development (ENRD) and the European Innovation Partnership
for agricultural productivity and sustainability (EIP-agri) to
promote good practices and innovative solutions and the EESC
recommend that this work be enhanced at all levels. Lessons could
also be learnt from the best practices of other funding
providers.
3.3
Although budgets are smaller than some of the other EU budgets,
they can be smart and enlarged through governmental and other
sources of co-financing. Programmes need to be complimentary to
first pillar resources and linked to other funding streams, where
appropriate, in a seamless bureaucratic infrastructure, which
allows applicants a swift response, and mentoring support from
advisory agencies and local planning authorities.
3.4
Components of the Programmes are flexible and local enough to build
on the actual needs of communities. The LEADER model with the Local
Action Groups brings a shared ownership and positive results, where
they are most efficient and successful. Technical support for all
stakeholders, coupled with mentoring and training is vital across
all projects and initiatives.
3.5
However, the most disadvantaged areas struggle to deliver real
improvements from short term programmes, given a lack of business
resources, poor infrastructure, inexperienced community leadership
and less access to other investments. For better territorial
cohesion there should be greater attention given to these areas as
under the previous Objective 1 of the Structural/Cohesion Funding
Programmes.
3.6
The Commission has issued new financial regulations for this
2014-2020 period, which should be clearly understood and
implemented by the managing authorities as well as the monitoring
committees, without increasing the bureaucratic burden on project
applicants. In this regard, the European Court of Auditors in its
reports
regarding the 2007-2013 programming period and the 2014-2020 legal
framework has made proposals for ensuring greater value for
money.
3.7
There has been a serious delay in the preparation and approval
process for many of the new programmes, despite promises of
simplification. This is highly regrettable given the parlous state
of many of the poorest rural areas and the desire for these
programmes to urgently contribute to tackling low income, youth
unemployment, poor public services and the impact of climate
change. As of May 2015 some 57%
of regional and state programmes still had to be approved, although
it is hoped that the process can be completed by the end of the
year.
4.
Consultation and stakeholder involvement
4.1
The EESC underlines the importance of implementing Regulation (EU)
No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council for
establishing general provisions for the European Regional
Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund the
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the Maritime and
Fisheries Fund. It points out the particular importance of Article
5 on partnership and multi-level governance, which stipulates that
other public authorities, economic and social partners and other
organisations representing civil society are to be included. Thus,
the Commission should monitor how the regulation is applied when
preparing Partnership Agreements and in implementing programmes,
including through participation in the monitoring committees for
programmes.
4.2
This opinion examines the level of engagement during preparation of
the Rural Development Programmes, though its conclusions are
limited by the shortage and the narrow geographical range of
approved programmes. Three hearings
were held along with a questionnaire more widely circulated. Early
responses indicated a territorially variable but better, more
mature, engagement process between governments and non-governmental
organisations than for previous programmes. However, more effort
should be made to disseminate good practices of engagement,
including greater use of communication technology for continuous
dialogue. Dialogue varies greatly within states and regions. The
Partnership Agreements can be tokenistic, the CLLD methodology is
only adopted in some areas, and real inclusive consultation ends
nearer the beginning than the end of the process.
There are examples of good practice available and they are often
found where similar engagement has led to better results with other
policy initiatives[6].
4.3
Governments alone cannot deliver the real change required to
invigorate rural areas. They can provide the legislative and
planning framework, the democratic accountability, better public
services and catalyst funding. However, it is mostly private
business, skilled employees and social and community enterprises
that deliver for people and the environment. To be willing to
invest time and resources, people have to be confident that a
common vision for a better rural future can be delivered and not
hindered by lengthy application processes.
4.4
To be successful, economic and social partners need resources to
continuously engage with their members and governments. As plans
vary and evolve there has to be a greater sense of shared ownership
of policy and implementation. The monitoring committees need to
have a broad based membership that is informed and able to
scrutinise effectively. The EESC is committed to facilitating the
development of better partnership models with civil and social
partners.
5.
Sticking plasters or long term recovery?
5.1
Our hearings
in Brussels and in North Wales confirmed that programmes included
targets for outcomes. These should be assessed by the Commission,
the monitoring committees and stakeholders periodically for real
progress and value for money. There should also be a study of
whether the transfer of funds between pillars was effective or
contributed to wider geographical and competitive distortion.
5.2
Three testing themes for sustainable development are identified:
entrepreneurism and employment, environment and social
inclusion.
Entrepreneurism and
employment
5.3
Though the CAP budget is decreasing, the extra requirements for
compliance being made by the Commission on first pillar payments
are increasing. Therefore, it is imperative that the RDP supports
investments for a competitive agriculture and forest sector
including through greater added value products, improved marketing,
strengthened short supply chains, branding and knowledge exchange.
Universities and colleges have an important role to play within
their own regions and in supporting the most disadvantaged regions
through twinning and mentoring. They should collaborate with
existing farmer and rural advisory services to draw down EU
research funds to address specific local needs. The RDP should be a
bridge between applicants and the European Investment Fund and
Horizon 2020, helping science to be farm- or rurally applied.
