No stronger protection for the EU funding program LEADER (recommendation)

The proposal from the Alliance 90/The Greens faction deals with the future of the EU funding program LEADER in the European Union's multiannual financial framework for the years 2028 to 2034. The financial framework was voted on in the EU Parliament on April 28, 2026. The Greens are calling on the federal government to work at the European level to ensure the long-term preservation and binding anchoring of the program. LEADER is a funding program for the development of rural areas. For several decades it has supported projects initiated by local actors on site. These include village shops, youth activities, nature and tourism projects and regional marketing concepts. According to the Greens, LEADER has made a significant contribution to improving the quality of life and the economic development of rural regions. They also see the program as an important instrument for regional participation and European visibility on site. The Greens fear that, following the EU Commission's proposal for the new EU financial framework, LEADER could only be a limited part of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the future. From the Greens' perspective, there is no binding minimum quota for financing. In addition, the approach is too focused on agriculture and does not sufficiently take into account the diverse challenges of rural areas. The application therefore demands, among other things, that the federal government advocates for mandatory implementation of LEADER in all member states. In addition, the current financial resources of the program should at least be maintained. The Greens are also in favor of a cross-sector funding approach that, in addition to agriculture, also includes areas such as public services, social engagement and regional development. They also call for greater participation from municipalities, states, social partners and civil society organizations in the planning and implementation of the funding programs. There was a recommendation for the application from the Committee on Agriculture, Food and Community, which recommended rejection. The recommendation for a resolution was voted on by name. This was approved with 417 votes in favour, 73 against and 53 abstentions. The Greens' application was therefore rejected.

Vote breakdown