18. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 69/9 
The first indent is intended to cover traffic which does 
not need customs clearance, i.e. international carriage 
of goods by road (TIR) and Community Transit. 
The second indent is intended to cover traffic which 
does need clearance at the border. 
This should be made clear. 
Done at Brussels, 30 January 1991. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has 
reached a historic turning point. The new measures 
have been dictated by surpluses of particular products 
(one of the effects of the earlier EC policy of price 
support to increase production), the growing energy 
crisis, the urgent environmental situation, increasingly 
in the public eye, the internationalization of the markets 
for agricultural products, the interdependence (at world 
level) of the markets for agricultural products, indus-
(») OJ No C 267, 23. 10. 1990, p. 11. 3.2. Article 2 
Dutch version to read as follows: 
'De lid-staten nemen de nodige wettelijke en be-
stuursrechtelijke maatregelen om er voor te zorgen 
dat uiterlijk op 1 juli 1991 aan deze Richtlijn wordt 
voldaan.' 
3.2.2. The Committee assumes that the final date for 
compliance is 1 July 1991 and not 1 September 1991 as 
stated in the French version. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
trial products and services and the urbanization of the 
countryside, accompanied by a continuing exodus of 
agricultural workers. 
1.1.1. Agriculture is and will remain a central com­
ponent of the environmental system. It is the sector of 
the economy which, more than any other, manages, 
utilizes and processes the basic natural resources; land, 
water, bioenergy, etc. Indeed, protection of the country­
side and quality of the environment are closely bound 
up with the aims and production practices of farmers 
and others involved with agriculture. The draft Regu­
lation under review is of considerable environmental 
importance since, given the fact that it involves a variety 
of functions, agriculture is, under the Commission's 
proposal, to become, among other things, an instrument Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the introduction and the 
maintenance of agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the 
protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside^) 
(91/C 69/03) 
On 16 October 1990, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Commit­
tee's work on the subject, drew up its Opinion, based on the introductory report by the 
Rapporteur, Mr Mantovani, on 10 January 1991. 
The Opinion set out below was adopted by the Committee on 30 January 1991 at its 
283rd plenary session by a large majority, with 1 vote against and 9 abstentions. 
No C 69/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 3. 91 
for preserving, improving and making the most of 
theenvironment. The 'green factor' should figure among 
agricultural policy objectives. of the need for adjustment due to the requirements of 
environmental protection. The measures in question 
are: 
1.2. The current modification of the CAP, marked 
by the revision of the main regulations governing the 
common organization of the markets, curtails price and 
quantitative guarantees. 
1.2.1. At the same time a number of accompanying 
socio-structural measures have been introduced (cover­
ing fields such as extensification, set-aside and early 
pension schemes) to complement the basic Regulation 
of 12 March 1985 (Regulation (EEC). No 797/85) on 
improving the efficiency of agriculture structures (*). 
2. Existing schemes with an impact on the environ­
ment and measures affected by the draft Regulation 
under review (2) 
2.1. In the document under discussion, the Com­
mission refers to existing schemes. 
a) The horizontal measures, in force throughout 
the Community [Objective 5(a)], incorporate 
activities which maintain the countryside into 
agricultural activities, aim at the adjustment of 
holdings with a view to the protection of the 
environment and at making them subject to 
restrictions concerning, directly of indirectly, the 
protection of the environment. 
b) Besides these, there are regional schemes [Objec­
tives (1) and 5(b)] which, within the framework 
of rural development, provide for actions target­
ed towards specific problems concerning the pro­
tection and the conservation of the environment. 
Thus, many Community Support Frameworks 
foresee an environmental priority axis. 
c) Also worth mentioning are the forestry actions 
decided in 1989(3), especially those regarding 
forest development with a view to the conser­
vation of the soil and water and to erosion 
control in Objective 1 and 5(b) areas (4), as well 
as those regarding the protection of forests 
against atmospheric pollution and fires (5). 
2.2. The draft Regulation presented by the Com­
mission sets out the planned measures, as described 
below. 
2.2.1. Among the existing horizontal measures there 
are three aiming directly or indirectly at the objective 
of integrating environmental factors into the CAP, that 
need to be revised, either because in 1990 they reach 
the end of their first period of application or because a) Premiums which the Member States can pay in 
environmentally sensitive areas to compensate 
farmers for their loss of income as a result of 
pursuing farming practices which are compat­
ible with the need to protect the environment. 