Though not directly funded by the RDP, there is a clear role for
schools, especially in rural areas to address the relevant business
needs of future generations. Farm open days, work experience and
apprenticeships from other funding schemes are vital to inspire a
well trained workforce.
Training, formal and informal, has to be vocational, business
related and locally based, where possible.
5.4
Agriculture and forestry industries move in a dynamic economic
environment, characterised by globalisation, rapid technological
progress and increasing societal demands. Innovations are an
essential key to maintain the efficiency and competitiveness of
farmers and forest owners. The newly created EIP-agri is a valuable
tool that needs to be implemented quickly and widely. Streamlined
funding conditions are needed to mobilise and facilitate
innovation.
5.5
The Youth Guarantee and similar schemes need to be related in rural
areas to RDP initiatives so that there is hope for progression and
ambition. Investment and training support for young farmers and new
entrants is essential. Projects to support and retain young people
in rural areas must be a top priority. Young people should be
encouraged to take ownership of measures to help themselves. Rural
areas need a better succession planning framework
that is legally equitable, accessible and stimulates
intergenerational transfers that are sustainable in matching youth
with experience.
5.6
The role of women in agriculture is fully recognised. Their
contribution to the design and delivery of rural projects is
invaluable and as exampled in Finland, targeted advisory support
leads to the release of entrepreneurial potential.
5.7
Rural tourism, producing crafts and enhancing recreational and
health fitness initiatives deserve support as does the promotional
work of festivals, shows such as the Royal Welsh and in Berlin
– the Green Week. Re-engaging town and country in a changing
pluralist Europe is a must for rural business and consumers as well
as better access to broadband internet services. The creation of
regional value chains provides a major opportunity for crafts,
agriculture, tourism and trade, and rural areas.
The EESC supports the proposed European Fund for Strategic
Investments (EFSI) and its commitment to support rural
projects.
Environment
5.8
The impact of climate change on agriculture and forestry has been
studied in an opinion.
One of the solutions to increasing production by using less
resources and improving resilience to climate change is to support
sustainable intensification of the agriculture and forest sector.
Modern land usage is encouraged to develop mitigating activities to
combat climate change and increase biodiversity, especially through
agri-environment schemes.
Recycling and the circular economy should be encouraged,
while renewable energy
is a valuable rural asset which, if invested in wisely, will
contribute economically, socially and environmentally in an
increasing way. There is real scope for community ownership and
investment if technological improvements can be made to storage,
logistics and infrastructure.
5.9
The EESC highlights the importance of agri-environment climate
measures being complementary to the greening of the first pillar.
Targeting aid to specific criteria such as land at risk of erosion,
clustering of land habitats, water catchment and support for
species requiring particular management practices are beneficial.
However, compliance requirements must not become additional
burdens. An accurate scientific baseline is required to measure
progress while understanding the longer term time scale required
for real improvements.
5.10
The landscape of rural Europe is primarily the result of human
activities, fashioned by generations of activity in the quest for
work in producing food, timber and shelter. Its diversity is
appreciated by European citizens. The RDPs have a role to play in
ensuring the sustainability of such cultural landscapes through
ensuring skills transfer and transparently funded rural activities
that contribute to such a valuable mosaic.
Social inclusion
5.11
Injustice in a rural context is difficult to define and target. As
referred to earlier, it is about scattered settlements, low
population numbers, age imbalances, poor public services for
transport, health and social services. It is about low income,
isolation and poor quality housing and technology services. There
is the special problem of ill treatment and exploitation of workers
in some areas,
especially migrants that requires greater efforts to help with
their integration and to enable access to appropriate vocational
training.
5.12
The TFEU, article 39, establishes, as one of the most important
objectives of the CAP, a fair standard of living for the
agricultural community by increasing productivity, encouraging
technical progress and ensuring sustainable development of
agricultural production and the optimum utilisation of the factors
of production. The TFEU makes provision for considering the
particular characteristics of agricultural activity, which result
from the social structure of agriculture and from structural and
natural disparities between the various agricultural regions, when
framing the CAP.
5.13
Rural development programmes help to create and consolidate direct
and indirect jobs in both the agricultural and agri-food sectors
and also contribute to a lesser extent to the economic
diversification of rural areas. However, regional development
programmes can realistically make only a limited contribution to
tackling the structural problems and shortcomings in public
services in rural areas.
5.14
Other government budgets and policies that are rural proofed or,
better still, specifically designed for rural issues, are required
including schemes for community transport, energy efficiency in
homes and re-training opportunities to encourage innovation.
Nevertheless, rural development programmes should also be assessed
for their contribution to social justice using the indicators
provided for in EU legislation and other indicators that should be
included for a more effective evaluation, such as those for
encouraging social enterprises and social farming projects which
tackle disability, create employment and use redundant farm land
and buildings. Much more effort is needed to support and encourage
the inclusion of disabled rural people to play a fuller role in
their communities.
5.15
Villages are vital hubs for community solidarity. Village renewal,
through encouraging small businesses and social enterprises,
supported by philanthropy and volunteering should be a key priority
for strengthening communities
as demonstrated in Finland and prioritised, for example, in the
Wales RDP.
Brussels, 17 September 2015
|
The President
of the
European Economic and Social Committee
Henri Malosse
|
|
_____________