30.12.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropean Communities NoC352/41
thisprocess,defending itsbasicvaluesandthusseeing reduceimbalances andinequalities andconsolidate pea­
thattheworldeconomicorderoftomorrow helpstoceandcooperation worldwide .
DoneatBrussels,20October1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
OpinionontheproposalforaCouncilRegulation (EEC)amendingRegulation (EEC)No
1765/92of30June1992establishing asupportsystemforproducersofcertainarablecrops(*)
(93/C352/11
On7September 1993theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomic andSocialCommittee ,
underArticles43and198oftheTreatyestablishing theEuropean Economic Community ,
ontheabovementioned proposal .
TheSectionforAgriculture andFisheries ,whichwasresponsible forpreparingtheCom­
mittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon13October1993.TheRapporteur was
MrCharlesPelletier .
Atits309thPlenarySession (meetingof20October1993)theEconomicandSocialCommittee
adoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
1.Preliminary remark turalPolicy,anelementonwhichtheCommittee has
twiceissuedanOpinion (2).Itisnecessary ifcereal,
oilseedandproteinproduction istobebroughtunder
control .
1.1.TheCommittee mustfirstlyexpressitsdissatis­
factionattheover-hasty referralprocedure imposedon
itbytheCouncil .Theconditions forworkingonand
preparing thisOpinionareunreasonable ,preventing
proper,in-depthexamination ofthecomplexdocument
submitted totheSection.IturgestheCouncil,when
referringmatterstotheCommittee ,toprovidedead­
linesenablingittoplayitsroleasaconsultative
assembly ,representing theinterestsofEuropean citi­
zensonvitalissues.2.2.Set-asidemustnot,however ,leadtodefinitive
fixingofEuropean production levels;itmustallow
production tobeadjustedinlinewithdemandon
Community andworldmarkets .Inparticular ,itshould
2.Generalcomments
2.1.Theset-asideprogramme inconnection with
supportformajorcropswasimplemented on21May
1992,asoneelementinthereformedCommonAgricul­(2)a)Own-initiative OpinionontheCommission Communi­
cationontheDevelopment andFutureoftheCommon
Agricultural Policy(CAP),OJNoC40,17.2.1992.
b)OpinionontheReformoftheCommonAgricultural
Policy(CAP)(threedraftRegulations ):
—supportsystemforproducersofcertainarablecrops,
—commonorganization ofthemarketincereals,
—amendment ofRegulation (EEC)No.2727/75onthe
commonorganization ofthemarketincereals.
OJNoC98,21.4.1992. I1)OJNoC265,30.9.1993,p.6.

NoC352/42 30.12.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
permitaresponsetoincreaseddemandincomingyears,
e.g.foranimalfeedandbiofuels .Production adapta­
bilitymustbesecuredbymeansofaflexible,variable
set-asiderate,withnominimum level.TheCommunity
mustnotcutitselfofffrompotentialoutlets.larlywithregardtoregionalization plansandcertain
elementsoftheset-asideprogramme ,cannotcomeinto
forceinthe1993-94cropyear,whichhasalreadybegun
(rapeseedhasalreadybeensowninanumberofMem­
berStatesandrotationdecidedupon).
2.3.OnefuturepathopenedupbytheCAPisrep­
resentedbynon-foodcropsonset-asideland.Thedevel­
opmentofthesecropsshouldnotbehindered :on3.Specificcomments
thecontrary ,theyshouldbeextendedanddiversified ,
particularly intheareasofpaper,textiles,chemicals
andfermentation .Theyareastepinthedirectionof
environment-friendly Community agriculture ,andoffer
anessentialfuturemarket,whichEuropecannotafford 3.1.Article3
todenyitself.