These farming practices may relate to a 
reduction in the use of fertilizers or plant protec­
tion products as well as to other farming prac­
tices in harmony with the environment and the 
countryside (e.g. by way of restrictions concern­
ing the use of grassland such as stocking density, 
time and method of mowing, abstaining from 
draining etc.) (Article 19 of Regulation (EEC) 
No 797/85). 
b) Premiums for the extensification of certain pro­
ductions 
• either by way of a 20% reduction of the 
quantity produced ('quantitative method'), 
• or by modifying production methods 
especially by way of a reduction in the use of 
intermediate products, e.g. use of lower levels 
of fertilizer ('qualitative method'). The Mem­
ber States must justify that the authorized 
method would, in general, result in the 
reduction of the production by 20%. (Article 
lb of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85.) 
c) Premiums to farmers who set aside at least 20% 
of their arable land. (Article la of Regulation 
(EEC) No 797/85.) 
2.2.2. The re-examination by the Council of the first 
two measures, (i.e. the extensification scheme (Article 
lb of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85), as foreseen in 
Article 6 of Regulation (EEC) No 1760/87 (6), in 1990, 
after a period of 3 years from the date of the Council's 
(!) OJ No L 93, 30. 3. 1985. 
(2) COM(90) 366 final — Proposal for a Council Regulation 
(EEC) on the introduction and maintenance of agricultural 
methods compatible with the requirements of the protection 
of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside. 
(3) OJ No L 165, 15. 6. 1989. 
(4) OJ No L 165, 15. 6. 1989. • 
(5) OJNoL326, 30. 11. 1986. (6) OJ No L 167, 26. 6. 1987. 
18. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 69/11 
original decision, presents an opportunity to pursue the 
goal of reinforcing the relationship between agriculture 
and the environment in light of the experience gained. 
2.2.3. Even though the measures referred to above 
have only been effectively in force for a maximum of 
two years in the Member States, a number of con­
clusions can be drawn as to their efficiency and their 
contribution to the achievement of the goals pursued. 
2.2.4. However, the Commission recently started to 
review the matter. Before 30 November 1990 it was to 
present its own conclusions and constructive proposals 
regarding the environmental protection problems con­
nected with stock farming.' 
3. Comments on combined agricultural-environmental 
projects in progress 
3.1. Generally speaking, the Committee felt that the 
problems which have arisen relate to: 
— the lack of a uniform policy in respect of inter­
vention and the application of the measures in the 
various Member States, 
— certification and supervision, 
— the protection of disadvantaged farmers, 
— small size of proposed premiums, 
— restricted application of the measures (frequently 
limited to marginal areas). 
3.2. More specifically, the Committee notes that: 
3.2.1. In practice, there is no uniform policy for 
application and intervention in the various Member 
States. Articles 19 and lb of Regulation (EEC) No 797/ 
85 have only been implemented in four Member States. 
3.2.2. The aim must be to apply the Regulation in 
all Member States, ensuring equal conditions in the light 
of the varying regional and agricultural circumstances. 
3.3. Certification and supervision of the effective 
application of the provisions in question represents a 
major problem. The implementation of environment-
friendly farming methods and lower levels of pro­
duction may be certified by means of checks carried 
out by national authorities, either on a farm-by-farm 
or on a regional basis. Care must be taken at the same 
time to encourage effective technical support services 
in the field of training and information, in cooperation 
with farmers' organizations. 
3.4. Disadvantaged farmers continue to be the most 
vulnerable to the temporary reductions in income which 
may arise during the first phase of implementation. 
Family farmers, in particular, may be the best placed 
to help protect the rural environment. Insufficient atten­tion was afforded to helping family holdings in the first 
phase of implementation. 
3.5. The premiums earmarked for the application 
of these measures are generally inadequate, failing to 
compensate for the higher costs and lower incomes 
caused by the use of environment-friendly farming 
methods and reduced production. This is particularly 
noticeable in the first application phase. Furthermore, 
the set-aside premiums are not a sufficient incentive. 
3.6. Experience to date shows that the regulations 
have been applied in certain areas only. The need to 
define ecologically sensitive areas in particular has 
imposed severe limits on the scope and effectiveness of 
the provisions implementing the general objectives of 
encouraging environment-compatible farming methods 
and reducing agricultural surpluses. 
4. Proposed approach: general appraisal 
4.1. The Committee takes a positive view of the 
general approach pursued in draft Regulations of this 
type. The draft Regulation under consideration could 
also promote the aims set out in the Commission docu­
ment on the future of rural society (l). In line with the 
ESC Opinion (2) adopted at the time, the Committee 
considers that the conditions for implementation of the 
proposed measures have been fulfilled. They may be 
summarized as follows: 
— encouragement for more restricted use of fertilizers, 
chemical herbicides and plant protection products, 
in the light of the current availability of production 
technologies involving a limited use of man-made 
inputs, including such technologies in respect of bio­
degradable substances, 
— a general orientation towards protection of natural 
resources and improvement of the countryside. 
