No C 125/18 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 16.10.  74 
built  power  stations  using  natural  gas to be dual-fired  (the  Commission  has made  a proposal 
on these  lines  in its latest  document  'Towards  a new  energy  policy  strategy  for the European 
Community').  Conversion  of existing  stations  to dual-firing  should  also  be compulsory  within 
a time  limit  which  remains  to be determined.  As a more  long-term  measure  the Community 
authorities  should  promote  research  and  development  work  on the storage  of natural  gas at 
natural  subterranean  sites'. 
Result  of the vote: 
for: 26 
against:  39 
abstentions:  12. 
Reason  for the amendment: 
As for amendment  to paragraph  2.2.5. 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  concerning  forestry  measures 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 44 of 19 April  1974,  pages  14 to 20. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 11 March  1974,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Articles  42 and  43 of the  Treaty  establishing 
the European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its Opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
122nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 17 and  18 July  1974. 
The full  text  of the  Opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the  request  from  the  Council, 
dated  12  March  1974,  for  an  opinion  on  the 
proposal  for  a  Council  Directive  concerning 
forestry  measures; 
Having  regard  to Articles  42 and  43 of the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community; 
Having  regard  to the  Decision  of its Bureau,  entrusting 
the Section  for  Agriculture  with  the  preparation  of 
the Committee's  work  on the matter; Having  regard  to the  report  presented  to the  Section 
for Agriculture  by the Rapporteur,  Mr Schnieders; 
Having  regard  to the  Opinion  delivered  by  the 
Section  for Agriculture  at its meeting  on 4 July  1974; 
Having  regard  to  the  discussions  at  its  122nd 
plenary  session  on 17  and  18 July  1974,  sitting  of 
17 July; 
Whereas  the  Community  has  a very  low  degree  of 
self-sufficiency  in timber; 
16.10.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 125/19 
Whereas  timber  production  can  help  to solve  some 
of the  problems  facing  the  most  deprived  regions 
of the Community,  inter  alia  by creating  new  jobs; 
Whereas  forests  have  a major  part  to play  in 
protection  and  improvement  of the environment,  the 
maintenance  of water  supplies  and soil conservation; 
Whereas  close  links  exist  between  the  Directive  on 
mountain  and  hill  farming  and  the  proposal  for 
a Directive  under  consideration  here; 
Whereas  the  EAGGF  was  set up as an instrument 
of the common  agricultural  policy,  and  in particular 
to raise  farm  incomes; 
Whereas  the Commission  proposal  comes  under  the 
policy  for the improvement  of agrarian  structure  and 
does  not  purport  to  be  the  beginning  of  a 
comprehensive  forestry  policy,  although  such  a 
policy  is proving  more  and  more  to be essential, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by a majority  with  2 abstentions: 
1.1. The  Committee  welcomes  the  fact  that  the 
Commission  is again,  after  a long  interval,  submitting 
a proposal  on forestry  measures  to the  Council. 
The Committee  earlier  expressed  its agreement  in 
principle  with  the  chapters  on afforestation  in the 
memorandum  'Agriculture  1980',  and  it also 
endorsed  the  1969  proposal  for  a Directive  on the 
same  question.  The  Council  of Ministers  laid  the 
basis  for  early  adoption  of structural  measures  to 
encourage  forestry  in its resolution  of 25 May  1971. 
The Committee  considers,  for  the  reasons  the 
Commission  gives  in recital  (6),  that  the need  for the 
Community  to take  action  in this  field  is becoming 
daily  more  urgent. 
1.2. The  abovementioned  memorandum  and  resol-
ution  inevitably  devoted  a lot  of.  space  to the 
problem  of production  surpluses.  But  the  general 
economic  context  in which  the  proposed  measures 
must  be viewed  has since  changed.  Now  the forestry 
question  is seen  to bear  upon  a series  of other 
general  questions,  namely: 
— forests  and timber, 
— Community  supplies  of wood  pulp, — agriculture  (in  its  economic  and  structural 
aspects), 
— the  beauty  of the landscape, 
— soil  conservation,  maintenance  of water  supplies, 
flora  and fauna, 
— the productivity  of agricultural  land  adjacent  to 
woodland  (formation  of windbreaks  and  shelter 
belts), 
— the quality  of the air, 
— regional  questions, 
— problems  of the hills  and uplands. 
1.3. The  Committee  approves  the  draft  Directive 
subject  to the following  comments. 