2.4.Community set-asidepolicymustbedetermined
infullindependence ,inresponsetoitsownrequire­
ments.Itwouldbeunacceptable forthelevelofCom­
munityset-asidetobeinfluenced byconstraints emanat­
ingfromthirdcountrieswhichwishtoincreasetheir
shareofCommunity orworldmarkets .3.1.1.Undercurrentrules,compensation ispaidon
thebasisofregionalized yields,andeachproduction
region—demarcation ofwhichistheresponsibility
oftheMember Stateconcerned —mustconstitute a
distinct,homogeneous geographical zone.Inpractice,
theCommission hasacceptednationaltransitional
measuresduringthefirstyearofapplication (separate
treatmentforirrigatedareas,forexample).
2.5.ThepurposeoftheCommission 'sproposalisto
amendRegulation (EEC)No1765/92settingupasup­
portsystemforproducersofcertainarablecrops.3.1.1.1.TheCommission 'sproposal aimsto
reinforcethesystem'slong-term flexibility :itallows
eachMemberStatetodrawuparegionalization plan
andtoadjustaverageregionalyieldsinaccordance with
specificnationalfactors.Inotherwords,aMember
Statecoulddecidetotreat'maize/'othercereals'or
'irrigated-/'non-irrigated 'yieldsseparately .2.6.TheCommission hasdecidedtoamendthe
Regulation ,oneyearafteritsimplementation ,follow­
inganin-depthCouncilreviewofthereformbasedon
aCommission discussion paperonpossiblechangesin
set-asidepolicy(COM(93 )226).Thisreviewshowed
implementation ofthereformhasgivenrisetovarious
problems intheMemberStates,asaconsequence of
theirspecificcircumstances ,andthatitshouldtherefore
beappliedinamoreflexiblemanner .3.1.1.2.Inbothcases,theMemberStatesarethen
tofixnationalorregionalbaseareasformaizeorother
crops,andapplyspecificset-aside withthe
accompanying possiblespecificpenaltiestothem.
2.7.Threeareasarecoveredbytheproposedamend­
ments :
—nationalregionalization plans(Article3ofRegu­
lationNo1765/92),3.1.1.3.TheCommittee endorses thethinking
behindthismeasure,whichisdesignedtointroduce
greaterflexibility intoset-asideprocedures andadapt
themtothecircumstances ofindividual MemberStates.
Nevertheless ,itisopposedtoturningirrigatedregional
ceilingareas(instituted asatransitional measurein
1992-93 )intospecificbaseirrigatedareas,subjectto
specificset-aside .Thismeasurewouldputproducers
whohaveinvestedheavilyinirrigation ,basedonirri­
gatedareasunaffected byset-aside,inaverydifficult
situation .Moreover ,thoseregionswhichhadreached
theirregionalirrigatedceilingin1992-93mightprove
tobenumerous andcouldbeheavilypenalized bya
specificset-asideofirrigatedlandwhichwouldhit
irrigatedcropsundulyhard.—set-aside (Articles7and12),
—eligibilityoflandforCAPcompensation (Article9).
2.8.TheCommission proposesthatthedraftRegu­
lationcomeintoeffectasfromthe1994-95 (marketing )
year:inotherwords,itistoapplytocropssownin
Autumn1993andSpring1994.
