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
|
|
_____________