2. General  comments 
2.1. Forestry  is  fundamentally  different  from 
farming,  particularly  because  of the  extraordinarily 
long period  before  there  is any  appreciable  return 
from  forests.  Although  the  Commission  places  its 
proposal  in the broader  context  of improvements  to 
agrarian  structure  and  in that  of measures  for the 
protection  and  improvement  of the  environment,  it 
mentions  that  it also  attaches  great  importance  to 
ensuring  a supply  of timber  for the Community. 
2.2. The  forestry  measures  must  in the Committee's 
view  be judged  from  several  angles  — such  as the 
slowness  of the production  cycle  in forestry,  the fact 
that the Community  is a net importer  of timber,  and 
the possibilities  of cheating  jobs  and  increasing 
earnings  potential  in poor  rural  areas. 
2.3. The  Commission  makes  Articles  42 and  43 
the legal  basis  of its proposal.  But  these  Articles 
mainly  give  scope  for  afforestation  of agricultural 
and unproductive  land. 
2.4. Although  the  Committee  considers  that  the 
implementing  rules  of the  draft  Directive  must 
satisfy  the requirements  of farming  and  conform  to 
the provisions  of the Directives  on improvements  to 
agrarian  structure,  it points  out  that  the  question 
of afforestation  in the  Community  does  not  have 
purely  agricultural  implications,  but  is of consider-
able importance  also  for  improvement  of the 
No C 125/20 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 16.10.  74 
environment  and  climate  and  for  soil  conservation 
(erosion,  water  control,  maintenance  of soil  fertility, 
etc.).  This  is of particular  importance  in hill  and 
mountain  areas,  where  the  exodus  of  the  local 
population  gives  rise  to neglect,  which  in turn  can 
cause  immense  damage  to  towns,  industry  and 
farming  in the  often  heavily  populated  lower-lying 
areas. 
2.5. Consequently,  the Committee  considers  that  the 
draft  Directive  should  have  covered  afforestation  for 
soil conservation  purposes  on any  suitable  type  of 
land,  with  provision  being  made  for additional  grants 
besides  those  from  the EAGGF,  which  must  continue 
to be reserved  for purely  agricultural  measures. 
2.6. The  proposal  considers  forests  and  forestry 
production  solely  in terms  of improving  agrarian 
structure  and  protecting  and  upgrading  the  environ-
ment.  But  in the  Committee's  view  it is just  as 
important  to ensure  long-term  security  of timber 
supply  and  of the  market  for  timber,  especially  in 
view  of the  world  timber  deficit  and  the  fact  that 
the main  suppliers  of the  Community  have  special 
marketing  and  support  arrangements. 
2.7. As  timber  is not  mentioned  in Annex  II to the 
Treaty,  the  Committee  asks  whether  a common 
forestry  policy  should  not  be  worked  out  and 
implemented.  Consideration  should  also  be given  to 
the question  of whether  a market  organization  for 
timber  would  be desirable  and  feasible. 
2.8. In view  of the  long  period  before  there  is an 
appreciable  return  from  forests,  the  Committee 
would  stress  the importance  of continuity  in forestry, 
especially  in  tax  policy  with  regard  to  forest 
holdings  and  forest  production.  To  ensure  this 
continuity,  official  measures  by  the  European 
Community  and  the  Member  States  must  have  an 
appropriate  long-term  orientation. 
2.9. The  Committee  wonders  how  far  afforestation 
of fertile  land  which  is particularly  suited  to specific 
types  of farming  is justified  in the  present  situation. 
In its view,.  priority  in the  use  of fertile  land  must 
on the  whole  be given  to agriculture,  afforestation 
being  basically  confined  to marginal  land.  There  is 
certainly  a need,  however,  for  tree  planting  to form 
shelter  belts  to increase  the productivity  of farmland. 
To facilitate  adjustment  to trends  in the  world  food 
supply  situation,  on the  one  hand,  and  to regional 
requirements  (regional  development,  protection  of the environment,  etc.),  on  the  other,  it seems 
advisable  that  the  proposed  Community  measures 
be sufficiently  flexible  and  capable  of  regional 
adaptation.  A Directive  would  appear  to be  the 
proper  legal  instrument  to obtain  this  effect. 
2.10.  The  Committee  considers  that  a realistic 
policy  should  be  adopted  on  the  integration  of 
forestry  with  agriculture.  The  great  importance  of 
such  a policy  should  be realized.  This  policy  must 
be flexible  and  take  into  account  not  only 
priorities  already  mentioned  in this  Opinion,  but  also 
economic  fluctuations  of agriculture  and  afforest-
ation. 