3.1.2.Undercurrentarrangements ,ifaregionalbase
maizeareaisestablished ,itisalsonecessarytoestablish
aregional'othercrops'area,likewisesubjecttospecific
set-asideandpossiblepenalties .2.8,1.TheCommittee believesthatthemajor
amendments contained inthedraftRegulation ,particu­

30.12.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropean Communities NoC352/43
3.1.2.1,ThedraftRegulation removesthisrequire­
mentforaspecific'othercrops'areatobeestablished
atregionallevelandallows,inthecaseofaregional
'maize'area,anational-level 'othercrops'areatobe
adopted .Thiswillhavetheeffectofallowingcompen­
sationfordifferentregionstoreachabalanceat
nationallevel.Theobjectiveofcontrolling production
willnotbejeopardized ,sincethenationalbasearea
willnotbeexceeded .3.2.1.1.TheCommittee welcomes theflexibility
introduced intoset-asideforfarmers .Itisinfavourof
a'mixed'set-asideratelyingbetweentherotational
andnon-rotational rates,adjustedbyaweightingwhich
takesaccountoftheproportions ofrotational andnon­
rotational set-asidechosenbythefarmer.Tobemore
explicit,takingtheexampleofcurrentrates,theCom­
mitteeconsidersthatfarmersshouldberequiredtoset
aside15%fortherotationalpart(i.e.1haset-asidefor
5.66haofcompensated cereals/oilseed/protein)and
20%forthenon-rotational part(i.e.1haset-aside
for4haofcompensated cereals/oilseed/protein).The
Committee considersthatasinglemaximum ratewould
unnecessarily penalizefarmersoptingfor'mixed'set­
aside.
3.2.2.According tocurrentarrangements ,compen­
sationforcompulsory set-asideissetatECU45per
tonne,multiplied bytheaverageregionalyieldforall
cereals.
3.2.2.1.Theproposalplanstoincreasethelevelof
compensation by27%,toECU57pertonne.3.1.2.2.TheCommittee approves thismeasure,
whichhelpsintroducemoreflexibilityintoregionaliza­
tionplans,withoutharmfulrepercussions forcontrol
ofproduction .However ,theCommittee feelsthatthe
textoftheproposalshouldmakeclear,distinctmention
ofthispossibility whichappearsintheExplanatory
Memorandum butisnotsetoutinunderstandable form
anywhere intheproposal .
3.1.3.Underexistingrules,thecompensation budget
islimitedbytheneedtocomplywithnationalbase
areas.Anyexceeding oftheseleadstoaproportional
reduction incompensation forthecurrentyearand
additional non-compensatory ,compulsory set-asidefor
thefollowingyear.
3.1.3.1.Theproposalintroduces afurtherbudgetary
stabilizer ,byspecifying thattheaverage'historical'
yieldoftheMemberState(established duringtheMay
1992reform)maynotbeexceeded .Inthecaseof
complexregionalization planswithdifferingregional
yieldsandcompensation levels,thepaymentrequested
bytheMemberStateconcerned maybebasedonan
averageyieldhigherthanthatinitiallyfixed,inresponse
totherelativeincreaseindemandsfromregionswhere
thecompensation grantedhasbeengreater.Forexam­
ple,undertheCommission 'sproposal ,compensation
toaMember Statewouldbereducedwhentheareain
high-yield regionscontracts lessthantheareainlow­
yieldregions,regardless oftheoverallnational
reduction inarea.3.2.2.2.TheCommittee endorsesthehighercompen­
sationrate,sincetheextraresourcesneededalready
existintheallocations underthecurrentbudget:no
supplementary budgetisthereforerequired .Itwould
pointout,however,thatcompensation is,insome
cases,insufficient eventocoverthecostsofstructures
connected withset-asidefields.Compensation should
thereforebeincreasedinthefuture,soastoprovidea
fairerincomeforfarmersapplyingset-aside .
3.2.3.Existingrulesdonotallowfarmerstoreceive
compensation forsettingasideahigherpercentage of
landthanthecompulsory minimum (asitwasunder
thefive-yearset-asidearrangements ,whicharenot
coveredbythisdraftRegulation ).3.1.3.2 .TheCommittee favoursdeletion ofthis
paragraph 6,whichintroduces discrimination between
thoseMemberStateswhichhaveoptedforcomplex
regionalization plansandtheotherMemberStates,
createsafurtheradministrative complication ,contrary
totheRegulation 'saims,andinstitutes anewand
inappropriate budgetary stabilizerbasedonyields.