4.2. Though there is indeed no evidence (after much 
research) that quality is improved by reducing fertilizers 
of plant protection products from properly controlled 
levels used in normal farming, the proposed measures 
could have a positive impact on product quality (whole-
someness, taste, etc.). 
4.2.1. Consumers are displaying greater interest in, 
and awareness of guaranteed-quality products. How­
ever, the public needs to be effectively informed about 
(M Doc. COM(88) 501 final. 
(2) OJ No C 298, 27. 11. 1989. 
No C 69/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 18. 3. 91 
the qualitative aspects of agri-food products. A pre­
mium scheme could compensate farmers using environ­
ment-friendly techniques for any loss of earnings they 
incur as a result of the lower yields associated with 
higher quality, from which consumers will benefit. 
4.2.2. The potential demand is there and demand is 
likely to grow. It is therefore necessary to organize 
production so as to ensure a guaranteed, regular supply 
of high-quality products. 
4.2.3. The areas covered by the proposed measures 
will gain considerable environmental benefits (reduced 
level of pollution, improvement in general ecological 
conditions and the rural landscape). On a more general 
level the image of farmers will benefit from a new form 
of agriculture which is more attentive to environmental 
problems and public health requirements. 
4.2.4. The measures set out in the draft Regulation 
should help promote the implementation of a plan to 
make agriculture 'environmentally compatible'. 
4.3. Rationalization of the use of technical inputs in 
agriculture serves two purposes. On the one hand, it 
involves a shift towards production methods which are 
less damaging to the environment and, in particular, a 
cut-back in the use of man-made inputs. Community 
research programmes must focus on this objective. On 
the other hand, it marks a step towards an integrated 
system in which agriculture and other sectors interact 
in a mutually beneficial and environment-friendly way 
(see the appended table). 
4.3.1. If this system is to be put into effect, integrated 
back-up services will have to be introduced. A series of 
incentives for farmers will also have to be brought in, 
otherwise those in the weakest position will have to 
bear the start-up costs. 
4.3.2. The draft Regulation under review is weak 
and inconsistent on this point. 
4.4. Among the aims of the draft Regulation, the 
Committee attaches particular importance to protection 
of water systems (e.g. by the use of drainage). 
4.5. The development of renewable energy sources 
and biodegradable products will help to improve the 
quality of the environment. 5. Comments on individual articles of the draft Regu­
lation 
5.1. The Committee views the choice of a regulation 
as the legislative instrument as acceptable in general 
terms: however, it is unclear how much freedom of 
action and application remains to Member States. 
5.2. Article 1 
The objectives appear to reflect a broad-based 
approach. The connection between proposed and exist­
ing measures is not, however, clear. 
5.3. Article 2 
The proposal 'substantially to reduce the use of fertili­
zers and plant protection products' is too imprecise, 
penalizing those farmers who are already limiting the 
use of man-made products, and is too narrow in relation 
to the objectives referred to in Article 1. 
5.3.1. The proposed premiums are intended for 
farms pursuing practices consistent with the legislative 
provisions applicable locally. These measures should 
form part of an overall code of good farming practice. 
5.3.2. Such a code, linked to the environmental 
requirements of each region, should include the follow­
ing measures: 
— make periodic chemical and physical analyses of the 
soil compulsory, 
— where soil nutrient levels are insufficient, allow the 
administration of only as much fertilizer as will be 
absorbed by the crop, 
— where soil nutrient levels are already sufficient, 
avoid the use of fertilizers, 
— lay down that pest control treatments are not car­
ried out on a regular basis, but only when pests 
present a real threat to crops, 
— encourage the use of directed weed eradication, to 
be applied only when actually needed, 
— encourage rotation, 
— provide for other compulsory practices regarding 
both crops and cultivated and surrounding land, in 
addition to those aimed at reducing the use of 
fertilizers and plant protection products, 
— arrange for premiums to be paid to farms already 
applying the planned standards, provided they 
undertake to improve upon them. 
18. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 69/13 
5.3.3. A specialist regional committee should define 
soil nutrient sufficiency levels and pest and weed danger 
levels for each type of soil and crop variety. Member 
States should assume responsibility for enforcement 
and supervision. Products used should be certified and 
labelled. 
5.3.4. Suitable rules should be introduced to tackle 
the problems of the application of animal manure. 
5.4. Article 3 
The maximum annual premium per hectare for crops 
and pasture eligible for aid from the Fund could be set 
at: 
pasture, permanent and temporary 
grassland 
cereals, including fodder 
industrial crops 
market garden crops 
specialist olive groves 
citrus fruits 
pome and stone fruits 
vines 
other fruit tree crops ECU 200 
ECU 250 
ECU 300 
ECU 500 
ECU 400 
ECU 900 
ECU 800 
ECU 800 
ECU 400 
5.5. Article 4 
A maximum of ECU 200 per hectare is not an adequate 
incentive for the upkeep of abandoned agricultural and 
forestry land. 