2.11.  Another  aspect  which  was  discussed  by the 
Committee  concerns  the inter-relationship  between  the 
proposed  measures  and  the  other  measures  in the 
field  of agrarian  structure,  the  aids  for  mountainous 
areas  and  other  deprived  regions  and  the  long-
awaited  regional  policy  measures. 
2.12.  Here,  the  Committee  would  stress  the  need 
to ensure  that  the  present  Directive  does  not  impede 
improvement  of agrarian  structure  proper.  It has 
been  demonstrated  that  forestry  properly  integrated 
with  agriculture  can  increase  the  production  of 
adjoining  agricultural  land. 
2.13.  In some  regions  of the  Community  the  recent 
announcement  of the  hill-farming  Directive  has 
halted  the  afforestation  programme.  This  interrup-
tion in afforestation  is not  only  regrettable  from  the 
points  of view  of improvement  of the  environment 
and timber  production,  but  it has'  also  caused 
increases  in unemployment  in these  areas,  many  of 
which  are relatively  poor  already. 
2.14.  Under  the  hill-farming  Directive,  aids  of 60 
u.a./ha  per  annum  are  to be given.  An  aid  of this 
order,  already  approved  by the  Council  of Ministers, 
is necessary  if farmers  are to stay  on the  land  under 
the present  unfavourable  economic  conditions.  In 
the present  draft  Directive  on  forestry,  the  aid 
proposed  for  afforestation  of agricultural  land  is a 
non-recurring  grant  of only  200  u.a./ha.  This  is 
insufficient  to induce  agricultural  producers  in 
mountainous  areas  to turn  their  land  into  forest. 
The Committee  therefore  calls  for reconsideration  of 
this aid. 
2.15.  A final  point  considered  by  the  Committee 
concerns  the  extent  to which  the  proposed  Directive 
could  contribute  to  an  early  improvement  in 
earnings  levels,  especially  farm  earnings.  In view  of 
16. 10.74  Official  Journal  of the European  Communities  No  C 125/21 
the fact  that  the  time  lag  between  planting  and 
obtaining  a commercial  return  is longer  for  trees 
than  for  agricultural  crops,  the  possible  direct 
improvement  in earnings  must  not  be over-estimated. 
If, on  the  other  hand,  the  package  of measures 
proposed  in the  draft  Directive  led  to new  jobs 
being  created,  especially  jobs  for  men,  indirect 
improvements  to earnings  might  result,  particularly 
in remote  areas.  This  would  be all the  more  likely 
where  the  afforested  land  was  to produce  raw 
materials  for local  industry. 
2.16.  With  regard  to the  reimbursement  procedure, 
the Committee  urges  that  a method  be chosen  which 
is as practical  and  unbureaucratic  as possible  and 
which  allows  the  requisite  forms  and  vouchers  to 
be provided  by  the  Member  States  without 
unnecessary  additional  administrative  work.  Experi-
ence  with  the current  structure,  Directive  No 72/159/ 
EEC,  has  shown  that  this  cannot  be taken  for granted 
at present. 
2.17.  In the  Committee's  view,  the  present 
Directive  must  not  encourage  Member  States  to 
divert  to other  uses  the  proceeds  from  timber 
production  taxes  which  they  have  hitherto  used  to 
promote  forestry,  or to regard  such  proceeds  used 
for forestry  as constituting  state  aid  within  the 
meaning  of the Directive. 
3. Comments  on individual  Articles 
3.1. The  Committee  proposes  that  recital  (4)  be 
amended  to read: 
'Whereas,  on  the  one  hand,  there  are  in the 
Community  agricultural  holdings  where 
agriculture  . . .; whereas,  on the  other  hand,  there 
are agricultural  holdings  and  forestry  holdings  . . . 
reasonable  cost'. 
3.2. The  Committee  proposes  that  the  following 
indent  be added  to recital  (6): 
'— to the conservation  of water  resources'. 
3.3. The  Committee  proposes  that  recital  (9)  be 
amended  to read: 
'. . . such  as the  construction  of essential  fences, 
and of drains  and  fire-breaks'. 
3.4. Article  1 'the afforestation  of uncultivated  land  and  certain 
agricultural  land'. 