3.2.3.1.Theproposal ,ontheotherhand,doesintro­
ducethepossibility ofreceivingcompensation forset­
tingasidemorelandthantheminimumrequired .Mem­
berStatesmay,however ,restrictthisopportunity for
environmental protection reasonsorinordertoavoid
anexcessivereductionoffarminginparticular regions.3.2.Article7
3.2.1.Theproposalspecifiestherateofset-aside
applicable intheeventthatagivenfarmchoosesto
applyrotational andnon-rotational set-asidesimul­
taneously ('mixed'set-aside):the'mixed'set-asiderate
wouldthenbeequivalent tothatappliedforrotational
set-asideplus5%(i.e.onthebasisofcurrentdata,
15+5=20%).3.2.3.2.TheCommittee approves thisproposal ,
whichintroduces greaterflexibilityintotheapplication
ofset-asidewhilefullyservingitsmainpurpose,namely
toreduceproduction .Itagreeswiththewordingpro­

30.12.93 NoC352/44 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities
3.3.1.1.TheproposalallowsMemberStatestodero­
gatefromthisrule,inparticular forrepareelling pro­
grammesorareasunderstandardrotationsofmultian­
nualarablecropswithcereals,oilseedsorproteincrops.
TheMemberStatewould,nevertheless ,berequiredto
takeactiontopreventanysignificant increaseinthe
totaleligibleagricultural area.Tothisend,itcould
deempreviously eligibleareasineligible .Inotherwords,
thecreationofneweligibleareas(bywayofderogation )
mustbe'offset'byremovalofeligibleland,inorderthat
thenationalbaseareadoesnotincreasesignificantly .posedbytheCommission ,whichwouldallowMember
States,inlinewiththeirnationalcircumstances ,tofix
anupperadmissible rateofset-aside .Thisprecaution
isessential :theCommittee woulddrawtheCouncil's
attentiontotheconsequences which100%set-aside
wouldhaveonlanduse,relationsbetweenlandowners
andtenantfarmersanddepreciation oflandvalues.
100%set-asideisnotcompatible withtheaimofexist­
ingset-asidepolicy,whichisflexibleadjustment of
annualproduction tomarketrequirements .Itisadvis­
ablethat,inaccordance withthesubsidiarity principle ,
eachMemberStateshouldbeabletodecideindepen­
dentlyonwhatmeasurestotake,inlinewiththe
characteristics andconstraints ofitsagricultural sector.
3.2.4.Theproposalintroduces thepossibility of
transferring set-asiderequirements ,ifset-asideobliges
aproducertoreducehislivestock (particularnational
case),orunderaplansubmitted inadvancetothe
Commission (andsubjecttoCommission supervision ).
Transfers undersuchplansaretoberestrictedtoa
maximum distanceof10kmormadewithinanarea
forwhichenvironmental objectives aresought,as
definedinRegulation (EEC)No2068/92(!).Theset­
asiderateisthenincreased by5%.Incurrentterms,
thismeans15+5=20%fortransferofrotational set­
aside,and20+5—25%fornon-rotational .3.3.1.2.TheCommittee endorsesthegeneralprin­
cipleofthemeasure,whichincreasesflexibility in
implementing thereform.However,itfeelsthatthe
proposalshouldalsomakeexplicitmentionofthe
possibility ofderogations :
—forlandonwhichvinesororchards havebeen
grubbedupunderprogrammes receiving Com­
munitysupport,
—foryoungfarmerswhotakeoverentirefarmsunder
earlyretirement programmes ,
—intheeventofplansformateriallyimproving hold­
ings,orforwardinstallation studyprojectssubmit­
tedbefore30June1992,
—connected withlandallocation inthenewLander
oftheFederalRepublicofGermany ,whichposesa
specialproblem .3.2.4.1.TheCommittee feelsthattheprincipleof
transferrepresents ,ingeneral,asourceofpotential
inequality betweenfarmers,andcouldentailtherisk
ofslippageinreducingproduction .However ,it
endorsestheCommission 'sdecisionprovidedthat
transfersaresubjecttoa10kmrestriction .Thisrestric­
tionminimises theriskofdelocation ofproduction and
abandonment ofcertainregions,combinedwithashift
ofproduction tothemoreproductive areas.This
measurealsointroduces considerable flexibility into
set-asidemanagement .TheCommittee wouldhowever
proposethatMemberStatesbegiventhepossibility of
settingalimitoflessthan10kmifthisisindicatedby
theparticularconstraints oftheiragricultural sector.3.3.1.3.TheCommittee callsfortheword'signifi­
cant'tobedeletedfromthe9thlineofthesecond
paragraph onArticle9:derogations mustnotresultin
anyslippageofnationalbaseareaswhichwouldbe
jeopardize theaimofreducingproduction .Theword
'significant 'injectsanelementofambiguity which
shouldberemoved ,forthesakeofconsistency withthe
restoftheRegulation .
