11^.88 Official]ournal of the European Communities NoC95/7 
Opinionon theproposalfor aCouncilRegulation (EEC) amendingRegulations (EEC) 
No 797/85 and (EEC) Noi760/87as regards the set-aside of agricultural land and the 
e^tensification and conversion of production 
(88/C95/^) 
Cn^5]anuarvl988the Council decided to consult the Economic and SocialCommittee, 
under Articles^andl98 of thePreatv establishing the European Economic Communitv, 
on the abovementioned proposal 
TheEconomicandSocial CommitteeappointedMr Luchetti asrapporteur-general, with 
instructions to prepare its worsen the matter. 
At its ^5^rd plenary session (meeting of ^ Eebruarv 1988), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following C0pinionbvl07 votes to two, with leo abstentions. 
LL In its Opinion of ^7 ]anuarv!988(^) the Com­
mittee, bvasubstantialmajoritv,e^pressed support for 
a temporary set-aside of certain areas of farmland. 
The recommended approach was the subject of an 
agreement at the Brussels Summit held on lt^ and 
11 Eebruarv 1988. 
1.1.1. In particular the European Council agreed to 
^acceptamechanism limiting supplvbv withdrawing 
agricultural land from production. This will comp­
lement the other stabilisers ..B(^)D 
1.^. The Committee taloes note of this agreement 
and confirms the views expressed in the above opinion. 
1.^. Thebasicaimof the proposed measuresis to 
help reduce production and stabilise spendings of the 
European Agricultural Cuidance and CuaranteeEund 
(EACCE) 
1.^. TheCommitteefindsthese measuresof some 
interestbutfeels that improvementscan beachieved 
onlvbv granting satisfactory payments for setting aside 
land of considerable production capacity backed bva 
verifiable procedure for rotation of the arable land 
taken out of production. 
1.^.1. In this connection, the Committee would draw 
attention to the need for proper controls (which appear 
e^tremelv difficult and burdensome for theMember 
States). As borne out bv experience in other countries, 
in the absence of such controls even this potential gain 
could be nullified bv more intensive farming of the land 
which continues to be cultivated. 
1.5. Elowever, the Committee would point out that 
the proposed approach and arrangements raise serious 
doubts on several points. 1.5.1. Phe current approach does not form part and 
parcelofacoherent master plan,aspresentedinthe 
Commissions Creen Paper (which won the Com 
mittee^svirtuallv unanimous support).Instead it reflects 
too selectiveaview of reform of the common agricul­
tural policv and the capacity of the projected arrange-
ments to help alleviate the agricultural market imbal­
ances in question can therefore be questioned. 
1.5.1.1. The Commission assumes that set-aside 
could lead to one million hectares being taken out of 
production (above all land used for cereals). This would 
mean an appro^imate^million tonne cut, equal to 
around l,5^ofCommunitvproduction.This estimate 
clearlv relates to land with a low vield, contrary to 
what should be expected. 
1.5.1.^. The total cost—and the amount saved— 
would both be^Ou million ECU 
1.5.IBo. In general financial terms, setaside is there­
fore of verv little importance if one disregards the 
partial transfer of costs to national budgets, with the 
resulting reduction in the cost to the Community 
budget. 
1.6. The Committee isawarethatthere is insufficient 
experience of land set-aside in anvof the Community 
countries. Itthereforeproposes that particular attention 
be given to the following considerations in drawing up 
the relevant Community rules. 
1.6.1. The Committee is also concerned that set 
aside of farmlandcouldleadtotheabandonmentof 
certain vulnerable areas. The inevitable desertification 
would have economic and social side-effects and cause 
landslips, runoff problems, etc. 
1.6.^. In economic terms, implementation of set 
aside in these particular areas would have onlvalimited 
effect on production because the soil and weather con 
No C 95/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 11. 4. 88 
ditions here permit only modest yields and because 
farms are generally small. 