3.4.2.  The  Commission  makes  a distinction  between 
land  owned  or held  on lease  by the  State  and  land 
owned  or held  on lease  by other  legal  or natural 
persons.  The  Committee  feels  that  it should  be made 
clear  in this  Article  that  the  term  'State'  does  not 
cover  local  and  regional  authorities,  which  in a num-
ber of Member  States  hold  many  parcels  of woodland 
and land  suitable  for afforestation.  These  authorities 
must  be eligible  for the planned  aids  in the same  way 
as owners  of private  woodland.  The  Committee  is 
thinking  here  in particular  of local  councils  and 
provincial  and  other  regional  authorities.  It further 
points  out  that  in  certain  countries  State-owned 
forests  are of considerable  importance. 
3.4.3.  In some  regions  an appreciable  development 
of afforestation  by private  enterprise  is still  not 
possible,  mainly  because  of the  non-availability  of 
large  scale  investments,  managerial  skills,  or machin-
ery. Land  acquired  by the  State  in these  regions  for 
the purpose  of afforestation  should,  by  way  of 
exception,  qualify  for  the  aids  laid  down  by  the 
proposal  for a Directive. 
3.4.4.  In such  regions  the  State  should  also,  how-
ever,  encourage  private  owners  and  local  authorities 
to carry  out  afforestation,  by making  available  to 
them  know-how  and  possibly  equipment  and  by 
promoting  the formation  of groups  of private  owners. 
Land  acquired  by the  State  could  perhaps  be trans-
ferred  to private  individuals  or local  authorities  and 
thus qualify  in the  normal  manner  for  the  aids  laid 
down  by the proposal  for a Directive. 
3.5. Article  2 
3.5.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  measures 
referred  to in Article  2 (1) (d) and  Article  2 (4) should 
be financed  with  funds  other  than  those  of the 
EAGGF. 
3.5.2.  The  Committee  would  like  to know  in more 
detail  what  activities  the  measures  listed  in Article  2 
(2) (a),  (b) and  (c) include.  For  example,  it considers 
that soil  preparation  should  come  under  Article  2 
(2) (a). 
3.4.1.  The  Committee  proposes  that  Article  1 (1) (a), 
and similarly  Article  2 (1) (a),  be amended  to read: 3.5.3.  In addition,  the  Committee  considers  that  the 
period  of five  years  during  which  replacements  and 
No C 125/22 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 16.10.  74 
maintenance  work  are  covered  by  the  proposed 
scheme  is too  short.  The  Committee  suggests  that 
this period  be extended  to 10 years. 
3.5.4.  The  Committee  regards  the  construction  of 
forest  roads  as a very  effective  way  of increasing  the 
profitability  of forestry  and  suggests  that  the  Com-
mission  look  for  ways  of stepping  up this  type  of 
aid (Regional  Fund,  etc.). 
3.5.5.  The  Committee  points  out  that  for  practical 
reasons  the  construction  of forest  roads  is often 
carried  out  in two  stages  over  a period  of years.  It 
requests  the  Commission  to take  this  factor  into 
account  in the provision  of aid. induce  agricultural  producers  to convert  their  land 
into forest.  An increase  in this  capital  grant  seems 
to be called  for,  especially  when  it is compared  with 
the aids  provided  for  in the  Directive  on hill  and 
mountain  farming  (60 u.a./ha  per annum). 
3.7.2.  The  Committee  requests  that  steps  be taken 
in any  case  to ensure  that  the beneficiary  of this  aid 
is in fact  the producer  who  has  released  the land  in 
question  for afforestation.  If necessary,  consideration 
should  be given  to the  possibility  of granting  ad-
ditional  aid to owners  who  are  not  the users  of the 
land in question,  in order  that  projects  are not  held 
up owing  to the aid under  Article  4 (2) being  granted 
exclusively  to land  users. 
3.6. Article  3 
3.6.1.  The  Committee  welcomes  the indication  that 
the condition  laid  down  in Article  3 (1) does  not 
require  a detailed  programme  to be drawn  up but 
only that  the  proposed  measures  must  form  an 
integral  part  of the  general  development  envisaged 
for the region  concerned.  The  plan  which  has  to be 
provided  by the applicant  pursuant  to Article  3 (5) 
need  therefore  only  include  the most  important  data. 
3.6.2.  As  a corollary  to what  has  been  stated  earlier 
concerning  the need  for a forestry  policy  which  does 
not cover  only  specifically  agricultural  land,  the 
Committee  cannot  approve  the restrictions  laid  down 
in Article  3 (2)  (a)  and  requests  that  this  sub-
paragraph  be deleted. 