Done at Brussels, 30 January 1991. 5.6. Article 4 
In any case, measures should be taken to ensure that 
this sum can be added to the premiums for agricultural 
land referred to in Article 3 and for land in areas under 
threat of abandonment. 
5.7. Articles 4 and 5 
In the case of afforestation, plant species should be 
native, typical of the region, and present a slow rate of 
growth. Forestry aid should not be granted for periods 
of more than thirty years (1). 
5.8. Article 8 
The application of crop extensification makes sense if 
the qualitative method is adopted, since a reduction in 
the use of inputs, particularly fertilizers, always brings 
down production levels, while a fall in production 
(quantitative method) cannot always be attributed 
exclusively to the application of agricultural methods 
using few technical inputs or man-made products. Only 
the qualitative method secures the dual objective of 
keeping production down and minimizing the environ­
mental impact of farming. If this method were adopted, 
the extensification measures would be covered by 
Article 2. 
(') OJ No C 139, 5. 6. 1989, points 5.2.1, 5.3 and 5.5. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francois STAEDELIN 
to the Opinion of the Economic and Sociat Committee 
Rationalization of the use of technical inputs in agriculture and protection of rural populations and consumers 
Use of production metbods less 
damaging to the environment 
deduction in incidence 
of industrial illnesses 
among wooers 
deduction in environs 
mental pollution 
^ertili^ersoil 
Conditioning 
Animal feed products 
Water reeling Integration of agriculture intoasystem 
for improving the environment 
^.edu^tion in the negative impact 
of the utban and industrial sectors 
duality 
products 
^ Agroindustry 
Consumptions 
consumers 
Treatment 
Biomass 
Compost Organic waste 
products 
Wastewater 
Sludge 
Solid urban waste enhancement of 
the positive 
effects 
Wildlife 
Biomass 
production 
— forest products 
— cellulose 
— ethanol 
— fibres, etc. 
products for 
environments 
friendly tourism I^rote^tion, enlargement and 
amenity val^e of tl^e countryside 
Soil conservation 
Water management 
f^nnan^ementoftne 
r^ral environment 
management of 
trie countryside 
18. 3. 91 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 69/15 
APPENDIX 2 
Fourth paragraph of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure 
The following amendment was rejected in the course of the debate at the plenary session. 
Add the following new paragraph after point 5.3: 
'Article 2.2(a): The Commission shall determine the conditions for the award of aid and the minimum 
amount of the aid, taking account of the productivity of the land.' 
Delete existing Article 2.3(b). 
Reasons 
To be effective the scheme should operate throughout the Community to at least compensate producers for 
loss of production potential. By fixing maxima amounts only it would be left to Member States to decide 
with what urgency they wish to pursue the scheme. 
Voting 
For: 20, Against: 55, Abstentions: 26. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision amending Decision 90/218/EEC concerning 
the administration of bovine somatotropin (BST) (*) 
(91/C 69/04) 
On 4 January 1991 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Committee appointed Mr Silva as Rapporteur-General with the task of preparing its 
work on the subject. 
At its 283rd plenary session (meeting of 30 January 1991) the Economic and Social Committee 
unanimously adopted the following Opinion. 
1. The Committee endorses the Council proposal to 
extend until 31 December 1991 the ban on the use of 
bovine somatotropin (BST) within Community terri­
tory. 
2. Given the possible impact of the use of this sub­
stance on consumer trends and on farming structures, 
the Committee considers that the Commission must 
be allowed enough time to acquaint itself with the 
conclusions of the in-depth research which is currently 
being carried out, inter alia the research projects at 
the 'Bundesanstalt fur Milchforschung' in Kiel and the 
University of Munich, and the studies being carried out 
by the 'Institut fur Wirtschaftsforschung' in Munich 
and the University of Giessen. The latter two studies 
(!) OJNoC2,4. 1. 1991, p. 11. aim to provide more data on the probable reactions by 
consumers and producers to the use of BST(2). 
3. The Committee reiterates the comments made in 
the Opinion adopted at the 271st plenary session (3) 
(15/16 November 1989). 
4. In particular, the Committee emphasizes that it 
should be consulted on the future Commission proposal 
early enough to permit examination of this important 
(2) See items 15 and 28 of the Commission report to the Council 
and Parliament concerning bovine somatotropin, which pref­
aces the proposal for a Council Decision concerning the 
administration of bovine somatotropin (Doc. COM (89) 379 
final), which was the subject of the Committee Opinion of 
15 November 1989. OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1990, p. 25. 
(3) OJ No C 56, 7. 3. 1990, p. 25.