1.6.3. In social terms, there is a danger that farming 
will disappear from some rural areas, jeopardizing the 
socio-economic balance of entire communities. More 
specifically, the abandonment of these areas would not 
only mean the loss of agricultural jobs but also of jobs 
in allied sectors (processing, crafts, trade, etc.). 
1.6.3.1. The situation of farmworkers and small pro­
cessing firms and cooperatives which use local produce 
would become critical. The effects this would have on 
employment and on producers' incomes cannot yet be 
calculated. Here a social programme would seem to be 
needed to aid those who are affected. 
1.6.4. The Committee feels that the Commission has 
given insufficient consideration to these important and 
sensitive aspects. The Committee urges that decisions 
be taken as soon as possible on the policy for cessation 
of agricultural activity and income support for all those 
working in the agricultural sector. 
1.7. The Committee also recognizes the potential 
indirect benefits of set-aside for the natural environ­
ment, particularly as a result of discontinuation of 
the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers—on the 
Done at Brussels, 24 February 1988. assumption that this land can remain viable for culti­
vation purposes. 
1.8. Lastly, the Committee welcomes the conclusions 
reached by the European Council meeting in Brussels, 
especially those set out in Annexes I and II to the overall 
compromise. 
1.8.1. In particular it welcomes the recognition that 
the arrangements to restrain production adopted since 
1984 meet the commitments made within the Organis­
ation for Economic Cooperation and Development 
(OECD) and at the Venice Summit and 'will achieve 
their full effect only if other world producers apply 
equivalent discipline'. 
1.8.2. In addition, on the matter of trade policy, the 
Committee agrees with the European Council's call to 
the Commission 'to ensure, in the context of the Uru­
guay Round and having regard to the provisions of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), that 
the Community's measures with respect to prices and 
quantities are given due consideration, and to press 
for an appropriate solution to the problems arising in 
connection with imports of cereal substitutes, oilseeds 
and protein plants into the Community'. 
1.8.3. Similarly, the Committee supports the Euro­
pean Council's request that the Commission 'investigate 
all possibilities of increasing the utilization of agricul­
tural commodities in the non-food sector and to submit 
proposals to that effect'. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
11.4.88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95/9 
APPENDIX 
(Fourth paragraph of Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure) 
During the discussions in plenary the following motions for amendments were defeated. 
Point 1.5.1.2 
Amend as follows: 
'The total cost of set-aside to the Community, within the financial framework adopted by the Summit, would 
be about 850 to 900 million ECU, of which about 300 million ECU would be borne by the EAGGF. At the 
same time the EAGGF would save about 850 to 900 million ECU on export refund costs. However, in 
contrast to the subsidies for export refunds, the premiums for set-aside would be entirely beneficial to the 
Community economy as a whole.' 
Vormg 
For: 38, against: 52, abstentions: 17. 
Point 1.5.1.3 
Delete. 
Voting 
For: 34, against: 63, abstentions: 14. 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) laying down general rules on 
controls in the wine sector 
(88/C 95/04) 
The Council decided on 15 January 1988 to ask the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the EEC Treaty, for an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Economic and Social Committee asked Mr Jaschick, as rapporteur-general, to prepare 
its work on the matter. 
At its 253rd plenary session, held on 24 and 25 February 1988 (meeting of 24 February), the 
Committee adopted the following Opinion by 93 votes to three, with two abstentions. 
1. General comments 
1.1. We welcome the Commission's intention to 
improve national and Community wine controls, 
notably through setting up a control structure and 
improving information flows—and thus cooperation. 
1.2. We agree with the Commission that the develop­
ment of trade in wine between the various Member 
States necessitates a greater harmonization of control 
methods and closer cooperation between the various 
control agencies with clearly defined powers in the wine 
sector. 1.3. To improve national and Community controls, 
and thus combat unfair and fraudulent practices and 
promote consumer protection, we think that Com­
munity control structures should be tightened up and 
the measures to be implemented worded more clearly. 
The Commission's proposals are an essential first step 
towards harmonizing Community control systems. 
1.4. Control set-ups vary widely between one Mem­
ber State and another. They should be improved in 
both producer and non-producer countries.