3.6.3.  The  Committee  cannot  fully  subscribe  to the 
condition  regarding  'areas  to remain  in agricultural 
production'.  It requests  that  this  condition  only  be 
applied  in so far as the person  applying  for aid for 
an afforestation  project  has a say in what  area  of his 
land is to remain  in agricultural  production. 
3.6.4.  The  Committee  points  out  that  the  construc-
tion and  improvement  of forest  roads  need  not 
necessarily  entail  opening  the forests  to the public. 
The Committee  recommends,  however,  that  the 
Commission  makes  provision  in Article  3 (4) for rights 
of way  for adjacent  farms  and  forest  holdings.  These 
rights  of way  shpuld,  however,  be such  as not  to 
impair  proper  forest  management  (danger  of fire  in 
periods  of drought,  etc.). 
3.7. Article  4 
3.7.1.  As  has  already  been  stressed  in the  general 
comments,  200  u.a./ha  is probably  too  little  to 3.8. Article  5 
3.8.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  Article  5 (2) 
is not  detailed  enough.  Given  the  importance  of 
vocational  training,  a clearer  statement  of what  is 
expected  of the  Member  States  in this  connection 
seems  called  for  in line  with  Directive  No  72/161/ 
EEC.  Training  of forestry  workers  and  owners  in the 
modern  techniques  of forest  management  and  main-
tenance  should  also  be vigorously  promoted  with  the 
means  available  to the Social  Fund  and  the EAGGF. 
3.9. Article  6 
3.9.1.  The  Committee  requests  that  provision  be 
made  for exceptions  to the rule  laid  down  in Article  6 
(1) for projects  which  are already  under  way  and  for 
(bare)  land  which  has  been  reclaimed  from  the sea. 
The Committee  recognizes  the logical  argument  that 
in some  instances  when  timber  is felled  the  land 
could  be reclaimed  for agricultural  use. 
3.9.2.  The  Committee  also  considers  that  the period 
of 10 years  is too  short.  While  it may  be possible 
to produce  pulpwood  within  a relatively  short  period, 
the production  of wood  for  structural  uses,  which 
generally  takes  very  much  longer,  must  not  be 
neglected. 
3.10.  Article  9 
3.10.1.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  Com-
mission  should  also  be informed  of the  draft  laws 
and Regulations'  which  have  a direct  effect  in the 
field  in question  without  necessarily  being  in pur-
16.10.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 125/23 
suance  of the  Directive.  It therefore  proposes  that 
the following  be added  to the  first  indent  of para-
graph  1: 
, as well  as those  which  are  liable  to have 
effects  in the field  in question'. 
3.11.  Article  11 
3.11.1.  The  Committee  wonders  why  the EAGGF  is 
only to refund  25 % of the expenditure  eligible  for 
assistance.  It requests  that  this  figure  be brought  in 
line with  that  stipulated  in the  other  Directives  on 
structural  improvement  for certain  regions. 
3.11.2.  In the Committee's  view  the maximum  con-
tribution  laid  down  by Article  11 (4) — 200  u.a./ha 
— is too  low.  For  certain  species,  especially  hard-woods,  a higher  aid  figure  must  be  given.  Cost 
inflation  must  also  be taken  into  account  in deter-
mining  the level  of aid. 
3.12.  Consultation  of professional  circles 
Lastly,  the  Committee  considers  that  in the  special 
field  of forestry,  consultation  of the  relevant  pro-
fessional  circles  is called  for.  It therefore  suggests  that 
a forestry  sub-group  be shortly  set up in the Advisory 
Committee  on Agricultural  Structure. 
Done  at Brussels,  17 July  1974. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Alfons  LAPPAS 
Opinion  on the  food  crisis  and  the  Community's  responsibilities  towards  developing 
countries  and  on the memorandum  on food  aid policy  of the European  Community 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has not been  published  in the Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 20 March  1974,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  subject  to the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its Opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
122nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 17 and 18 July  1974. 
The full  text  of the Opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to Article  198  of the  Treaty  estab-
lishing  the European  Economic  Community; 
Having  regard  to the request,  dated  22 March  1974, 
from  the Council  of the  European  Communities  for 
an opinion  on the food  crisis  and  the  Community's responsibilities  towards  developing  countries  and  on 
the memorandum  on food  aid policy  of the European 
Community; 
Having  regard  to its Rules  of Procedure,  and  in 
particular  Article  22 thereof; 
Having  regard  to the  Decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 26 March  1974  entrusting  the Section  for External