3.3.Article93.3.1.4.TheCommittee alsoasksthattheproposal
clearlyspecifythescaleonwhichtransfershouldbe
envisagedbetweenadditional eligiblelandandlandto
bemadeineligible inordertomaintainthenational
baseareaunchanged .TheCommittee considersthat
transferwithinindividual holdingswouldbethemost
equitable ,allowingeachfarmertomanageset-asideon
hisholdingmoreflexiblyandavoidingasituationwhere
landwouldhavetobe'taken'fromcertainfarmersor
regionsandallottedtoothers.Thiswouldarousea
strongsocialreactionamongfarmers.3.3.1.Thecurrentrulesprecludecompensation for
landthaton31December 1991wasunderpermanent
pasture,permanent cropsortreesorwasusedfornon­
agricultural purposes .
3.3.1.5.TheCommittee alsocallsfortheterm'land
regrouping 'tobereplacedbythemoreappropriate
'landimprovement '(regrouping beingaparticular
aspectoflandimprovement ). (i)OJNoL215,30.7.1992.

30.12.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC352/45
3.4.Article12 administrative apparatus forthereformlessburden­
some,andwouldgivegreaterresponsibility tofarmers
intheirrotationdecisions ,andwouldentailnoriskof
production slippage,giventhehighset-asiderate.
3.4.2.Undertheexistingrules,administrative
measuresaretakentolisttheplantscompatible with
paymentofset-asidecompensation whichmaybe
grownonfallowland.Ontheotherhand,theexisting
rulesmakenoprovisionforgrowingplantsforindus­
trialusewithoutcompensation payments .
3.4.2.1.Theproposalprovidesforthegrowthof
cropswithoutcompensation onset-asideland.Inprac­
tice,theCommission wouldinitiallybeabletoadd
sugarbeettothelistofauthorized products ,specifying
thatitwouldnotbeeligibleforset-asidecompensation .
Furthernpn-foodcropscouldbeaddedtothelistlater.
3.4.2.2.TheCommittee approves thismeasure
whichwillincreaseflexibilityinapplyingset-asidewith­
outgenerating excessfoodproduction orincreasingthe
budgetary cost.3.4.1.Theproposalintroduces thepossibility of
rotational set-asideforathree-year period.Therate
proposedwouldbethatfor6-yearrotational set-aside,
plus5%.
3.4.1.1.TheCommittee welcomes thismeasure,
whichhelpsmakeapplication ofset-asidemoreflexible
andlessconstrictive forfarmers .Nevertheless ,itwould
askthattheset-asiderateforthree-yearrotationbethe
sameasthatforsix-yearrotation,subjecttoconfir­
mationofthemeasure'sefficacyinreducingpro­
duction :thisshouldbeverifiedafterthreeyearsof
operation .Itwouldalsoaskthatincaseswherefarmers
optforaset-asiderateincreasedby5%(i.e.20%at
currentrates),theymayfreelychoosethedurationof
set-asidewhichtheyfeelmostappropriate totheir
circumstances .Thissimplification wouldhelpmakethe
DoneatBrussels,20October1993.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN