ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (77)650
V ol.1977/0208

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE, Euratom) n°354/83 duConseil du1erfévrier 1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublic des archives historiques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergie atomique (JO L43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telque modifié parlerèglement (CE, Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JO L243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossier estouvert aupublic. Lecaséchéant, lesdocuments
classifiés présents dans cedossier ontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article 5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No354/83 of 1February 1983
concerning theopening tothepublic ofthehistorical archives oftheEuropean Economic
Community and theEuropean Atomic Energy Community (OJ L43, 15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC, Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003 (OJ L243,
27.9.2003, p.1),this fileisopen tothepublic. Where necessary, classified documents inthis
filehave been declassified inconformity with Article 5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr.354/83 des Rates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L43vom 15.2.1983,
S.1),geändert durch dieVerordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom 22.September 2003
(ABI. L243 vom 27.9.2003, S.1),istdiese Datei derÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden dieVerschlusssachen indieser Datei inÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel 5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM (77)650final .
1Brussels ,30November 1977 <
SECOND REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OP THE COUNCIL
DIRECTIVES ON AGRICULTURAL REFORM OF
17APRIL 1972
(Part IandPart II)
CCI.:(77)650final .

SECOND REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVES
ON AGRICULTURAL REFORM OF 17 APRIL 1972
(Part I)

Table ofcontents ofPart I
IntroductionPage
1
Part I:Main lines ofthe Community socio-structural
policy inagriculture ,its adaptation and
future development 3
Chapter I:Main lines ofthe agricultural structures
policy 3
1.Function oftheagricultural structures policy inthe
common agricultural policy 3
2.The Community agricultural structures policy 5
Chapter II:Interim evaluation oftheagricultural
structures policy 11
1.Individual projects 11
2.Common measures 11
3.Problems 16
Chapter III:Adaptation and development ofthe
Community socio-structural policy 20
1.Inthe Community asawhole 20
2.Inthe handi capped regions 22
3.Financing ofthe Community socio-structural policy for
agri culture 26

INTRODUCTION
When over ayear ago "the Commission presented thefirst report onthe
application ofthe Council Directives of17April 1972 onthe reform
ofagriculture *,little information wasavailable onthepractical
application ofthese directives .Thus ,the report was mainly limited
toanexamination ofthe way inwhich Member States had transposed the
Community concept into their national implementing instruments and the
initial difficulties arising therefrom .
Five years after adoption ofthe Directives bythe Council ,that isat
the end ofthefirst five-year implementing period provided for inthe
Directives ,the Commission isnow able toreview theresults ofthe
application ofthe Directives andtopresent areport that iscloser
tofulfilling its objectives than thefirst ,inother words toprovide
abasis toassess the development and adaptation ofthe common
agricultural policy ,particularly the Community socio-structural
policy foragriculture .
Presentation ofthis report coincides with the end ofthefirst
five-year period for implementing these Directives ,when provision
ismade for areview ofthe measures involved bythe Council ona
proposal from the Commission .
The Commission believes that this report should not berestricted
toaninitial analysis oftheresults ofapplying the Council
Directives onthe reform ofagriculture but should also deal with the
adaptation ofthe current agricultural structures policy and provide
guidelines for subsequent development .
*COM (76)87final

-2-
Although the need foraCommunity agricultural structures policy is
not indoubt anditsobjectives remain the same ,the socio-economic
environment inwhich itistobedeployed has changed considerably
since 1972 .The current difficulties have made oursociety aware
ofthe overriding andpressing need forthe Community togive priority
toharmonious integrated development and,consequently ,provide arapid
solution tothe problems ofpopulation groups andentire regions .The
Commission has made itclear that itisinfavour ofenergetic action
toreduce and eliminate theinternal disparities inthe Community .
Although the common agricultural policy alone cannot solve this
problem ,thefact that such action will bemostly onbehalf ofpredo­
minantly agricultural regions indicates how important the contribution
ofthe said policy will be.Inthe weaponry available tothe common
agricultural policy ,theagricultural structures policy contains ,and
should develop further ,effective means ofaction .
Bearing inmind the adaptation and development oftheagricultural
structures policy ,Part Iofthe report recalls the purpose and
objectives ofthe policy ,describes the instruments ,reviews past
experience ,weighs the influence ofchanges inconditions and the
general economic and social outlook ,and onthis basis outlines the
necessary adjustments and desirable development ofthis policy .Part II
ofthe report contains amore detailed analysis ofhowthe Council 's
socio-structural Directives are applied .

-3-
PART I-MAIN LINES OF THE COMMUNITY SOCIO-STRUCTURAL POLICY FOR
AGRICULTURE ,ITS ADAPTATION AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I-MAIN LINES OF THE AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES POLICY
1.Function ofthe agricultural structures policy inthe common agricul ¬
tural policy
1.1.The Treaty assigns the common agricultural policy the task ofincreasing
agricultural productivity "bypromoting technical progress ,"byensuring
the rational development ofagricultural production and the optimum
utilization ofthe factors ofproduction ,inparticular labour ,and
thus providing afair standard ofliving fortheagricultural community ,
inparticular "byincreasing the individual earnings ofpersons engaged
inagriculture .
1.2.Community agriculture varies greatly "both asregards the natural
circumstances towhich itmust adapt and the socio-economic environment
inthe various regions .This great disparity isreflected inthe size ,
production capacity and degree ofrationalization ofagricultural
holdings ;inother words ,the advantages and disadvantages ofthe
production structures cjrrespond tosome extent tothe level of
development ofthe agricultural marketing and processing structures of
sizeable regions .
Community agriculture also has todeal with thebasic problem ofthe
unequal distribution ofproduction factors .Since nearly two-thirds
oftheagricultural holdings occupy about one-third oftheutilized
agricultural area ,many operators cannot obtain anadequate income
comparable with that achieved inother sectors ofthe economy .

-k-
1.3 .Support ofmarkets andagricultural prices alone isnotenough to
solve theincome problems ofmost farmers whooperate relatively
small holdings .Asubstantial improvement inthe income andliving
conditions oftheagricultural population requires aradical change
inagricultural structures ,which must bebacked uptheCommunity
socio-structural policy .Atthe same time this policy should seek
socially acceptable transitional oralternative solutions for
holdings and farmers who cannot undertake modernization .
The agricultural structures policy depends onthe initiative and
free choice offarmers .Noprogress should beexpected inthe short
term .The policy should therefore try toenlist farmers' support in
achieving themedium -and long-term goals byoffering incentives for
the adaptation ofstructures and byassisting and directing adaptation
along the lines most advantageous toagriculture and the common
agricultural policy .

-5-
1.if.The markets andprices policy and the structural policy should complement
each other .The objectives concerning income and balanced agricultural
markets should bereconciled byappropriate adjustment and measured
application ofthe instruments available forboth purposes .
2.The Community agricultural structures policy
2.1.Thepolicy has been implemented gradually .First ,itwas applied to
production factors throughout the Community and then later toproblems
inthis connection intheless-favoured regions .Lastly ,itwas
extended toimprovement ofthe marketing and processing ofagricultural
products .

-6-
2.2.The common measure wastheinstrument chosen todevelop this policy .
Itdiffers from the method originally chosen forthe operation of
the EAGGF Guidance Section ,which consisted offinancing projects ,
and from the methods adapted forother Community policies ,where
financing isprovided fornational orprivate programmes that are
already underway .
A"common measure "within themeaning ofRegulation No(EEC)729/7O
imposes onMember States the obligation toimplement aset ofmeasures .
The Community provides financing for some ofthese measures .The level
ofCommunity financial participation inthese measures has varied
depending onthe degree ofregional effectiveness .
2.3.Thebasis ofthe Community 'sagricultural structures policies are
found inDirectives 72/159/EEC,72/I60/EEC,72/l6l/EECand 75/268/EEC
andinRegulation 355/77/EEC,which were implemented in1972 ,1975
and 1977 .
2.3.1 *Directive 72/159/EECinstitutes aselective system ofaidtofarmers
practising farming astheir main occupation and who submit adevelopment
plan showing that oncompletion the level ofearned income per man
work unit (MWU)will beatleast equal tothat received fornon-
agricultural work inthe region .The aid granted tosuch holdings
covers alltheinvestments needed fortheir development (except
purchase ofland);they areeligible for EAGGF reimbursement at25%.
Tomitigate such selectivity inthe granting ofaid,Member States
are authorized togrant investment aidtoholdings with nodevelopment
plan .Such aidisfinanced solely out ofnational budgets and should
beatamuch lower level than that granted toholdings with adevelopment
plan .During atransitional period ,toexpire in1977 »Member States

-7-
maystill grant aid equal tothat granted for development plans in
the case ofoperators who canneither develop their holding nor
benefit from the scheme forthe cessation offarming .
Lastly ,provision ismade for accompanying measures inthe form of
aid,with EAGGF participation ,for keeping farm accounts ,for
launching producer groups and for developing holdings inconnection
with reparcelling orirrigation projects .
2.3.2 .Directive 72/l60/EECoffers another alternative forholdings that
cannot develop .Itintroduced aid for farmers who,onthe cessation
offarming ,agree togive first option onthe land thus released
tofarmers who need ittocarry out adevelopment plan within the
meaning ofDirective 72/159/EEC,orforafforestation ornon-
agricultural purposes .Two types ofaid are provided for those
who fulfil these conditions :
-anannuity forthe cessation offarming tofarmers between 55and 65
whopractise farming astheir main occupation ;
-anon-recurrent premium calculated byreference tothe area released
toother farmers .
The EAGGP Guidance Section covers 25$ofeligible expenditure onthe
early retirement annuity (but 65$inIreland and most regions ofItaly ).
2.3.3 .Directive 72/161/EBCisalso intended toeliminate major obstacles
tothe structural adaptation ofholdings .Itintroduces aid forthe
creation ofsocio-economic guidance services togive farmers all the
information they need totake and implement decisions needed toimprove
their position ,whether they continue tofarm ortake upanother
occupation .

-8-
Italso provides for aid for the running ofcourses and centres
where farmers can acquire sufficient training toenable them to
develop their farms .
This Directive further provided foraid fortheretraining offarmers
sothat they cantake upanother occupation ,butthis form of
assistance has been given bythe reformed Social Fund since 1972 .
The 1972 Directives thus constitute aset ofuseful alternative
possibilities which are offered tofarmers together with aid and
which areall intended tospeed upthe adaptation ofagricultural
structures .
2.3.4 .Directive 75/268/EEC.foreshadowed byDirective 72/159/EEC/"Article
14(2)(b)_7 ,wasadopted toensure that farming would becontinued ,
aminimum population maintained and the countryside preserved in
mountain areas and other less-favoured areas .Inareas where
permanent natural handicaps prevent farmers from earning asatisfactory
livelihood ,the disadvantages may beoffset byarange ofmeasures .
These measures include annual compensatory allowances per livestock
unit (LSU),granted tofarmers whoundertake tofarm their holding
foratleast five years more ,higher investment aid foragricultural
holdings and aid for joint investment schemes designed toimprove
pasture land andfodder production .The EAGGP pays 25%ofexpenditure
oncompensatory allowances ,investment aid for development plans and
aidforjoint investment schemes ;this percentage israised to35$for
compensatory allowances paid inless-favoured areas ofIreland and
Italy .The ERDF helps with thenational financing ofinfrastructure
projects which are essential for theviability ofthe areas where
these Directives are applied .

-9-
2.3.5 .Regulation 355/77/EEC concerns the marketing andprocessing of
agricultural products .Itintroduces aid forprojects implemented
inthese spheres and conferring certain benefits onproducers ,
provided that theprojects form part ofregional ,national or
Community programmes previously approved atCommunity level .Aid
amounts toamaximum of25$ofeligible expenditure "butthis
percentage may "behigher indifficult regions .Inthe same context
ofmarket structures ,the Commission has forwarded tothe Council
aproposal *foraregulation onaidforthecreation andlaunching
ofproducer groups responsible for improving theposition offarmers
bycontrol and coordination oftheir output and the marketing thereof .
The Commission proposal provides that this scheme shall apply in
Italy and other comparable regions where there isinadequate organi­
zation oftheactivities inquestion .
2.3.6 .Pour proposals have been presented bythe Commission tothe Council
but nodecision has yet been taken .They concern :
-adjustment ofcertain amounts provided forinthe 1972/1975
Directives which ,inview ofinflation inthe meantime ,should be
raised unless they aretobecome quite ineffective j[~C(M (76)213final
-aid forafforestation ofmarginal agricultural land
£COM (74)170finalJ7 ;
–the grant ofaidtoyoung farmers who wish todevelop their holdings ;
this aidisintended toensure that modernization ofsuch holdings
isnotdelayed bytheinitial settlement costs £~COVl (74)2067_7 ?
–the grant ofaidtoagricultural producer groups and associations
thereof f~COM (77)228final 7.
*COM .(77)288final of27.5.1977

-10-
Further ,when presenting the "milk package ",the Commission made a
proposal concerning thegranting ofretirement premiums tofarmers
agreeing towind uptheir holdings and slaughter their cattle
/"COM (77)100final ,Volume II,p.151-155J,
2.4 .From theforegoing itisclear that theCouncil Directives concerning
thereform ofagriculture have asingle goal :tohelp all farmers
whoarewilling andable todosotoattain "comparable "incomes ,
andprovide analternative non-agricultural income oroccupation ,
ortheearly retirement annuity ,forfarmers whodonotwish toor
cannot attain acomparable income .
This fundamental objective is,however ,the only element inthe
Community agricultural structures policy that applies uniformly
throughout the Community .Toagreat extent implementation hasto
take account ofthe considerable regional differences .
Forthis reason provision wasmade intheCommunity agricultural
structures policy instituted in1972 for :
a)thefixing atregional level ofthecentral element inthepolicy -
comparable earned income .Consequently ,themodernization targets
vary widely .InItaly thetarget varies from 69$to142$ ofthe
national average ,inGermany from 82$to108$ ,inFrance from
64$to140$ andinIreland from 80$to113$ .Inother words ,
when this modernization target isadjusted tothe regional
economic and social situation ,itisconsiderably lower than
thenational average innearly alltheless-favoured regions ,where
itisoften less than half its equivalent ina"good "region ;
b)thetransposition ofCommunity measures into national provisions ,
sothat thespecific needs ofregional agriculture could bemet ;

-11-
c)differentiation between Community measures ;this isthe case with :
-the second ,alternative provided forinArticle 8(2)ofDirective
72/159/EEC (lowering oftheinterest rates payable byfarmers
formodernization investments incertain regions );
-theimplementation ofDirective 75/268/EEC onmountain andhill
farming and farming incertain less-favoured areas ,introducing
supplementary investment aids forall farms insuch regions and
annual allowances tocompensate for the permanent natural handicaps
affecting such farms .
CHAPTER II-INTERIM EV ALUATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES POLICY
1.Individual pro.jects
Regulation I7/64/EECprovides that investment projects with structural
relevance may befinanced bythe Guidance Section ofthe EAGGF .
From 1974 to1976 ,6264projects were financed ,andaid of1740 mu.a.
was granted ,corresponding toatotal investment of8O84 mu.a.Aid
forproduction structures accounted for some 50?oofthis total sum,
market structures forabout 43.5% »and mixed projects forabout 6.5$ .
Since 1973 »bywhich time farm investments were being financed under
the common measures ,projects relating toproduction structures have
concentrated onthe improvement oftheagricultural infrastructure .
This type ofmeasure ,based onRegulation 17/64/EEC,finishes atthe
endof1977 ,since from 1978 onwards the sumof352 mu.a.provided for
byRegulation EEC 729/70will beentirely committed for common measures ,
with the result that appropriations will nolonger beavailable forthe
financing ofindividual projects within themeaning ofRegulation 17/64.
2.Common measures
2.1.Thesocio-structural Directives (72/159/EEC,72/I6O/EEC,72/l6l/EEC and
75/268/EEC)
Itispointed out inthe second part ofthis report that data isstill
outstanding for some Member States .This isdue tothe fact that the
political and administrative authorities have been very slow inimple­
menting national provisions .Directives 72/159/EEC and 72/l6l/EEChave
only been generally applied since 1976 ,except inLuxemburg andItaly .

-12-
Atthe endof1976 Italy also adopted ,atnational level ,allthe
necessary provisions for immediate application ofthedirectives .
However ,asthe running-in period coincided with administrative
reforms whereby authority forsocio-structural policy inagriculture
was transferred tothe regions ,and asthe various structural measures
have not "been coordinated orharmonized atnational andatregional
level ,noregion isapplying thedirectives infull atthe end of
1977 andItalian farmers arestill reaping no "benefits from the
common measures .
2.1.1 .With regard toDirective 72/l59/EEC «thedata available upto1975 and
estimates for 1976 show that almost 55000 farm development plans had
been approved inseven countries ,excluding Luxembourg (exempted until
1976 )andItaly butincluding France ,which only began toapply this
Directive in1976 ;in1975 1976 the annual rate was 20000plans .
Inthose Member States which have been implementing Directive
72/159/EECuninterruptedly for some time ,government policy onthe
promotion offarm investments has been very clearly revised tomeet
the objectives and conditions ofthe Directive ;the funds allocated
bythose Member States exceed the amounts committed before 1972 and
thetotal figure isdirectly influenced byCommunity policy .Apart
from specific operations ,such asdrainage ,investments onfarms
without adevelopment plan are generally less numerous orless costly
than those undertaken ondeveloping holdings .

-13-
Numerically ,development plans seem tohave been relatively evenly
distributed from one financial year toanother and from one Member State
toanother .Amore detailed examination ofthe 1975 financial year
demonstrates furthermore ,that ,apart from extreme situations ,the
regional distribution ofthe development plans wasrelatively balanced .
These are theinitial results from some Member States only ,but account
must also betaken ofthe fact that they relate toaperiod before
theimplementation ofDirective 75/268/EEC,which increased the amount
ofinvestment aid and direct aid which could beincluded inthe income
target ofdevelopment plans inmountain and less-favoured areas .Also
ofimportance inthis context isthe regional differentiation ofmoder­
nization targets .The fixing ofthe comparable income atclearly
differentiated regional levels has undoubtedly been apositive factor .
Results for 1975 show however that ,incertain regions ofthe Community ,
farm development is,toalarge extent ,achieved byintensifying within
the framework ofexisting structures ,without any increase inthe areas
cultivated .This intensification ofproduction has been particularly
pronounced inthe livestock sector ,including milk production .This
illustrates the need tokeep tothe primary objective oftheagricultural
structures policy ,i.e. tobring about asubstantial change in
production structures ,inparticular byincreasing the area farmed by
each holding .
2.1.2 .Asregards Directive 72/l60/EEC,data available upto1975 andestimates
for 1976 show that ,inseven countries (excluding Denmark ,exempted
until 1976 ,andItaly ),some 37500farmers have received either the
retirement annuity orthe lump-sum payment provided for under this
Directive .The 15500beneficiaries in1975 released around 200 000 ha
offarmland .Ananalysis ofthese 1975 figures demonstrates ,however ,
that only 12^ofthearea released hasbeen used forthepurposes
specified inthe Directive andthat repayment has only been sought in
aminute percentage ofcases (less than 2$).These results demonstrate

-14-
thefailure toreconcile the twoobjectives ofthis Directive ,that is
tooffer analternative income tothose unwilling orunable todevelop
their holding ,andtodirect theland thereby released toholdings
which submit adevelopment plan within the meaning ofDirective
72/159/EEC.There are many reasons forthis :restrictive application
insome Member States ,inadequate allowances and premiums ,loopholes
orbarriers inthe land laws .Very often there isnospecial incentive
forbeneficiaries tosell the land toaholding with adevelopment plan .
Theresults oftheapplication ofDirective 72/159/EECdemonstrate that ,
ifasubstantial improvement inproduction structures istobeachieved ,
more ofthe land released must beallocated toholdings wishing to
modernize .Hence ,ascertain examples show (l),Directive 72/160/EEC
should beapplied soastoprovide asocial alternative and,atthe
same time ,steps should betaken toensure that released land isin
fact used for the proper purpose .
Another fact that emerges isthat almost noMember State tries to
influence the use made ofland released byfarmers reaching retirement
age ;thus ,improper useismade ofmuch land which isofimportance for
the future adjustment ofproduction structures .
2.1.3 .Asregards Directive 72/l6l/EEC,theintroduction ofwhich took longer
inallthe Member States ,itisscarcely possible todraw any conclusions
from its application ,much less make any comparison with theresults
oftheapplication ofDirective 72/159/EEC and 72/160/EEC.
(l)Seesecond part ,II,3.3.1 .

-15-
2.1.4 .Asregards Directive 75/268/EEC,there arestill data outstanding .
The Member States are however "beginning toapply this Directive in
practice ,"but noMember State has made full use ofthe opportunities
offered bythe Directive ,given the numerous small farms inthe regions
inquestion which cannot modernize orcan only dosobyincluding the
compensatory allowance for permanent natural handicaps intheir
modernization target .For onething ,the compensatory allowances are
fixed atvery different levels which cannot always bejustified byreal
variations inthe severity ofthe handicap .Compensatory allowances
are not yet granted inItaly while Denmark has noless-favoured
regions defined pursuant tothe directive .
2.1.5 .Where the application ofthedirectives inhandicapped regions is
concerned ,itemerges above all that inmost Member States the
implementation ofDirective 75/268/EEChasledtoincreased regionali -
zation ofthe conditions for,and the amount of,aid granted tocarry
out development plans .However ,itshould benoted that :
-insome Member States themodernization objective (comparable income )
isnotfixed atregional level (Belgium ,Netherlands ,Denmark )orat
alevel where the regional differentiation adequately reflects real
economic differences ;
-nousehasbeen made ofDirective 73/440/EECconcerning theregional
differentiation ofthe common measures provided for inDirectives
72/159/EEC,72/I6O/EECand 72/161/EEC ;
-only Italy has made use ofthedifferentiation possibilities contained
inArticle 8(2)ofDirective 72/159/EEC,byincreasing thesubsidy
rate incertain regions ;
-inseveral Member States full use has not yet been made ofthe measures
provided forinArticle 12ofDirective 75/268/EECtohelp farms
which are unable tosubmit adevelopment plan .

-16-
2.2.Special measures
Over theyears ,the Guidance Section ofthe EAGGP hasalso "been
entrusted with thetask offinancing certain measures ,often connected
with problems ofproduction potential incertain sectors (slaughter of
cows ,grubbing offruit trees ,rationalization ofhorticultural
production under glass ,fruit-growing ,etc.). Ofthese measures ,
improvement ofthecitrus fruit sector may heconsidered ascontributing
tostructural adaptation .
3.Problems encountered
3.1.Inmost Member States theinitial steps inthe Community agricultural
structures policy coincided with the onset ofthe economic recession .
Even ifthe number ofbeneficiaries ofthe measures provided for by
the directives onagricultural reform remained fairly constant
throughout theinitial period ,the very circumstances inwhich
structural adaptation has totake place were altered byinflation and
unemployment ,the two most keenly felt phenomena ofthat recession .
3.1.1 .Inflation has not only made itmore costly and therefore more difficult
tocarry out farm development plans ,butithas also made itmore
difficult toattain the modernization objective .Where employment
outside agriculture isconcerned ,inthe present economic situation ,
industry 's appeal tofarm labour has become aless powerful force in
promoting structural change inagriculture .Anincreasing number of
farmers find themselves unable either tosubmit adevelopment plan ,or
tofind alternative non-agricultural employment .

-17-
3.1.2.Theeconomic recession hasunderlined thedivergences intheeconomic
development oftheMember States .Thegeneral floating ofcurrencies
after fixed parities were abandoned led totheintroduction ofgreen
rates forthecommon agricultural policy and thewide useofmonetary
compensatory amounts .Theresult hasbeen considerable price differences
between countries with appreciating currencies and countries with
depreciating currencies .TheCommunity structures policy istherefore
another .This hasparticularly affected theposition inthose regions
experiencing themost serious structural difficulties .
3*2.Inalarge number ofcases ,farm modernization iseffected within
existing size structures thus involving some intensification ofproduction ,
especially inthebeef andveal sector .The sharp upswing infarm land
prices due toinflation and theexpected rise inagricultural prices have
prevented themodernizing holdings from expanding their acreage and
greatly influenced thecourse ofdevelopment plans .
Given thealarming proportions ofthedairy surpluses thequestion arises
astowhether restrictions should apply tothepromotion offarm
development based solely onanintensification ofproduction andwhether the
measures provided forinDirective 72/l6o/EECshould bereinforced ,so
that released farmland canbechannelled towards holdings undergoing
modernization .
3.3*Asregards theimpact oftheCommunity structures policy inhandicapped
regions ,several factors ,both agricultural andnon-agricultural ,have
already reduced ,ormay further reduce ,thepossibilities which implemen­
tation ofthis policy offers insuch difficult regions .operating inaneconomic climate which /widely from one Member State to

-18-
3.3.1 .The economic recession did not spare the handicapped regions .
Although in1975 Directives 72/159/EECand 72/l60/EECwere applied
asmuch inthe mountain areas and inother areas with permanent
natural handicaps (Directive 75/268/EEC)asthey were elsewhere ,the
general economic climate and the "bleak outlook forthe short and medium
term greatly limit the possibilities foradapting farm structures
throughout certain handicapped regions .
The industries established there ,sometimes under aregional
development policy ,were often thefirst toheconfronted with major
difficulties .This leaves noalternatives open tothe farming
population ,many ofwhom are inthe younger age groups .
Moreover ,asinflation has had the same effect onland prices and
investment costs asinthebetter regions ,this has checked the
mobility ofthe farmland necessary for therestructuring ofagriculture .
The Community regional policy ,launched belatedly under unfavourable
circumstances and with limited funds ,has been confronted with the
same difficulties asthose encountered bynational policies in
coping -inworsened economic climate -with the sheer size ofthe
problems .Added tothis isthefact that Directive 75/268/EEC only
entered into force in1975 and isstill not being implemented inthe
most handicapped regions ofthe Community ,for example inthe
Mezzogiorno ,where its potential effectiveness has beenreduced because
ofinsufficient budget resources .

-19-
3.3.2 .Asregards thefactors andobstacles inherent tofarming indifficult
regions ,there areprimarily three categories ofproblems which
check (ormaycheck )theeffective implementation oftheCommunity 's
agricultural structures policy andwhich may increasingly affect
matters under thepressure ofcurrent economic trends inthe Community .
3.3.2.1 .Onesetofproblems isposed bythephysical constraints ,such as
anexcess orshortage ofwater .The latter isadecisive factor and
measures such asirrigation ordrainage may completely alter the
possible range offarm activities ,theunit yield andhence the
intrinsic productivity offarms .
Current Community instruments (forexample ,Article 13ofDirective
72/159/EEC)have proved inadequate toresolve these problems inthe
handicapped regions .
Also included inthis categroy ofproblems istheabsence ofanadequate
agricultural infrastructure ,that is,agricultural roads ,public
utilities ,andother services which arenottheindividual 'sresponsi­
bility ;aproper infrastructure isofprimary importance forany real
improvement offarm structures inthedifficult regions .
3.3.2.2 .Asecond categroy ofspecial problems must bedealt with ifone is
topromote theeconomic development ofhandicapped regions and
implement theCommunity agricultural structure policy .Onesuch
problem isthelack ofvocational training among agricultural workers ;
incertain difficult regions such astheMezzogiorno ,training is
thekey tostructural improvement .

-20-
Further ,thelack ofeffective technico-economic advisory services
reduces the chance ofsuccessfully reforming agriculture inthese
regions ,andeven makes implementation altogether impossible .
3.3.2.3 .Athird setofproblems areduetothefact that thefinancial
resources made available bycertain Member States forthereform of
agriculture areutterly inadequate fortheagricultural development
ofthehandicapped regions andprevent effective application ofthe
common measures inthese regions .Particularly intheleast favoured
regions ,like thewest ofIreland andtheMezzogiorno ,thelack of
adequate financial resources inboth countries makes itimpossible to
implement the common measures effectively .
CHAPTER III-ADAPTATION AMD DEVELOPMENT OFTHE COMMUNITY SOCIO-STRUCTURAL
POLICY FOR AGRICULTURE
1.Inthe Community asawhole
1.1.Inthelight ofexperience gained andgiven theconstraints imposed
bythepresent situation ,certain changes must bemade ,thescope and
nature ofwhich must besuch astoensure thecontinuation ofthesocio-
structural policy inthelong term .The main guidelines ofthis policy ,
asformulated intheDirectives onagricultural reform ,arestill valid
atthe endofthefirst period ofapplication .Present trends inprices
and onthemarkets foragricultural porducts further underline theneed
toimplement the common measures .
Theamendments tothese measures should first andforemost increase
theflexibility ofthesocio-structural policy guidelines fordealing
with farmers whose main occupation isagriculture but whocannot develop
their holdings andwhocannot (orcannolonger tothesameextent )
obtain alternative orsupplementary income from non-agricultural activities
andshould reinforce thesocial alternative provided bythemeasures to
encourage thecessation offarming .

-21-
1.2.Under Directive 72/159/EEC ,Member States should beauthorized
togrant adequate investment aid toholdings which areatpresent
eligible fortheretirement annuity under Directive 72/160/EEC.
Toavoid encouraging mistaken investment and jeopardizing thebasis
ofthesocio-structural policy ,this aid ,which might beequivalent
tothat granted fordevelopment plans ,could begranted only for
investments uptoacertain ceiling .However ,thegranting ofthis
aidwould beconditional onthekeeping offarm accounts .Farmers
canthus carry onwithout suffering from excessive discrimination in
favour ofoperators able toimplement adevelopment plan ,and atthe
same time can gradually fulfil theconditions and collect the
necessary information sothat they candecide indue course what the
chances are forsubsequent development .
Further ,theproposed increases intheamounts payable under the
Directive should help overcome difficulties arising from increased
investment costs .
1.3*With respect toDirective 72/160/EEC ,thepresent economic situation
confers newimportance ontheincentives forthecessation offarming ,
both asavalid alternative forfarmers whohave reached acertain age ,
andasawayofproviding extra employment forthose who ,unable to
find non-agricultural jobs ,remain inagriculture onholdings that are
toosmall .Agreater effort should also bemade toensure that any
agricultural land that hasbeen released ismade available tofarmers
submitting adevelopment plan .unable toachieve thecomparable /anawhose operators are notyet

-22-
TheDirective inquestion should therefore bechanged toensure
that thecessation offarming isencouraged even iftheland thus
released isnotmade available toholdings forwhich adevelopment
plan hasbeen submitted ,andprovide forspecial financial incentives
sothat theDirective can fulfil itsimportant role inthestructural
adaptation ofagriculture .Special financial incentives should also
beintroduced forfarmers whohave already reached retirement ageand
could release agricultural land .
Further ,theproposed increase intheeligible amount ofthe
retirement annuity should enable theMember States tofixthe
annuities atalevel sufficiently high toconstitute avalid incentive
toearly retirement .
Thus ,intheamendments totheDirectives apositive approach should
beadopted ,both totheproblems associated with thepresent economic
situation andtothepreparations forrelaunching structural adaptation
inthefuture .With this inmind ,astudy should bemade ofhowthe
Member States could work towards thesame andbybringing certain
provisions intheir taxation orsocial security systems closer into
line with theaims oftheCommunity agricultural structures policy .
2.Inthehandicapped regions
2.1.Asmentioned above ,theexisting common measures differ tosome extent
from oneregion toanother .Ithasbecome clear ,however ,that if
account istobetaken ofregional differences andthespecific
problems ofdifficult regions intheCommunity (regions with apermanent
natural handicap ,regions where thenatural handicap could beelimi­
nated ,regions with nomedium-term economic prospects ,Mediterranean
regions ),theCommunity agricultural structures policy should bemore
far-reaching ,particularly since thespecific differences andproblems
arelikely tobeaccentuated inaneconomic recession .

-23-
Inthe situations described inparagraph II-3«3»,theCommunity
structures policy should lay more emphasis onclearing bottle necks
which considerably jeopardize the development prospects ofagriculture
indifficult regions and ondeveloping instruments and measures to
make adecisive contribution toovercoming these problems .The
structures policy should bepart ofanoverall development policy
for such regions .
2.2 .Asregards the socio-structural directives ,the Community 'sfinancial
contribution will have tobeincreased sothat certain Member States
canallocate sufficient funds forimplementing theCommunity structures
policy inthe most difficult regions ofthe Community .
Such anincrease isproposed inparticular inthe case ofIreland and
Italy ,asregards the compensatory allowance and certain other measures
under Directive 75/268/EEC .Itseems advisable ,moreover ,towiden the
limits ofeligibility for themeasures referred toinDirective
72/160/EECwhere theregions oftheWest ofIreland andtheMezzogiorno
are concerned .
With respect tothe problems inherent inagriculture inthe difficult
regions described inparagraph II-–3«3 *2.,the Commission isatthis
stage presenting apreliminary proposal for speeding uparterial and
field drainage programmes inthe West ofIreland ;these programmes should
make for aswift and lasting improvement infarm incomes inthese
areas .
The Commission will shortly propose other measures ,covering the
structural improvement ofthe Mediterannean regions ofthe Community .

-2k-
3.Financing of "the Community socio-structural policy for agriculture
3.1.The Community "budget (EAGGF Guidance and ERDF )andthebudgets ofthe
Member States (national budgets andbudgets ofthe LSnder inGermany
andregions inItaly )provide abasis onwhich toestimate themagnitude
oftheefforts made bythe Community andthe Member States toimprove
agricultural structures .In1976 ,Community and Member States'
commitments inthis respect totalled about 4000million u.a.(l).
(l)This refers toexpenditure formeasures toimprove agricultural
structures proper ,including structures ofagricultural holdings ,
infrastructure and public services connected with agriculture and
structures forthe marketing and processing ofagricultural products .
Itdoes not include expenditure onsocial schemes ,research ,advisory
services and vocational training ,forestry ,veterinary andplant
health measures anddirect income support (excluding the compensatory
allowance under Directive 75/268/EEC)oraidforproducts andmeans
ofproduction .

Ofthis total ,about 1000 million u.a.was committed for measures
toimplement the Community policy .Itincludes 340 million u.a.
committed "bythe Community forthe EAGGP Guidance Section (l)and
24 mu.a.foragricultural infrastructure projects financed bythe
ERDF ,the remainder "being commitments byMember States towards the
financing ofthese measures .Some 3000 million u.a.were allocated
tomeasures for which the Member States were solely responsible ,but
which were compatible with the limits set onnational aid bythe
Treaty (rules ofcompetition andrules laid down bythe socio –
structural Directives ofthe Community ).
Commitments for expenditure bythe EAGGP Guidance Section for 1977
amount to325million u.a.,towhich should beadded anamount derived
from the carry-over amounts committed but not used inthe past .
Current measures which are tofinanced bythe EAGGF Guidance Section
will call for longer commitments inthe years tocome .The amended
preliminary draft budget includes anamount of474 million EUA for
appropriations committed for 1978 ,andthetriennial financial
estimates provide for 450 million EUA in1979 and 534 million EUA in
1980 .Anyalteration and subsequent development ofthe Community
policy onagricultural structures will require additional appropriations
(l)Including thecarry-over ofamounts committed butnotused inthe
past .

SECOND REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OP THE COUNCIL DIRECTIVES
OP17APRIL 1972 ONTHE REFORM OPAGRICULTURE
(Part II)

-1-
Table ofcontents ofthe Becond part Paee
1
Chapter I:Implementation ofthe Directives
onthe reform ofagriculture
(Addendum tothe 197"Report ) p
1.Directives 72/159/EEC,72/160/EECand 72/I6I/EEC 2
2.Implementation ofDirective 75/268/EEC 4
Chapter II:Results ofthe implementation ofthe
Directives inthe Member States 7
1.Preliminary remarks 7
2.Application ofDirective 72/159/EEC 7
2.1.Number anddistribution ofdevelopment plans 7
2.2.Size ofholdings and expansion ofholdings with
development plans 14
2.3.T^pe offarms ,nature and magnitude ofproposed
investments 20
2.4.Investment aid for farms without adevelopment plan 33
2.5 »Directive 75/268/EEC,Title II-Compensatory allowance 36
3.Application ofDirective
3.1.Number anddistribution ofannuities and premiums
forcessation offarming 38
3.2.Size offarms given up 42
3«3 »Use made ofvacated land 44
3«4 *Summary - 46
4.Implementation ofDirective 72/16I/EEC 48
4.1.Title I(socio-economic guidance ) 48
4.2.Title II(occupational skills ) 49

-2-
PART II : APPLICATION OFTHE COMMUNITY SOCIO-STRUCTURAL POLICY FOR
AGRICULTURE
CHAPTER I:IMPLEMENTATION OFTHE DIRECTIVES ONTHE REFORM OFAGRICULTURE
(Addendum tothe 1976 Report )
1. Directives 72/159/EEC ,72/160/EECand72/l6l/EEC
1.1 In1976 theprocedure forintroducing themeasures provided for "bythe
Directives of17April 1972 wascompleted ,except forLuxembourg .
InFrance thelast measures still outstanding asregards theconditions of
Directive 72/159/EECandasregards implementation oftheprovisions already
adopted in1974 and1975 entered into force atthebeginning ofAugust 1976 .
InItaly also allthenational provisions fordirect application intheregions
were available attheendof1976 .Almost alltheregions ,however ,deemed it
necessary totranspose thenational legislation -which deals exhaustively
with thematter -into regional laws ,which ledtoafurther delay inthe
application oftheDirectives .Only afewregions adopted theobvious pro­
cedure offirst applying thenational lawand inthecourse oftime replacing
orsupplementing itwith their ownprovisions .Bythe endofJuly 1977 the
Commission hadreceived drafts from 14regions orautonomous provinces .To
date thedefinitively adopted laws foronly 3regions have been forwarded to
it(Piedmont ,Emilia-Romagna andTuscany ).
InLuxembourg ,which wasempowered under Article 23ofDirective 72/159/EK!
tomaintain theexisting national measures until 31December 1975 andhad
established atransitional system forthat period ,adraft lav;implementing
Directive rJ2/l^/WZwasnotintroduced into Parliament until November 1976 .
Inthis connection theCommission hasinitiated theprocedure provided for
inArticle 169 »

-3-
InBelgium appropriate measures onsocio-economic guidance asprovided for
inTitle IofDirective 72/l6l/EEC ,which isparticularly necessary inthat
Member State ,have still not "been adopted .Proceedings onthis subject have
been pending before theCourt ofJustice since October 1976 .
1.2 «Theamendments oradditions totheprovisions implementing theDirectives
undertaken bytheMember States between 1January 1976 and 31July 1977
have asarule been minor ones .
Attention should bedrawn inparticular tothefollowing :
-theintroduction ofincentives forthecessation offarming inthe
Netherlands ,
-theextension oftemporary measures tostimulate agricultural construction
work inDenmark ,whereby therate ofaidwasreduced tobring itmore into
line with Article 14(2)ofDirective 72/159/EEC,
-theintroduction ofatemporary measure tostimulate construction work in
theFederal Republic ofGermany ,providing foraidof10to15^uptoa
maximum ofDM15000 .–,
-theintroduction ofthespecial conditions ofaid asprovided forin
Titles IIandIVofDirective 75/268/EECinrespect ofmountain andother
less-favoured areas intheFederal Republic ofGermany ,France ,Italy ,
Belgium ,theUnited Kingdom andIreland .
TheCommission adopted atotal of95Opinions andDecisions during theperiod
under the examination procedure laid down intheDirectives .
1.3 .Thecomparable income fixed intheMember States pursuant toArticle 4of
Directive 72/159/EECdeveloped asfollows :

-4-
Member State 1973 1974
ι1975 1976 1977Π
[Deutschland17300 18800 22000 23100 24000 DM
!Prance
Iw/oParis 27700 31300 35800 FF
IItalia 3044000 3513000 4460000 Lit
INederland 20800 23400 26000 to30-6 : 27000 F1
23700
IBelgique /from 1-7 :
24700
IBelgie 262 000 318000 365000 395000 Bfrsl
ILuxembourg 274000 332 000 Lfrsl
IUnited
IKingdom
IGreat Britain 2300 2700 3000 3300 £
IN.Ireland 2070 2445 2700 3000 £
IIreland 1800 2230 2530 2900 £
IDanmark 54200 63000 73600 86600 Dkr
TheNetherlands in1976 andtheFederal Republic ofGermany in1977 started to
make full useofthepossibilities ofArticle 4(2)oftheDirective andtake
account ofdisparities between thesocial security arrangements forfarmers and
those fornon-agricultural workers .Both Member States ,asalso Italy and
Ireland earlier ,therefore fixed thecomparable income atthelower limit of
therange consistent with theobjectives oftheDirective .
2. Implementation ofDirective 75/268/EEC
2.1 .IntheUnited Kingdom provisions granting acompensatory allowance hadexisted
foralong time before theadoption ofDirective 75/268/EEC ;France andthe
Federal Republic ofGermany haddecided atthebeginning andendof1974
respectively togrant acompensatory allowance andBelgium ,Luxembourg and
Ireland introduced themeasure -insome cases retroactively -with effect
from 1975 *InItaly anappropriate lawwasadopted inMay1976 ,although
itconfined itself toempowering theregions togrant acompensatory allowance
subject tocertain conditions andlimits ,with theresult that acompensatory
allowance within themeaning ofTitle IIofthesaid Directive hasnotyet
been granted inanyregion .

-5-
Inthe individual States rules provide for the following compensatory -
allowances :
Deutschland : from 25«15 "to50*3 u.a.per LSU,
France : 35*5 u.a.per LSU upto40LSU per farm ,
Italia : from 16to52-5 u.a.per LSU uptoamaximum of35LSU.
The regions are responsible forfixing the amount within
these limits .
Belgique /Belgie :40.5 u.a.forthefirst 10LSU,
30.4 u.a.forthe next 10LSU,
Luxembourg 1976s 26.3 u.a.per LSU,increased retroactively to
United Kingdom :
Ireland :1975
197650 u.a.per LSU,
5O.9 u.a.per LSU-cattle
43 u.a.per LSU-hill sheep
33 u.a.per LSU-other sheep ,
(a)Cattle :
27.6 u.a.forthefirst 5LSU
17.3 u.a.forthe 6thto15th LSU
13.8 u.a.forthe 16th to30th LSU
uptoamaximum of518.7 u.a.per farm ,
Ob)Sheep :
28.22 -37«63 u.a.per LSU
(a)Cattle :
depending onthearea ,25.08u.a.per LSU
for thefirst 8or10LSU
15.68 u.a.forfarther LSU uptoamaximum of30or28LSU
Ob)Sheep :
28*22 to37*63 u.a.per LSU »
2.2.Allthe Member States except theNetherlands and Luxembourg have introduced
the special conditions ofaid inrespect ofthe areas which are included in
the Community list ofmountain andhill farming and less-favoured areas with­
inthemeaning ofDirective 75/268/EECforfarms implementing adevelopment
plan .Inthis way,theDirective has,inthese Member States ,brought about
adesirably stronger regionalization oftherates ofaid for implementing a
development plan .

-6-
Under Article 12ofDirective 75/268/EBCaidmaybegranted tofarms which
arenotimplementing adevelopment plan butsofaronly France hasmadefull
useofthispossibility .This provision hasalso been applied intheUnited
Kingdom ,butinpractice only forland improvement ,maintenance operations
and drainage works . 
IntheFederal Republic ofGermany responsibility forspecial aidmeasures
pursuant toArticle 12lies with theFederal Lander .Only Bavaria andBaden-
Wiirttemberg have corresponding rules onaid,thescope ofwhich isinsome
cases limited .
InItaly ontheother hand,theregions have been permitted toadopt special
aidmeasures forfarms inmountain andless-favoured areas which arenotim­
plementing adevelopment plan,within fixed limits which useArticle 12to
thefull.Almost alltheregions which have sofaradopted their ownprovi­
sions implementing theDirectives make full useofthepossibility .

-7-
Chapter II:-RESULTS OFTHE IMPLEMENTATI ONOFTHEDIRECTIVES INTHEMEMBER STATES
1. Preliminary remarks
Under theDirectives of17April 1972 andArticle 4ofthe Council Decision
of4December 1962 onthecoordination ofpolicies onthestructure ofagri­
culture ,theMember States arerequired toprovide theCommission with all
theinformation necessary forcompiling areport onthestructure ofagri­
culture and inparticular areport ontheapplication oftheDirectives .
Incompiling thepresent report andthenext one ,theCommission hastobe
content however with theincomplete data supplied bysome Member States ;
ithopes that from 1977 onwards themagnetic tapes will besubmitted for
direct analysis .
Furthermore ,until theresults ofthestructure survey areavailable ,the
Commission does nothave adequate general data onstructures ,particularly
atregional level ,towhich thedata ontheapplication oftheDirectives
canberelated .Theregional evaluation ofthedata ,indispensable asitis,
must therefore again bepostponed toalater report ,inmost cases .Atleast
then alonger andtherefore more significant period canbeexamined .
2. Application ofDirective 7>-/l59/EEC
2.1 .Number anddistribution ofdevelopment plans
Inboth 1975 and1976 about 20000development plans were approved inthe
Community ,ascompared with atotal totheendof1974 ofonly 15500 .These
figures clearly show that ithastaken along time tointroduce theDirective
and itshould benoted that this introductory period isnotyet over intwo
Member States .

-8-
Table 1-Number ofapproved development plans
IMember State I1973 1974 1975 1976 * Total
Deutschland
Franc e
Nederland1211
18424771
2398i8350
163
18498500
880
21852283 2
1043
8274
IBelgicjue / Belgie1082 1326 2408 I
United
Kingdom
Ireland
Danmark146
1200
3983479
4245
31731878 !
3000
23302503
8445
9486
ICommunity 3053 12498 19341 I2004954991
*provisional figures
Thetimetaken toimplement theDirectives hasvaried considerably fromone
Member State toanother ,mainly because theappropriate laws ,regulations
andadministrative provisions have entered intoforce atdifferent dates .
Forinstance thelowfigures forFrance canbeexplained bythefactthat
thenecessary administrative provisions werenotadopted until mid-1976 ,
which meant thattheimplementation oftheDirectives could notbegin
until then ;uptothattimeonlyafewpilot projects hadreceived aid.
Thepoorstart intheFederal Republic ofGermany in1973wasmainly dueto
thefactthattheprovisions governing aidwereadapted toCommunity lawat
theendofApril 1973-although thechange hadbeenannounced muchearlier -
anduptothenaidapplications forthatyearhadbeenmadeunder theold
provisions .

-9-
Incontrast ,the "quick "start inDenmark ,the Netherlands andIreland
isstriking ,while atthe other end ofthe scale anextremely slow start
was made inthe United Kingdom .
The large number ofdevelopment plans submitted inthe Netherlands and
Denmark isprobably due not only ,asthe example ofIreland shows ,toa
"better structural position atthestart ,"but also tothe fact that inthese
Member States acomprehensive aid programme was being offered for thefirst
time when theDirective entered into force and there was consequently much
ground tobemade up.This probably also explains why the number ofdevelop­
ment plans decreased inthose two Member States in1975 and 1976 respectively .
Table 1also shows that ,inthe six Member States which now apply theDirec­
tives ,the number ofdevelopment plans has been fairly stable since 1975 and
hardly influenced bytrends outside agriculture .
2.1.2.The differences inthe introduction ofthe Directive inthe Member States
obviously led tothe considerable differences inthe number ofdevelopment
plans during theperiod 1973 to1976 .Inabsolute terms the Federal Republic
ofGermany with 22330development plans isinfirst place -about 41$of
all development plans inthe Community uptothe endof1976 -but inre­
lative terms there are almost twice asmany development plans inthe Nether­
lands asinthe Federal Republic .Inrelative terms ,even Ireland had a
larger number ofdevelopment plans forthat period and Belgium ,intwoyears
ofapplying theDirective ,had almost asmany .
According tothe Commission 'scalculations ,thesituation was roughly as
follows onthebasis oftheutilized agricultural area (Germany =100in
each case):

-10-
Table 2-Relative number ofdevelopment plans
IMember State 1973 1974;1975
I1976 *Total
1973-1976
Deutschland
Nederland! '
100
967100
319I
| 100
139100
! 163100
230
1Belgique / Belgié111 135 91
United
Kingdom
Ireland
Danmark2
69
3855
411
171I
16
96
1247
107
189
*based onprovisional figures
Although theabove table can "beregarded only asarough guide ,itgives some
impression ofthedistribution ofdevelopment plans intheCommunity .Above
all,itshows thatonce theinitial difficulties hadbeen overcome -oronce
theinitial advantages hadfaded -therate at"which themeasures were applied
intheMember States wasfarmore uniform thanhadbeen expected ,given the
structural differences between theMember States ,andthatDirective 72/l59/iEG
cantherefore beapplied inaremarkably similar wayinthevarious Member States ,
allthings considered .Theonlyexception hereistheUnited Kingdom (l).
2.1.3 .Thedifferences intheregional distribution ofdevelopment plans intheindi­
vidual Member States in1975seematfirst sight toberelatively large (see
Annex ,Table l).
IntheFederal Republic ofGermany ,forinstance ,theratio ofthehighest
density tothelowest (Schleswig-Holstein andBavaria respectively )is210 :60.
Discounting Schleswig-Holstein ,however ,theregional distribution ofdevelop­
mentplans inthatMember State isseentoberelatively evenandthedensity
ofdevelopment plans inlesswell-structured areas (Hessen andRhineland -
Palatinate )isjust ashigh asinaLand likeLower Saxony .
(l)However ,thepicture changes whenallowance ismadef°rthenumberofover 5ha.Theratio between thedensity ofdevelopment plans inthefederal
Republic ofGermany andtheUnited Kingdom in1976isthenabout10<^55^result which isduetothemuchlarger average sizeoffarms inthe
Kingdom .

-11-
IntheNetherlands theregional distribution ofdevelopment plans appears
to "beclosely linked with themain type ofproduction ineach area .For
instance ,thenumber ofdevelopment plans ishighest intheprovinces where
horticulture (Zuid-Holland )orcattle-farming (Friesland ,Noord-Holland ,
Utrecht )predominate ,andlowest intheProvinces ofGroningen andZeeland ,
where arable farming predominates .
Thesituation issimilar inBelgium ,where large regional differences (as
regards extremes )canbeseen ,butonly inrespect ofhorticulture .Here
thehighest density ofdevelopment plans inabsolute terms -almost three
times thenational average -isfound intheProvince ofAntwerp ,where
horticulture predominates .Otherwise ,Belgium shows arelatively even dis­
tribution ofdevelopment plans ;noexplanation canbefound forHainaut having
the fewest development plans :its share isunder one–third ofthenational
average .
Asregards theUnited Kingdom ,comparisons between thevarious regions are
premature ,given thelowdensity ofdevelopment plans in1975 «Forthat one
year nomarked differences canbeseen between individual areas .
Differences inIreland arevery great ,however ,inboth ordinary andless-
favoured areas within themeaning ofDirective 75/268/E3C .Here ,ifthe
average isassigned thevalue of100 ,therange isfrom 11to247 *Thedata
available tothe Commission show noreason for these extreme differences .
InDenmark there arefairly large differences between Jylland ontheonehand
andSjaelland ontheother .Thedensity ofdevelopment plans inJylland is
more than double that inSjaelland .Within these regions ,however ,nomajor
differences canbedetected ,whilst therate ofdevelopment plans inneighbour­
ingSchleswig-Holstein isslightly higher than inJylland .

-12-
Inall,therefore ,Denmark forms asingle region which hasanevenly
distributed andabove-average number ofdevelopment plans .
2.1.4 .Although theCommission doesnotyethave separate data ontheimplemen­
tation oftheDirective inless-favoured areas fortheyear 1975 »Table 1
intheAnnex shows that there wasaremarkably large number ofdevelopment
plans inthese areas compared withthe"normal "areas ,eventhough themore
favourable aidprovisions laiddownbyDirective 75/268/EECdidnotaffect
that year .
IntheFederal Republic ofGermany ,less-favoured areas account forabout
20#ofdevelopment plans ,ascompared withtheir 30%share ofthetotal
utilized agricultural area .Apart fromSchleswig-Holstein with itsexcept­
ionally large number ofdevelopment plans ,theratio ofordinary areas to
less-favoured areas isabout 100to70.Thesameratio isfound inBelgium
between thenational average andtheProvince ofLuxembourg ,thewhole of
which isclassified asaless-favoured area .Thedifference isgreater in
Ireland .Here theratio is100 :52between thenational average andthe
less-developed areas and136 :52between theordinary areas andtheless-
developed areas .
IntheUnited Kingdom ,theonlyobservation possible atthisstage isthat
theregions withahighproportion ofless-favoured areas (Wales andScotland )
haveamuch higher density ofdevelopment plans thanEngland .
This shows thattherelative number ofdevelopment plans inareas withun­
favourable production conditions neednotbelower thaninthemorefavoured
areas .

-13-
2.1.5 .Tosummarize ,after avery slow start insome cases ,Directive 72/159/EEC
isapplied with remarkable uniformity throughout theMember States and also
within each Member State .From oneyear 'sfigures andwithout adequate
basic data onstructures ,itisnotpossible todetermine what individual
factors have influenced theregional distribution ofdevelopment plans .
Many factors areinvolved inanycase ,such asadministrative structures ,
farmers' occupational competence ,recruitment ofqualified counsellers and
theinitial structural situation .Developments sofarclearly donotcon­
firm ,however ,thewidespread fears that theDirective would beapplied only
inthe "good "areas oftheCommunity .Theavailable data regarding its
application inless-favoured areas within themeaning ofDirective 75/268/EEC
show ,onthecontrary ,that inalltheMember States inwhich theDirective
hasbeen applied during thereference period ,there isaconsiderable number
ofdevelopment plans intheless-favoured areas and ,more generally ,inthe
poorly structured areas ;insome cases thedensity isalmost ashigh as,or
even higher than ,inordinary areas .

-14-
2.2.Size offarms andexpansion offarms with development plans
2.2.1 .AsTable 3shows ,three-quarters ofallfarms intheCommunity submitting
adevelopment plan in1975 hadaUAAofmore than 20habutless than 100ha,
andthe20-50hasize category accounted formore thanhalf thetotal number
ofplans .Thepercentage offarms with more than 100hawas3-6f°,whereas
9.4$ofdevelopment plans were onfarms withlessthan 10haand11%on
farms inthe 10-20hacategory .
Thebreakdown offarms bysize categories varies considerably from oneMember
State toanother .Whereas inGermany ,France ,Ireland andDenmark more than
half ofallfarms with adevelopment plan belong tothe 20-50hasize cate­
gory andabout three-quarters -almost 901°inIreland -tothe20-100ha
category ,inBelgium 68%andintheNetherlands 47-9$ofallfarms have a
UAAofless than 20ha.InBelgium farms with less than 10haaccount for
44.6$andintheNetherlands 26.9 ofdevelopment plans ,ascompared with
under 10$inalltheother Member States .InDenmark also,27.1$ofall
development plans still come from farms withless than 20haUAA.Inthe
United Kingdom ontheother hand,over 751°ofa11fa™3wi1;h adevelopment
plan have aUAAofover 50haand451°have over 100ha.
Acomparison ofTable 3withthetypes offarming practised (Table 5) the
nature oftheinvestments made (Table 6)shows that thebreakdown ofdevelop­
ment plans according tosizecategory isonlypartly determined bythetype
offarming .Thus,although inmost Member States thepercentage offarms
under 10haisroughly equal tothepercentage offarms specializing m
horticulture orfruit-growing ,thisisnotsotrue ofBelgium ,where acon­
siderable number offarms under 10haspecialize incattle-farming (Province
ofLiege).Thispicture islargely confirmed bytheregional breakdown of
development plans bysizecategories (seeAnnex ,Table 2).Leaving aside
theProvince ofLiege ,thepercentage isabove average wherever horticulture
and other special crops are common .

-15-
Particularly striking isthe large percentage offarms inthe 10-20ha
size category inBelgium ,theNetherlands and Denmark which ,ontheavail­
able data ,cannot "beclassified inanyparticular main type ,compared with
the above-average percentage offarms over 100 hainthe United Kingdom .
The Commission does not have the necessary data torelate these varying
figures tothe number ofman-work units orthe type ofproduction for
instance .These figures would appear ,however ,toreflect varying degrees
ofintensification and differences inproductivity per labour unit .

Table 3-Breakdown ofdevelopment plans according tofarmsize category andpercentage
ofdevelopment plans which provide foranextension oftheutilized agricultural area
1975 (in7°)
Member StateNumber ofapproved 10<20ha
mimber|Percentage IIwith expanâoa– μ
Deutschland I8350> –t–
47,9 I8,8
France I163 38.7 1,8
Nederland1849 13,3 26,9
Belgvcue / 1082 13 44,6
Belgie
United '
6,9Kingdom 479
Ireland 5445(1 ) 67,7 0,2
Danmark 3173 2,3 5,7Percent .w/expansion
40,8
100
6,2
3,5
36
44,4
1.77,8
7.4
21
23,5
1.5
7,5
21,4IPercentage
, c
60,9
41.7
10,6
9,8
0
76.8
0,720<50ha #)<100ha Jover100
IPercentage Γ7^[Percentage
i[Percentage
% j^yexpansion |fi/expansion |w/expansion
1
59,1 50,6 i20,8 40,5 3,5 34,4
65 37,7 22,7 37,8 ;3,1 20,2
46,2 16,5 5,8 29,9 0,1 50
25,8 22,1 5,5 55,9 0,6 66,7
15,1
67.1
58.2
20541 I 40,6 9,4 19 11,6 32,8 57,2 45,2 18 41,7 3,61294,^
69
2,932,8
22
135,7
62,2
2,445,4
3,2
1,65,5
58,8
2,0
(1)1974 and 1975

-17-
2.2.2 .AsTable 3shows ,development plans provide foranappreciable expansion
oftheutilized agricultural area inonly twoMember States :Ireland
(67.7 f°)andtheFederal Republic ofGermany (47*9 f°)>inboth these
countries thepercentage ofdevelopment plans including expansion is
greatest inthesize category 10-20ha(76.8$and60.9$respectively )
andthepercentages intheother size categories areroughly equal .The
number offarms extending their utilized agricultural area isstrikingly
small ,ontheother hand ,intheNetherlands (13.3$),Belgium (13%)and
inparticular Denmark (2.3 %)1although inallthree Member States the
percentage offarms with aUAAofless than 20haisrelatively high .
Thebreakdown byregion (seeAnnex ,Table 2)offarms expanding inconnection
with adevelopment plan shows that inthese Member States expansion isappre­
ciable inonly afewregions :
Netherlands :Friesland (19f°)iIjsselmeerpolders (67%)tNoord-Holland (24%)5
Belgium :Hainaut (33f°)tNamur (36fo),Limburg (21%).
InDenmark ,however ,thehighest percentage anywhere is3%.
Regional differences canbeseen even intheFederal Republic ofGermany .
Forinstance ,thepercentage offarms expanding inconnection with adevelop­
ment plan isabove thenational average intheareas with relatively poor struc­
tures (Hessen 60$,Rhineland-Palatinate 59f°tBaden-Wiirt tembergf0 Saarland
76%).Itshould benoted -thereport will return tothis point -that an
appreciable percentage oftheland used fortheexpansion ofthese farms has
been vacated byfarms towhich measures pursuant toDirective 72/160/EEChave
been applied .
Insome areas this percentage isalmost 100$.
InIreland theregional averages arebetween 30and100%,butnocorrelation
canbefound since thepercentage maybeashigh as80$ormore both inre­
latively favourable andinless-favoured areas .

-18-
2.2.3 *The magnitude ofexpansion isshown mthe following table .Attention
should bedrawn tothe low percentage ofexpansion operations involving
less than 5hainthecase oftheUnited Kingdom andDenmark (22fo)twhere­
asexpansion ofthe same magnitude accounts forover 40%inGermany ,Prance ,
theNetherlands andIreland .With the exception ofGermany andIreland ,i.e.
the two Member Stater ,with the highest percentage ofdevelopment plans in­
cluding expansion ,atleast 34$ofexpansion targets are 10haormore .

-19-
Table 4-Expanding farms according tomagnitude ofexpansion ,aspercentages
Member StateExpansion per farm
<2ha 2-5ha 5-10ha >10ha
iDeutschland15,0 29,2 30,1 25,7
IFrance 12,7 30,2 22,2 34,9
INederland 26,8 21,9 18,1 34,2
IBelgique /
16,3 IBelgie 17,7 21,3 44,7
IUnited
IKingdom 6,5 16,1 9,7 67,7
IIreland 26,6 35,1 22,5 15,8
IDanmark 5,6 16,7 31,9 45,9
Except inDenmark ,farm expansion mainly takes the form ofleasing land
(nofigures areavailable forIreland ).Purchases account forthefollowing
percentages ofexpansion projects :
Deutschland 27»51°
Prance 14«3 1°
Nederland 23*6 %
Belgicrue /Belgie 15*6 $»
United Kingdom 42.3
Danmark 62.5 p»
Only intheNetherlands (30.51°and Germany (23•97°)does expansion frequently
take the form ofland purchase combined with leasing .

-20-
2.2.4 .Tosummarize ,inthree Member States -Denmark ,Belgium andtheNetherlands -
farms arebeing modernized predominantly within theexisting farm size struc­
ture (this ismost marked inDenmark )andinthese three Member States ,conse­
quently ,themain objective isfurther rationalization andintensification of
production .InIreland andtheFederal Republic ofGermany ,ontheother hand ,
expansion ofthe TJAAplays asubstantial part ,particularly onfarms inthe
size categories upto$0ha;inGermany this trend ismost marked inareas
with unfavourable farm size structures .
More conclusive regional correlations cannot yetbeestablished .
2.3 «l^pe offarms ,nature and volume ofproposed investments
2.3»1 .Thesphere most affected byDirective 72/159/EECiscattle farming (including
dairy cows )andasregards both thetype offarming practised when applications
are submitted and thenature andvolume ofproposed investments theresults are
inline with thetrend intheCommunity .
Whereas 56.6$ofallfarms specialize incattle farming ,43-8ofallfarm
development plans provide forinvestments incattle housing and71*1$for
expansion oflivestock herds *.Cattle farms account for 57*3 ofallfarms
with proposed investments ofmore than 20000u.a .perman-work unit (MWU)and
66.2%ofallfarms with proposed investments ofmore than 40000u.a .perMWU .
Compared with cattle farming ,allother types play amuch smaller part ;this
isparticularly true ofpigfattening ,which accounts foronly 6%ofall
development plans ;9*9$ofallplans provide forinvestments inthis field .
This shows that therestrictions laid down inArticle 9(2)oftheDirective
have prevented intensive meat production from expanding unchecked .Mixed farms
make up16.5$ofthose implementing adevelopment plan ,arable farms 11%and
horticultural holdings 7$>•
*most ofwhich would appear totake theform ofincreasing thecattle headage .
TheCommission hasnoexact figures .

- .21-
Table 5-Breakdown ofdevelopment plans according totype of
farming (percentage oftotal number ofdevelopment plans )
Member State"urnber of
devel opinent
plansCattle Pigs Arable|Kixed
"eutschland 8350 40,4 7,1 I 22,4 6,2 18,9
France 163 62,0 1,2 4,3 1,2 26,4
iNederland 1849 60,5 0,1 1,6 29,il 8,4
jBelgique /
1082 26,5 IBelgie 42,1 6,1 1,3 23,8
lunited
IKingdom 479 36,1 0,6 4,3 5,3 52,5
IIreland 5445 83,2 1,0 2,8 0,.2 12,4
Dannark 3173 59,316,1 ]7,1 3,9 13,3
Community 20541 56,6 6,0 11,4 7,3 16,5

-22-
-able 6–BreakcSoivn ofdevelopment plans according tonature ofinvestment
(percentage ofthetotal number ofdevelopment plans )
Member Statefarm buildings
Livestock (2) MachineryILand IPurchase !
ITotalcattle
housingpiê'
housingGlasshousesIimprovements Iofland I
Deutachland 67,4 !35,3 7(1) 4 58,8 55,7 2,2 13,5
IFrance 96,4 90,8 2,5 90,2 97,5 ! 19,6
1Nederland 98 66,7 0,6 23,9 62,6I I
67,5 II i
I 6,2 j 2,8
Belgique /
Belgie 59,1 30,8 10,4 17,8 65,9 25,5 13,0
United
Kingdom 98,7 60,3 4,6 4,6 66,2 82,7 47,0 1,5
IIreland 95 28,9 2,7 0,13 87,6 I 54,4 I
I II98,1 I 0,4
IDanmark 96,5 77,2 37 3,8 53,1 52,7 1.1 5,1
Community 82,5 43,8I
9,9 5,4 71,1 54,3 29,5 6.8
(1)
(2)estimate

-23-
AsTables 5and 6show ,there areconsiderable differences between Member
States asregards thetype offarms which have implemented adevelopment
plan andthenature ofproposed investments .Forinstance ,thepercentage
ofarable farms inGermany -22.4%-isexceptionally high ;inallthe
other Member States except Denmark (7fo)itisunder 5
Cattle farms account forunder $0 'JointheUnited Kingdom ,theFederal
Republic ofGermany andBelgium ,while Ireland hasthehighest percentage
(83«2 $).This picture changes somewhat ,however ,when thenature ofthe
investments isconsidered .InIreland ,although almost alldevelopment
plans include investments inbuildings ,only 28.9 andinBelgium 30*8 5°,
ofalldevelopment plans provide forinvestment incattle housing ,whereas
thecorresponding percentages are90*8%inFrance ,77*2 $inDenmark and
66.7%intheNetherlands .Ontheother hand ,87*6%ofalldevelopment
plans inIreland and65.9f°inBelgium provide foranincrease inthe
livestock headage .IntheFederal Republic ofGermany development plans
also provide foradditions tothelivestock headage more frequently than
forinvestments incattle housing .Asregards Ireland ,itshould beadded
that thelarge majority ofdevelopment plans cover drainage operations and
minor investments inbuildings ortheenlargement ofthelivestock headage j
this explains Ireland 'slowaverage volume ofinvestment .
Inthis connection ,theeffect ofawarding guidance premiums provided for
inArticle 10ofDirective 72/159/EECshould also beconsidered .
Table 7–Number ofguidance premiums in1975
Deutschland France Nederland Belgique United
KingdomIreland Danmark
94 75 8 1 248 621* 24
*1975 and1976

-24-
Thetable shows that 51*7 7>ofalldevelopment plans intheUnited .Kingdom
and46$inFrance concentrate onmeat production .InIreland thecorres­
ponding figure is11 whereas intheother Member States themeasure
provided forinArticle 10hasachieved less significance .Itisnotice­
able that ,inthecases ofinvestment inmeat production inBelgium ,the
Netherlands andDenmark ,thecattle headage isincreased byatleast 200
ascompared with about 50f°inGermany andIreland andonly about 30%in
theUnited Kingdom .
Considerable differences inthevolume ofinvestment incattle farming can
also beseen intheunit rates percattle housing unit andtheaverage total
investment perman-work unit .

-25- 0
Table 8-Volume ofinvestment incattle farming *
(aspercentage ofthetotal number offarms ineach Member State )
Member StateVolume ofinvestment m
cattle housing per farmVolume ofinvestment perMWU
oncattle farms
<10000 u.a .10-25000 u.a .;2S000 u.a .\20000 u.a . 20-40000 u.a .>.40000u.a.I
Deutscnlar.i 16 21 63 48,5 Γ2,3,323,2
IPrance 9,3 36 54,7 11,9 69,3 18,8
iNederland 0 4 96 5,8 54,5 39,7
België /
Belgique10 49 41 79,6 18,6 1,8
United
Kingdom42 29 29 67,6 19,7 12,7
IIreland75,7 17,3 7 77,8 20,3 1,9
Danmark 28,4 29,3 42,3 23,9 48,6 27,5
Community 27,5 20,9 51,6 53,0 30,9 16,1
Incanbeseen from theabove table that thevolume ofinvestment percattle
farm andperMWUishighest intheNetherlands ,where itissubstantially
above theCommunity average .There arevirtually nocases inthat country
ofinvestments under 25000u.a .perfarm and20000u.a./iMJ.Investments
inthis field aresmallest inIreland ,where only 7%ofallfarms have in­
vested over 25000u.a .incattle housing and77*8 $ofallcattle farms show
investments ofless 20000u.a./MWU.IntheUnited Kingdom ,Belgium andDen­
mark also ,however ,themajority offarms have invested less than 25000u.a./
farm inlivestock housing andinmost cases theinvestment perMWUinthe
United Kingdom andBelgium isunder 20000u.a .
*Forthevolume ofinvestment inother types offarming ,seeAnnex ,table 4a

-26-
Pigfarming isofmajor importance only inDenmark .Inthat country 16>
ofthefarms specialized inpigfarming when they submitted applications
and37foofalldevelopment plans provide forinvestments inthis field .
InBelgium 10.4$ofdevelopment plans provide forinvestments inthis
sector ,butinalltheother Member States thecorresponding figure is
well below 10%orvirtually nil (Netherlands ).
About 34 ofallhorticultural holdings which have submitted adevelopment
plan areintheFederal Republic ofGermany ,23.5%intheNetherlands and
19 inBelgium .IntheNetherlands horticultural holdings account for29$,
inBelgium 26.5 inGermany 6 IntheUnited Kingdom thecorresponding
figure is5$andin "theother Member States itisunder 5%talthough regional
concentrations exist ,sothat intheregions concerned thepercentage iscon­
siderably higher (e.g. Sjaelland inDenmark ).
Thedifferences inthepercentages ofspecialized farms andmixed farms would
appear tobelargely due tothevarying natural factors andagricultural struc­
tures .This isexemplified bytheexceptionally high percentage ofcattle farms
inIreland ,thehigh concentration ofhorticultural holdings incertain areas in
theNetherlands ,Belgium andDenmark andtheexceptionally high percentage of
mixed farms intheUnited Kingdom (53fo)where there appears tobeacorrelation
with thelarge number offarms with more than 100ha.
Asregards thenature oftheproposed investments (seeTable 6fordetails ),
itshould benoted that -except inBelgium andtheFederal Republic of
Germany -over 95f°ofalldevelopment plans provide forinvestments infarm
buildings .InBelgium thecorresponding percentage isonly 59*1 f°andin "the
Federal Republic ofGermany 67*4 f>*Inthese twoMember States ,therefore ,
aconsiderable percentage ofdevelopment plans seem tobeconfined tostock
investments .

-27-
Land improvement operations areparticularly important inIreland where
almost alldevelopment plans provide for such investments .IntheUnited
Kingdom thecorresponding percentage is47f°iwhereas such investments in
theNetherlands ,Belgium ,Denmark andGermany areinsignificant ornil .
Investments fortheexpansion oftheutilized agricultural area (purchase of
land )would seem tobesubstantial only inGermany ,Belgium andDenmark .
Figures arenotavailable forPrance ,although inview oftherelatively
high proportion offarms which arebeing extended under adevelopment plan
inthat Member State ,itmaybeassumed that purchase ofland plays asig­
nificant role .
2.3.2 .Asregards thesize ofinvestments perman-work unit ,thepicture varies
considerably from oneMember State toanother .Investments under 20000u.a .
account foronly 18/£inthecase oftheNetherlands andDenmark ,ascompared
with 52 inGermany andover 75%inBelgium andIreland .Inother words ,
thenumber ofdevelopment plans with investments under 20000u.a .perman-
work unit isexceptionally small inthefirst group ofMember States and
exceptionally high inBelgium andIreland .Inthetwolatter countries ,
however ,there arevery fewdevelopment plans (under 2%)inwhich thevolume
ofinvestment perman-work unit exceeds 40000u.a .Thehighest percentage of
development plans with investments ofover 40000u.a .istobefound inthe
Netherlands (30%)andDenmark (26%).Then comes Germany with 17%andthe
United Kingdom with 10%.With regard tothemagnitude ofinvestment perMWU
under development plans ,bymain type offarming atthetime oftheapplication ,
see table 4"bannexed .

-28-
Table 9-Breakdown ofdevelopment plans according tothemagnitude
ofinvestment per man-work unit ($)
Member StateInvestment per man–work unit
[^20000u.a. 20000 –4-0000 fit# !^40000 U.a.
DeutschlandI ■■ ■ ..– .i
52,3 30,9 16,8
IPrance 22,7 60,1 17,2
ITTederlanl 18,2 51,8 30,-
IBelgique 86,1 12,2 1»7
United
Kin/jiom 66,4 24,- 9,6
IIreland 76,6 21,5 1,9
Danulal'k 21,-
I53,- 26,-
Ifthesize ofinvestment isrelated tothe farm ,thepicture issomewhat
different ,although theNetherlands still hasthelowest percentage of
development plans with small investments andthehighest percentage in
the group with thehighest investment .

-29-
Table 10-Breakdown ofinvestment plans according to
size ofinvestment perfarm (%)
Member StateInvestment pel *farm
^25OOO u.a .
125OOO ~
50000 u.a .50000 -
75000 u.a750pO -
,100000 u.a .τ ·
£100000 U.a.
Deutschland 33 28 21 10τ
8
IFrance 4 44 32 11 9
INederland 2 22 35 20 21
IBelgique 48 29 13 7 3
United
Kingdorç 40 21 8 7 , 24
IIreland 64 30 4 ! 1
I
Danmark 1846 |
I22I
11 3
τ
Adifferent situation arises inthecase oftheUnited Kingdom where onthe
onehand ahigh percentage ofdevelopment plans provide forsmall investments
perlabour unit (66%)andperfarm (40fo)butontheother hand there isa
particularly high percentage (24%)ofdevelopment plans with investments of
over 100000u.a .perfarm .InBelgium andIreland aparticularly high per­
centage ofdevelopment plans provide forsmall investments perfarm andper
man–work unit ,which isentirely inline with thefarm size structure inthose
Member States andreflects thelarge proportion ofsmall farms with relatively
modest investments .Inthecase oftheUnited Kingdom ,however ,since alarge
percentage offarms arelarge ,investments perfarm tend tobehigh ,andsince
farms have alarge number ofman–work units theinvestment /man–work unit ratio
isrelatively modest .

-30-
There isalso acertain relationship between the size ofinvestment per
man-work unit andthe type offarming ,"butthe trend isbynomeans the
same inallthe Member States .Inthecase ofarable farms ,thepercentage
ofdevelopment plans with relatively small investments inGermany ,France
andtheNetherlands isconsiderably above the average inthose Member States ,
i.e. the investments are generally smaller here .The opposite isthe case
inDenmark ,however ,which indicates that particularly large investments are
made inmachinery onarable farms there .
Inthe case ofhorticultural holdings also there isarelatively high per­
centage ofdevelopment plans with fairly small investments ,which canbeseen
inparticular inthe Member States with arelatively high percentage ofsuch
holdings (Netherlands ,Belgium ,Germany andDenmark ).Inthecase ofcattle
farms ,however ,the percentage ofdevelopment plans with small investments
inGermany ,Prance ,theNetherlands and Belgium isbelow thenational average }
inthe other Member States cattle farms donotdiffer noticeably from other
types offarming inthis respect .
Thesituation issimilar with regard topig farms .InGermany and above all
inDenmark there are few plans with small investments ,whereas intheother
Member States there are nospecial characteristics .
2.3»3 »During the reference period ,additional national aidwithin the meaning of
Article 14(l)ofDirective 72/159/EEC wasgranted tofarms implementing a
development plan inall the Member States except Denmark .Inthe Netherlands ,
but also inthe United Kingdom and Ireland ,such additional aidapplies ex­
clusively orprimarily toland improvement ,inparticular drainage ;inthe
Federal Republic ofGermany and Belgium ,ontheother hand ,most aid was for
investments inconstruction ,but some also wasforland purchase .Whereas in
Belgium such aidisgranted inrespect ofthat part ofthe investment exceed­
ing40000u.a.perman-work unit^Ireland ,theUnited Kingdom andtheNether­
lands ahigher rate ofaidisgranted .IntheFederal Republic ofGermany ,
acombination ofthese twopossibilities applies ,although itmay bepointed
out here that inthat country the farmers 1own contribution ,which isabove
the Community average (seeTable 12),somewhat reduces thehigh additional
national aid interms ofthetotal investment under adevelopment plan .

-31-
Table 11–Percentage offarm development plans which have
received additional aidunder Article 14(l)«
according totype offarming -1975
Percentage
Member State01tue
total number
ofdeveloping
farmsCattle Pigs
(%)Horticulture Arable
(*)Mixed .
tø)
Deatschland 38 48.6 6,9 5,6 12.1 24,5
INederland 24 77,2 10,5 3 9,3
Belgique /*
België
United
Kingd om100 36.1 0,9 5,2 4,8 52,0
Ireland 76 83,5 0,6 0,2 2,6 12,7
*nofigures available
2.3*4 -The figures regarding farmers' own contributions tothe financing ofthe
proposed investments show condiderable differences from one Member State
toanother .Attention should bedrawn inparticular tothe high percentage
(over 75%)ofdevelopment plans towhich thefarmer contributes less than
20%intheNetherlands ,Belgium andDenmark andthehigh percentage to
which thefarmer contributes over 30foinGermany andFrance .Whether the
similarly high figure forIreland iscomparable isdoubtful ,inview ofthe
different financing system .

-32-
Table 12–The farmer 'spercentage contribution
iMember State <20$ I20-30% 30%
Deutschland 12 40" ■ ■'F <r in--– – «
48
IFrankreich 28 33 39
INiederlande 83 10 7
IBelgien 76 24
Vereinigtes •
Königreich
IIrland 8 6 86
Dänemark 89 7 4
Nofigures were available fortheUnited Kingdom ,thereason being that
theaid takes the form exclusively ofcapital aid andthere are no
statistics astowhether andtowhat extent loans areobtained forthe
financing ofinvestments .Although there arecertain differences in
evaluating thefarmers 1owncontribution inthevarious Member States ,
this does notexplain thelarge differences between theNetherlands ,
Belgium andDenmark onthe onehand andtheother Member States onthe
other .

-33-
2,4 *-r.vesr-.or.t nidfor fstr^s without adeveloment olan
2«4«1 *Directive 72/159/EZCempowers theI'enber States
-ur.ier thefirst subparagraph ofArticle 14(2),togrant tofarms
vhich arenotimplementing adevelopment plan ,investment aid l«ss
than theamount granted tothose implementing adevelopment
plan ,provided that theinterest remaining payable byth^|bwnpficiary
isatleast 5
–under Article 14(2)(a),foratransitional period offiveyears to
grant tofarms notimplementing adevelopment plan thesqpe aidas
tothose .implementing adevelopment plan .
Table 13-Number offarms which have received investment aidand
average magnitude ofinvestment perfarm (inUA)
I 1 I I Farms vrithout development plan
Member State1rarms with aevelopment
| planFirst sub
ofArticlparagraph
e14 (2)Article 14(2)(a)
NumberSize of
investmentNumberSize of
investment-^r ■ ■■'-r–
ITumberSize of I
investment I
Jeutschland 8350 45000 233 +15000 (2)-■T " "■
1931 (12000)(l)
Nederland 1849 57000 2145 9344
iBelgique 1082 15000 2803 14187 526 12078
United
Xingdom
Ireland479
5445ca. (2)
45000
ca. /-y1600048941
7794525
2203 3825 2c49
Danmark 3173 47000 3974 12431
(1)Upper limit }theaverage amount islikely tobeconsiderably less
(2)estimate

-34-
2.4»1 «All the Member States have made use,even ifonly toasmall extent ,ofthe
authorization provided forinthefirst subparagraph ofArticle 14(2).
Whereas inthe Netherlands and Denmark measures are mainly ofashort-term
exceptional nature for the promotion ofconstruction work ordrainage and
inthe Federal Republic ofGermany are primarily for the assistance of
part-time farms and mergers ,general aid systems exist inBelgium ,the
United Kingdom and Ireland .
The low average investments inthe United Kingdom and Ireland both in
relation tothe other Member States and compared with investments infarms
implementing adevelopment plan are noteworthy .Most striking ,however ,
are the very numerous cases ,associated with the low volume ofinvestment
inthe United Kingdom ,which suggest that investment aid takes the form
ofasubsidy inrespect ofinvestments required atregalar intervals .
Itwill "beseen from theregional distribution (see Annex Table 3)that
inthe Netherlands this distribution isconsiderably more even than that
ofdevelopment plans and inBelgium insome regions inwhich the number
ofdevelopment plans isdisproportionately low,the number ofcases which
have received the lower rate ofaid pursuant tothefirst subparagraph of
Article 14(2),isdisproportionately high .TheProvinces ofHainaut ,
Liege and Namur account for 20%ofalldevelopment plans inBelgium and
about 65i°ofallcases which have received aidunder thefirst subparagraph
ofArticle 14(2).

-35-
2.4*2 .Temporary aidprovided forinArticle 14(2)(a)isgranted only inthe
Federal Republic ofGermany ,Belgium andIreland .Inthe Federal Republic
ofGermany and Ireland ,ascan beseen from the average magnitude ofinvest­
ment ,investment aidisvery limited ,whereas inBelgium the system isfully
equivalent tothe system ofaidfor farms implementing adevelopment plan .
The number ofcases oftransitional aidthus exceeds the number ofdevelopment
plans inthethree above-mentioned provinces ,but ,inthe Liege region at
least ,the average investment infarms with adevelopment plan isthought
tobelower than infarms which have received temporary aid.Here again
these three provinces account for 65foofallcases which have received tran­
sitional aid..Inthe Province ofLuxembourg which initsentirety is
classified asaless-favoured area ,however ,there areless than half as
many cases oftransitional aid asofdevelopment plans .
InIreland about two-thirds ofall transitional aidisgranted tofarms in
less-favoured areas and inthe Federal Republic the corresponding figure
isabout 40%•Themeasure isconcentrated onBavaria (about 46 Hessen
(about 11fo)and Lower Saxony (about 8%).Intheother Lander this measure
plays only asubordinate role .

-36-
2.5.Directive 75/268/EEC,Title II-Compensatory allowance
Compensatory allowances provided forbyDirective 75/268/EECwere granted
inGermany ,the United Kingdom ,Ireland and Prance in1975 andinBelgium
in1976 ,backdated to1975 *
In1975 "therecipients ofacompensatory allowance were the following :
Germany 88071 farms with autilized agricultural area of1462 308 ha
United
Kingdom 42477 farms with autilized agricultural area of6018 821 ha
Ireland 27691 farms with autilized agricultural area of 688 820 ha
Belgium 11627 farms .
Thefigures supplied inrespect ofIreland are incomplete ,since they relate
only tothe farms towhich acompensatory allowance was actually paid in1975 »
whereas some ofthe allowances approved were not paid until 1976 .
U.A. average per farm
Germany 28319 264 322 U.A.
Prance 54142320 255U.A.1
Belgium 7720 000 660U.A.
United
Kingdom JO752 942 1663 U-A-
Ireland * 11139 975 402 U.A.
The number ofLSU inrespect ofwhich acompensatory allowance was granted and
the average compensatory allowance per LSU in1975 were asfollows :
LSU UA/LSU
Germany 939 875 30
Prance 1524 964 35Ô
Belgium 290 000 28.6
United Kingdom 1854 158 37.17
Ireland * 435 105 25.6
Estimate
*allowances paid in1975 (for1975 atotal of20626845 UAwasapproved foratotal of986 606 LSU (anaverage allowance of20.88 u.a.per L3UJ .

-37-
Itshould beborne inmind v/hen considering the average allowance per LSu
that intheareas referred toinArticle 3(4)and (5)thecompensatory
allowance fordairy cows maynot exceed 80$ofthe amount forother Live­
stock units ;that rule does not appear for instance inthe United Kingdom
which does not grant anallowance fordairy cows ,but strongly influences
the average amount in.for example ,Belgiiua .

-38-
3.Application ofDirective 72/160/EEC
3*1»"u=b?r ^nddistribution ofannuities andpremiums forthecessation of
Incontrast toDirective 72/159/EECwhich hadrequired considerable amendments
oradjustments tothenational aidsystem inalltheMember States ,measures
already existed insixMember States toencourage thecessation offarming ,
which insome cases needed alittle adjustment tobring them into line with
Directive 72/16O/EEC.With theexception ofIreland ,therefore ,there were
nospecial initial difficulties inintroducing theDirective andconsequently
amore definitive assessment canbeobtained from theavailable da"ta .
3.1 .1.Between 1974 and1976 annuities orpremiums were granted toabout 37300farm­
ersintheCommunity whoretired early from farming andreleased their land
forthe expansion ofother farms .
Table 14-Number ofrecipients ofthe annuity orpremium
Member State 1974■■ I
1975 !|197T* I
!Deutschland c&.5000 ?723t
5870 (
IFrance 2550 6713 64él ;
IN'eierlani 182 262 ca.25O
IBelgique 228 387 321
ILuxembourg 119 39
'Jnited
Kingiom160 376 >44
Ireland 113 131
*provisional figures

-19 -
Table 15- Application ofDirective 72/160/EEC " 1975
Recipients Area released Farms taking over tn'
released3areaUpe made ofthe area released
,Member
)State Numberofwhich
eligibleTotal
haRecipient
haArea
released
per 1000
ha U.AANumberofwhich
v.'ith de-
velopment
planArea
perfaim ■
haArt .5
(1)(a)
haArt.5
(i)(b)
haArt.5
(2)
haArt .S
(3.)
ha
|DAnnuity
< Premium6200
1523219 71297
6628*12,5
6,2616874
1426 !2891
13334,2
4,615205
6154190
11055637
209265
pAnnuity
1Premium
Ï6713)
225)112 949 16.16 4 10690 8 7,79 144 1048 82760
InlAnnuity
i Premium104)
158)3 1i»3 4,!> 1 342 31 -85!) 297
IBAnnuityPremium322)
65)1 2892 7,15 2 735 2 3,7 18 2600
«
»kAnnuity
' Premium93)
26)1126 9,5 9 .316 3,5 31 1095
I^Annuity
Premium
1362)
14)2 11145 29,6 0,6 365 8 2?,5 380 396 10369
3
I Annuity
1 Premium
'1U)
2)9
!1775 15,7 0,4 12 12 12,5 1S0 162r;
#Inthecase ofLower Saxony ,Hessen andRhineland-Palatinate figures areavailable only astothenumber (457)ofpremiums .
Thefigures therefore relate toonly 1C66 premiums .

-40-
In1975i "theyear covered "bythis report ,andtheonly oneforwhich de­
tailed figures areavailable ,there were about 15700cases ,which were
unevenly distributed between theMember States (seeTable 15).InPrance
andtheFederal Republic ofGermany alone 12913annuities forthecessation
offarming were granted in1975 »although Luxembourg with 93annuities would
appear tohave thehighest figure inrelative terms .IntheNetherlands ,
theUnited Kingdom andIreland there were farfewer cases ,although inthe
case ofIreland itshould beborne inmind that themeasures provided for
bytheDirective were completely new forthat country andobviously re-
cpiired arunning-in period (l).This picture isconfirmed ifthearea of
thevacated land isconsidered :in1975 9haper 1000 haUAAwere vacated
under theDirective inLuxembourg ,6haintheFederal Republic ofGermany ,
4hainFrance and 2hainBelgium .IntheNetherlands thefigure was 1ha
per1000 haUAA ,ascompared with 0.6haintheUnited Kingdom and0.4hain
Ireland .Except intheNetherlands ,measures were applied mainly tofarmers
aged over 55years .Only intheNetherlands were there substantially more
recipients aged under 55than over .
Asregards theregional distribution (2),there areinsome cases considerable
differences within theMember States ,which often reflect thedifferent farm
size structures ofdifferent areas .IntheFederal Republic ofGermany ,for
instance ,Bavaria accounts foralmost 25$ofallrecipients ofannuities or
premiums .Thearea released inthat Land ,however ,totals only 4haPer1000 ha
UAA ,ascompared with 10hainSchleswig-Holstein which accounts foronly 7i°
ofallcases .Atthebottom ofthe "density "list istheSaarland with 2.1ha
per 1000 haUAA .
InFrance therange isfrom 7to1haper1000 (Pays delaLoire ,Corsica ).
Ofthe22planning regions 13areonly slightly above orbelow thenational
average .Alltheregions ofthenorth-east ,however ,(planning regions Nos
11,21,22,23,31,41(2)areconsiderably below thenational average .This
applies also totheregion ofLanguedoc .
(1)Forinstance intheFederal Republic inthefirst twoyears ofapplication
ofthemeasure (19^9 and -1970 )altogether only 2350annuities forthe
cessation offarming were granted andabout 0.5haper1000 hawasreleased .
(2)SeeAnnex ,Table 5*

-41-
IntheNetherlands theprovinces ofLimburg andZuid-Holland account for
thelargest percentages (31and18$respectively )while theprovinces of
Groningen ,Utrecht andZeeland together make uponly about 8$ofthecases .
InBelgium cases arethinly "butevenly distributed .Inthat Member State
the "density "ranges from 3»2haper1000 haintheProvince ofLuxembourg
to1.1haintheProvince ofAntwerp .
IntheUnited Kingdom ,England accounts forabout 48*9 i°iWales 8.3%,
Scotland 32$andNorthern Ireland about 10.4
InIreland 65%ofallcases areintheless-favoured areas inthewest .
3.1.2 .There arestriking differences inhowthemeasures operate inthevarious
Member States .Whereas intheFederal Republic ofGermany ,Prance ,Belgium ,
Luxembourg andtheUnited Kingdom thenumber ofapproved cases isroughly
equal tothenumber ofapplications submitted ,intheNetherlands thepro­
cessing ofapplications would appear totake roughly twoyears onaverage ,
which means that allthecases approved in1975 were applications submitted
in1973 or1974 .Ofthe1530 applications submitted between 1972 andthe
endof1975 ,only 855 hf-dbeen dealt with bytheendof1975 »and in224
ofthese cases (about 25%)thetime-limit hadexpired ortheapplication
hadbeen withdrawn .Almost 45 ofallapplications hadnotbeen settled
bythe endofthat year .InIreland also there isaconsiderable backlog .
There isalso abacklog inPrance ,although here theapplications relate
only tothe lump-sum premium .
InPrance almost allapplications fortheannuity forthecessation of
farming were approved .IntheFederal Republic ofGermany ,Belgium and
Luxembourg therefusal rate wasbetween 12and15»5 %°fallapplications
dealt with ,which canbedescribed asquite normal .IntheNetherlands
33•75 ofallapplications were refused with theresult that ofthe855
dealt with between 1972 and1975 "theannuity orpremium was approved in
only 48.9%cases ,more than 80foofwhich were farmers aged under 60years .

-42-
IntheUnited Kingdom therefusal rate was35*17 7°'InBelgium andPrance -
incontrast toapplications fortheannuity forthecessation offarming -
33*75 and36.9$respectively oftheapplications forapremium were refused .
Inthis connection Ireland wascompletely outofthepicture :71*61 $of
allapplications foranannuity andabout 95i°ofallapplications forthe
premium were refused ,which canonly really beexplained bythedifficulties
experienced byIreland inintroducing thenewmeasure .
Thereasons forthevery high number ofrejected applications would appear
tolieinthefact that applicants could nolonger beregarded asfarmers
practising farming astheir main occupation orthat they exceeded thefarm
sizes orincome limits laid down bytheMember States .Neither reason
completely explains thehigh refusal rate intheNetherlands ,however ,
where themeasures topromote early retirement from farming have clearly
been applied inarather restrictive way ,aconclusion -towhich this
report will return -which isendorsed ifone considers the size ofthe
farms whose applications were approved .Nonetheless ,even intheNether­
lands 40%ofallrefusals involved farms which exceeded theincome limit
laid down .
Only intheFederal Republic ofGermany ,Ireland and ,inparticular ,the
United Kingdom have theconditions regarding theuseofthereleased land
played asignificant role intherefusal ofapplications .InFrance this
ground forrefusal iscommon only inthecase ofthelump-sum premium '
(about 92ioofallrefused premiums ).
Size offarms given up
Table 15supplies information ontheaverage size ofthefarms given up,
which ranges from 4*5hain "theNetherlands to29*6 haintheUnited Kingdom .
Itcanbeseen that thedifferences between theFederal Republic ofGermany ,
France ,theUnited Kingdom andIreland largely reflect thedifferences in
farm size structures inthose Member States .This also applies tothe
regional differences within those Member States (seeAnnex ,Table 5)*

-43-
Luxembourg ,Belgium andinparticular theNetherlands present ,however ,
adifferent picture inwhich the exceptionally small average size of
farms given upiscompletely outside the Community scale .Whereas the
figures show that Luxembourg and above all Belgium have fixed very low
limits for the recipient 'sincome orthe size offarms and that these
limits are quickly exceeded even byvery small farms -inBelgium the
manner ofimplementing themeasures provided forinArticle 14(2)(a)
ofDirective 72/l59/SECwould appear toplay some part –thesituation
intheNetherlands canbeexplained ,asTable 16shows ,bythefact that
themeasures have been confined largely tohorticulture (about 61$of
allcases ).Infour provinces ofthat Member State (Utrecht ,Zuid-Holland ,
Noord-Brabant andLimburg ),which together account forabout 58i"ofall
approved cases ,the average size offarm isbetween 1.44 and 2.19 ha;the
average size intheProvinces ofFriesland andDrente ,inwhich about 1^.6 /£
ofthefarms given uparelocated ,isover 10ha(12haand 11.4hares­
pectively ).IntheNetherlands theaverage percentage offarms with 3ha
orless is65.6 only inthe abovementioned provinces ofFriesland and
Drente dosuch farms account forless than 25 The percentage offarms
releasing over 10haisthelowest inthe Community with only 21.4 %•
The corresponding percentage issimilarly low only inBelgium .
Table 16-Breakdown ofrecipients ofannuities and premiums
according tofarm size category
Member State Number <10ha 10to<20ha À 20ha
I Annuity I5692 41,9 40,3 17,8
IDeutschlandj ,Premium 1066 86,2 11,2 2,6
IPrance 6988 42,7 30,0 26,9
INederland 262 78,6 * 21,4
IBelgique /
24,6 Belgie 387 73,6 1,6
ILuxembourg 86 31,4 48,84 '7'
IUnited Kingdom 376 11,97 25,53 62,5
IIreland 113 15,04 61,06 23,89
l)Assessed forthis table 2)Comprising :43«9 f° Iha,14-8i<>1-\2ha,
6.9 %2-<3ha.
3)Comprising :13»56%^50ha.

-44-
Intheother Member States over $0%ofallapproved applications concern
farms which hadover 10haandintheUnited Kingdom well over 60$which
hadover 20ha.Thedifference toheseen intheFederal Republic of
Germany between theannuity andthepremium canbeexplained largely by
thefact that itistheonly Member State inwhich part-time farms are
covered toasignificant extent bythelump-sum premium andalso the
level ofthepremium isnolonger asufficient incentive tofarmers
farming over 10haastheir main occupation .Thestrikingly small number
ofapplications from farms under 10hainIreland (15.O4 %)canlargely
beexplained bythefact that inthis farm size category asalso inthe
sphere covered byDirective 72/159/EECtheexisting social legislation
runs counter tostructural improvement measures .
Fortheregional differences within individual Member States ,seeTable 6
annexed .
3.3 .Use made ofreleased land
3«3»1 »InalltheMember States except Ireland andtheNetherlands almost allthe
released land istransferred directly toother farms .InIreland onthe
other hand the State Land Commission hastaken over alltheland released ,
buthadnotre-allocated itdefinitively bytheendof1975 *In "theNether­
lands thepartially State-run SBLhastaken uponly 25i°ofthereleased land ,
although ,asinIreland ,this land agency would have been entitled under
Article 5(3)topurchase orlease alltheland .
Only asmall area ofland hasbeen allocated fornon-agricultural usepursuant
toArticle 5(l)(*>)oftheDirective ,accounting foronly 3«5$ "th®re_
leased land intheUnited Kingdom andabout 2.5%intheNetherlands and
Luxembourg .

-45-
Theusemade ofthereleased land byfarms implementing adevelopment plan
pursuant toDirective 72/159/EECshows that in1975 virtually nodevelopment
plans were implemented inthis connection inFrance andLuxembourg andin
Ireland over 90 ofthereleased land hadnotyetbeen allocated .These
three Member States areconsequently excluded from examination inthe
reference period .
Asregards theother Member States ,itcanbeseen that asignificant pei>-
centage ofland (27«4%)went tofarms with adevelopment plan only in
Germany ,andthat there isasubstantial difference between annuities and
premiums forthecessation offarming .Theformer accounts for21.3%
andthelatter 92.86
Itisnoteworthy that although only 3.5%oftheannuities granted satisfy
theconditions forfinancial contribution "bytheCommunity ,21.3%ofthe
area wasused pursuant toArticle 5(l)(a)oftheDirective .About 17*1
ofall farms taking over theland released under theannuities scheme are
implementing adevelopment plan ;inthecaae ofthepremium thecorrespond­
ingpercentage isabout 93 Itcan "beseen from acomparison with Table 3
that about 72$ofalldevelopment plans providing foranexpansion ofthe
utilized agricultural area have taken over land released through theannuity
andabout 33%land which hasbeen released through thepremium system .
Although thedensity ofdevelopment plans isfarhigher intheNetherlands
than intheFederal Republic ,and isabout twice ashigh inaprovince such
asFriesland inwhich large agricultural areas have been released ,in1975
inthat Member State noland inrespect ofwhich payment hadbeen made under
thecessation offarming rules wastransferred toafarm implementing ade­
velopment plan ,although theopposite might have been expected from thecon­
ditions onthe use ofland which are far more restrictive than inthe Federal
Republic andalthough this country hasaland agency whose function isto
reallocate the land .

-46-
InBelgium andtheUnited Kingdom also virtually none ofthereleased
land served toexpand farms with adevelopment plan ,which intheUnited
Kingdom canheexplained bythesmall number ofdevelopment plans in1975 .
3.3.2 .Except intheUnited Kingdom where land released byafarmer must betrans­
ferred toanother farm -which hasbeen the case -thereleased land has
been divided up-insome cases considerably -inalltheMember States .
Intheindividual Member States theratio offarms given uptofarms which
have taken over land isasfollows :
Deutschland
France
Nederland
Belgique /
Belgie
Luxembourg
United Kingdom 1:1
Major regional differences are tobeseen only intheFederal Republic
ofGermany .Forinstance ,theratio intheBaden Retirement Fund area
is1:6,Rhineland-Palatinate 1:5*6andUpper Bavaria 1:1«45 »
InalltheMember States forwhich relevant data areavailable ,except
Ireland ,most ofthereleased land hasbeen leased toother farms even
where theland as,forinstance ,inLuxembourg ,hadhitherto been owned
bythefarmer .Forthedetails oftheownership situation andthe type
oftransfer ,seetable 7annexed .
3.4 *Tosummarize ,thetwointer-related objectives ofDirective 72/160/EEC,
i.e. tocreate anacceptable alternative forfarms unable orunwilling
todevelop and toreallocate thereleased land tofarms implementing a
development plan within themeaning ofDirective 72/l59/EEC »were ful­
filled during thereference period 1975 neither totheextent intended
nor-astheresults oftheapplication ofDirective 72/159/FECclearly
show -tothe extent that would have been desirable .Annuity 1:2.9
Premium 1:1.34
1:2.07
1:1.3
1:1.93
1Î2.7
1:1

-47-
Itshould ,however ,be "borne inmind thatmthree Member States the
objectives could notbecoordinated in1975 because Directive 72/l59/EEC
hadnot then been implemented orbecause only afewdevelopment plans had
been submitted (Prance ,Luxembourg andtheUnited Kingdom ).That reason
is,however ,nolonger valid forBelgium andtheNetherlands .Ontheother
hand ,theexample oftheFederal Republic ofGermany shows that good use
canbemade ofDirective 72/160/EEC-albeit nottotheanticipated extent -
toeffect astructural improvement within themeaning ofDirective 72/l59/SEC»
inparticular asregards thegranting oflump sumpremiums .
Itcanalso beseen ,however ,that theDirective 'spotential impact hasbeen
reduced ,notonly bythelowannuities andpremiums ,thetooloweligibility
ceilings andthevirtual debarring offarmers aged over 65,butalso bythe
administrative procedures inthematter .Innone oftheMember States which
have aState orpartially State-run land agency hasthis instrument forthe
reallocation ofland yetbeen used toestablish thedesired coordination
between theobjectives andthus increase the structural improvement aspect
oftheDirective .Furthermore ,there would appear insome Member States
tobeaclear connection between shortcomings ofland law (andinparticular
oflease lav;)andtheeffectiveness oftheDirective .
Theeffectiveness oftheDirective also appears tobeconnected with the
procedure fortheapproval offarm development plans .This premise is
supported bythelarge number ofapproved development plans inBelgium
andtheNetherlands which areconfined tointensifying production andthe
especially large number ofplans intheNetherlands which have evidently
pursued such intensification beyond thelevel required forattaining the
comparable income ,without atthesame time extending theutilized agri­
cultural area .Thepremise isalso borne out ,however ,bythefact that
inDenmark ,forinstance ,developing farms have hadpractically norecourse
tothefree land market because acceptance oftheintensification provided
for inthedevelopment plans hasreduced thepressure onfarms toseek a
better income byfirstly extending their land .

-48-
Ontheother hand .,itcanbeseen that intheFederal Republic of
Germany ,Prance andLuxembourg ,which have made theannuity forthe
cessation offarming more ofareal alternative forfarmers whodonot
orcannot attain the comparable income andhave setthe limits sothat
afair number offarmers practising farming astheir main occupation
actually benefit from themeasure ,theannuity forthecessation of
farming hasbeen anotable success ,largely irrespective ofthegeneral
economic trend .TheDirective hascontributed significantly tothede­
velopment offarms pursuant toDirective 72/159/EECintheonly oneof
theabovementioned Member States which fully applied that Directive in
1975 .
4»Implementation ofDirective 72/161/EEC
4*1 *Asemphasized inlast year 'sreport ,theimplementation ofDirective
72/161/EECbegan considerably later andmore slowly than theother
Directives inquestion .That applies inparticular totheintroduction
ofsocio-economic guidance ,thedeadline forwhich -31December 1973 -
hadclearly been tooshort .Consequently ,in1975 »except intheNetherlands
where socio-economic guidance within themeaning oftheDirective hadbeen
introduced along time before theDirective wasadopted ,only theUnited
Kingdom andtheFederal Republic ofGermany hadbegun orcontinued tode­
velop asocio-economic guidance service jthus ,figures ontheimplement­
ation ofthecorresponding section ofDirective 72/161/EECareavailable
only forthose twoMember States .
Attheendof1975 »o;fGermany 'sproposed total of540socio-economic counsel­
lors 376hadalready taken uptheir duties ,95ofthem inBavaria and75in
Lower Saxony .Twohundred andeighty counsellors were appointed inthe
course of1975 * "theUnited Kingdom theregional counsellors (14)were
appointed in1975 asplanned .Inaddition ,72socio-economic counsellors
were assigned part-time guidance tasks .InDenmark ,oneoftheregional
socio-economic counsellors was appointed in1975 *

-49-
Since theCommission hasfigures foronly twoMember States ,itwould
appear premature togointo further details (e.g. ageofcounsellors and ,
above all,training andexperience ofcounsellors ).Itissimilarly pre­
mature totrace theconnections "between socio-economic guidance andthe
implementation ofDirectives 72/159/EECand72/l6o/EEC,which possibly do
exist ascanbeseen from thevarying implementation ofthesaid Directives
inthe Member States .
4»2 .Basic andadvanced training courses within themeaning ofTitle IIofDir­
ective 72/l6l/EECwere available inalltheMember States except Italy ,
Luxembourg andDenmark in1975 •
Table 17gives information concerning thetype ofcourses attended bypersons
engaged inagriculture andthenumber andageoftrainees .Only forthe
Netherlands are relevant data not available .
Thelarge majority oftrainees inallMember States areunder 30years of
age ,andnomajor differences canbefound between theMember States .The
only exception here isIreland where allparticipants areaged under 30years .
Only Belgium hasasignificant percentage ofparticipants aged over 40(ll
Major differences canbeseen ,however ,inthetype ofcourses attended .
InIreland 100 fotinPrance 98.3$andintheUnited Kingdom 23.8 foofall
trainees attended foundation courses (catching uponbasic training ),where­
asinGermany thepercentage wasonly 1.4^andinBelgium 8.1$.These
figures show that thenumber ofyoung farmers notcatered forbyordinary
agricultural training isvery high inPrance andIreland .InPrance ,more­
over ,certain measures forthebenefit ofyoung farmers areconditional
upon their attendance atoneofthese basic courses .

-so-
Table 17 .–Breakdown ofparticipants intraining courses according toage and type ofcourses
IMemberTotal
Number of
partici­
pantsParticipants in
basic train ingcoursesParticipants m
advanced training coursesParticipants m
specialized training courses
IStateNumber.AgegroupNumberAge group ]NumberI Age group
<30 30-<40Πμο ] <30 30-<.40 >40 Γ<30 30-<40 >4°
Deutschland 1763 24 45,8 50,0 4,2 1708 84,5 10,7 4,8 31 80,o 9,7 9,7
IFrance * 10212 10036 77,6 18,2 4,2 124 83,9 9,7 6,4 52 96,2 1,9 1,9
(Belgique/ Belgiè 2681 218 83,5 7,3 9,2 24 87,5 12,5 2439 71,3 17,4 11,3
United
Kingdom 105 25 96,0 4,0 24 70,8 20,8 8,4 56 83,9 14,3 1,8
Ireland 44 44 100,0ι
1LJ
*1973 -1975

-51-
Whereas intheFederal Republic ofGermany attendance atadvanced training
courses predominates (96.9 f°),inBelgium themajority oftrainees attend­
edspecialized courses (91 IntheUnited Kingdom 53-3 f*ofthetrain­
ees attended such courses .
InallMember States theregional distribution oftrainees isrelatively
even .Only inthecase oftheUnited Kingdom itshould benoted that vir­
tually noagricultural labourers inWales andScotland have taken part in
basic oradvanced training courses .
Theduration ofcourses varies considerably with allthree types :
Table 18-Duration oftraining courses inhours
Member State Basic courses Advanced courses Specialized courses
Deutschland 200 60-2A0 40-50
ITirane e 84-340
(0 135)98-1059
(0 575)151-1080Q 665) I
IBelgique / Belgié 114-150 75 21- 51
IUnitedKingdom 1215 -1332 8-100 120-1400
IIreland 110-300
Given themeasures andtraining courses planned intheMember States *
thetable shows that –except intheUnited Kingdom –nostart hadyet
been made in1975 with theproposed comprehensive basic courses of80C
ormore hours' duration forpersons engaged inagriculture whohave
notreceived anadequate basic training .
*Seepage 54ofthe1976 report

Table 1:Number and regional breakdown ofdevelopment plans according tomain production 1975
Bundesrepubl ikDeutschland
Region Numberdensity
per
1000 hadensity
according to
national
averageBreakdown according tomain production (in%)
Cattle PigsIHorticulture
!flnH Fmi-hArable Mixed
Io'':hlcswip - MnlBtein 1648 1,4 212 62 3 1,7 22 12
!Niedersachsen 2093 0,74 112 25 13 4 23 29
INor-lrhein – Westfalen i1055 0.54 76 20 20 16 20 23
1Hessen 631 0,75 114 40 2 8 24 26
iRheinland - Pfalz 524 0,65 99 28 3 48 11 9
|flalen-
!WUrtteuberg 915 0,56 85 50 3 17 16 13
IBayern 1362 0,38 57
ISaarland 54 0,62 94 67 4 7 4 18
c
iHamburg 31 1,7 257 31 3 55 1,6 0,9
IBremen 22 1,7 257 59 41
]Berlin 15 7,5 U35 7 7 87
( II .
lesrepublik
!total
18350 0,66 100 40,4 7,1 9,1 22,4 18,9
[less–favoured
|areas1705 0,4 60 54,3 3,4 -2,2 15,9 15,2
inprmal areas 6645 0,77 116 36,7 8,0 12,9 2) 24,4I 19,8
a;ofwhich cf2%horticulture
2)ofwhich 7,3 %horticulture

Table 1:Number andregional "breakdown ofdevelopment plans according tomain type ofproduction 1973
Federland
Region Numberdensity
per
1000 hadensity
according to
national
averageBreakdown according tomain type ofproductionin»
■Cattle PigsHorticulture
andFruitArable Mixed
IGroningen 62 0,34 38 79 10 11
IFriesland 264 1,12 127 97 1
IDrsnth® I85 0.48 54 » 10
IOverijBBel I180 0,84 95 27 1 2 1
IIj8selneerpold ers 46 0,5 57 77 4 15 4
IOelderland 181 0,67 76 70 8 21
IUtrecht 77 1,08 123 77 15 8
IHoord–Holland 167 1,09 124 36 . 59 3 2,3
IZuid-HollandZoeland434
72,57
0,054292
514
2,885
57l)■*
.1,4
IVoord-Brabant 282 0,98 111 8 - "
ILinbuxg 64 0,54 51 53 2522
Hederland
total I
11849 0,88 100 60,5 0,1 29,1 2,6 8,4
l)ofwhich 43%fruit culture

Table 1:Number andregional breakdown ofdevelopment plans according "tomain type ofproduction
Belgigue/
Belgie
Region Numberdensity
per
1000 hadensity
according to
national
averaereBreakdown according tomain type ofproduction in%
Cattle PigsHorticulture
and FruitArable Mixed
Antwerpen
Brabant
iv-Vlaanderen
0-Vlaanderen
Halnaut
Liège
Limburg
Nanrur
Luxembourg
Belgique /
Belgie233
105
172
213
51
95
62
74
77
10822,3
0,58
0,75
1,2
0,21
0,5
0,66
0,41
0,49
0,7328
83
107
171
30
71
94
58
70
10032
17
22
32
49
73
58
83
85
42,15 55
5 39
10 21
8 30
2 6
4 1
16 15
1
6,1 26,56
1
1
4
2
1,37
33
46
29
39
22
11
16
10
23,8

Table 1:Number and regional "breakdown ofdevelopment plans according tomain type ofproduction 1975
Ireland
IRegionINumberIdensity fdensity Breakdown according tomain type ofproduction in %
Iper accoraing xo Hort imi1+.nté»1Arable 1000 ha national averagd Cattle IPigs iand FruitMixed ^
ICavan 104 0,65 Ί 58
IDonegal 49 0.26 24
IMonaghan 100 0,87 77
iGalway 74 0,22 20
ILeitrim 6 0,054 5
INajro 33 0,13 12
IRoscommon 59 0,3 27
ISligo 24 0,19 17
IClare 120 0.51 45
IKerry 605 2,8 247
jLongford17 °»2 18
IWestern RegicJ
i)j1191 0,59 ?2 I 91
i1 °,i °,2 7
IDublin 14 0,2 I 18 1
ICarlow 90 1,2 106
Cork 1205 2,? 195
iKildare 93 0,64 57
iKilkenny 435 2,36 209
ILacis 245 1,8 159
ILimerick 377 1,57 140
ILouth I 76 1,08 96
Meath I 85 0,37 33
lOftaly 93 0,63 56
ITipperary-N 208 1,28 113
ITipperary-S I369 1,96 173
IWaterford I296 2,26 200
iWestmeath !112 I 0,73 65
IWexford Ii;A 2,23 197
IWicklow I 93 0,9 | 30
[other Regions' 42=J 1,54i ÏY 81 1 0,?8 4 U
Ireland•A 1,13 130 8*,2 1 υ,* i 2,8 12,,1
*1974 and 1975l)excluding Cork

Table 1tNumber and regional breakdown ofdevelopment plans according tomain type ofproduction 1975
Kingdom
Region NumberIdensity density
according to
national
averageI Breakdown according tomain typeofproduction in %
per
1000 ha Cattle PigsHorticulture
and FruitArable Mixed
England
Wales
Scotland
N'orth Ireland285
87
80
270,033
0,08
0,048
0,03284
205
123
8219
32
80
1001
11 7
163
67
15
United Kingdom 479 0,039 100 36 0.6 0,15 5 52
Danmark
density density
«αλ /ΝΉΗΊ ΤΛBreakdown according tomain type ofproductionin %
|Region Number1000 haOVWVi vvnational
averaceCattle PigsHorticulture
andFruitArable Mixed
'ja^lland
otoratrom
Bornholm
FVn
Jylland162
113
25
235
26380,44
0,4
0,57
0,86
1,0745
91
58
89
11023,4
24
24
50
60,430,2
17
28
16
11,218,5
4
4
19
1,918,5
43
24
9
4,622,2
12
20
6
Danmark 3173 0,97 100 Γ9,3 16,1 3,9 7,1 l6»5

Table 2:Breakdown ofdevelopment plans according tofarm size category andpercentage ofdevelopment plans
providing foranexpansion ofagricultural area –1975 (in%)
Bundesrepublik Deutschland
I INumber ofapproved < 10ha 10-<20ha I20-/50ha c0-<100 ha over 100 ha
IRegionIdevelopment plans L __J
Number iwith
expansion ηwith I
expansion*with I
expansion \mrwith
expansion%with
expansion%with
[expansion
Schleswi ^-
Holstein 1648 34 2 34 1,5 38 52 30 38 31 7 31
JNiederaacheen2093 56 3 31 5 57 58 n 30 47 4 41
pordrhein -
IWestfalen 1055 41 16 44 7 54 58 41 17 33 2 29
iBessen 631 60 9 24 8 62 64 69 12 49 4 28
1Rheinland - Pfalz 524 59 36 44 13 52 42 72 9 68 0»! .33
paden –Iwtlrtteciberg 915 70 14 53 13 73 63 75 8 67 3 42
{Bayern 1362 42 5 37 16 63 73 39 5 27 1 31
ISaarland I 54 76 9 60 56 90 33 56 2 100
IHanburg I 31 35 15 50 6 50 20 23 43 6
(Bremen I 22 14 41 36 25 23
Berlin
ι ·15 7 93
'Bundesr cpubl ik I8350
I47,9 8,8 40,8 7,8 60,9 c9,l *0,6 20,8 40,?LllJ'4,4

Belricrue/Bel eTable 2;Breakdown ofdevelopment plans according tofarmsize category andpercentage of
development plans providing foranexpansion ofagricultural area-1975 j°,
RegionNumber of
approved
'HovôI rtnmpnt ,nlanS<10ha 10-<20ha. j
20-<50ha |S>-<100 ha over li00ha
|Numberwith
.expansion%with
expansionwith jexpansion *|with
.expansion l-1°with
.expansion Iwithexpansion
Antwerpen
Brabant
W-Vlaanderen
O-Vlaanderen
Ilainaut
Libge
Limburg
Na.*nur
Luxembourg233
105
172
213
51
95
62
74
779
16
6
9
33
8
21
36
960
47
34
39
31
56
24
44
475
2
2
7
1320
18
37
39
2
15
37
3
18
16
5
9
7
22
S020
25
26
22
43
39
34
23
3522
15
13
13
44
25
29
c9
79
3
18
27
1678
20
67
70
422
2
3
1100
100
Belgique /
Belpiè 1082 13 44,6 3,5 23,5 9,8 25,8 22,1 5,5 55,9 0,6 6c,7
ι
United *.înprion
» i ii
England
Wales
Scotland
"brth Ireland285
87
80
278
2
98
239 1
1
512
10
21
446
1124
51
40
c24
1956
38
30
48
2
9
'JnitoJ Kingdom 479 6,9 5,2 36 1,5 15,1 4,2 ^2,8 5,7 45,4Κ Γ

Table 2:Breakdown ofdevelopment plans according tofarm size category andpercentag eofdevelopment plans
providing foranexpansion ofagricultural area-1975 (info)
Nederlar.d
RegionNumber of
approved
deve1oDment_olans _
Numberwith
expansion<10ha
with
expansion10-<20ha
with
expansion20–c50ha
with
expansion^0-/100 ha
with
expansionover 100 ha
with
expansion
Groningen
Friesland
Drenthe
Overi jssel
Ijsaelmeei ^-
polders
Gelderlani
Otrecht
S-Holland
Z-Holland
Zeeland
N-Brabant
Limburg62
2Ô4
85
180
46
101
77
167
434
7
282
646
19
12
7
67
10
8
24
4
14
15
320,38
3
10
13
35
85
14
7
256
10
24
3
5
123
4
12
37
34
34
25
4
29
48
2010
3
5
4
32
11
2370
84
80
53
54
52
52
37
10
57
42
5219
33
11
56
13
10
10
10
25
23
2724
12
6
2
46
4
1
3
1
?
37
22
14
81
12
67
1250
Nederland 1849 13,3 26,9 6,2 21 10,6 46,2 16,5 5,8 29,9 0,1 50

Table 2:Breakdown ofdevelopment plans according -tofarm sizecategory andpercentage of
development plans providing foranexpansion ofagricultural area-1975 in$
Ireland l)
Region
ι! Numbc
i apprc
ΛΛττοί Γϊΐsrof
>ved
imAn +.T)1ans< 10ha 10-<20ha 20-<50ha c0-<,100 ha over 100 ha
îrnmber iwith i
expansion !%with
expansion%rwith
expansion% !
i|"with
(expansion1oIwith
[expansion I*|with
iexpansion
Western
Région 2)
Andere
Regionen1191
425475
66I
0,25
0,14
Iπ
33
508
773
7875
6S76
6715
2468
612
485
55
Ireland 5445 68 I0,16j
44 I8 77
167 69 22 62 59
1 ■''
1)1974 and
2)excluding
Darmark197 ^
?Cork
ι ^i i
Sjaelland
Storstrom
Bornholm
Fyn
Jyllani162 j
113
25
2351,2
3
3
'2,2719,7
10
4
21
V;9
223,4
28
20
32
201
0,7 !48,8
45
64
42
60,6
I0,1
4
3
2,8|%5
13
8
r,
1413
1,31,8
4
4
0,4
1.6 2,3
Dannare1– i
3173 ¡
i 12,3 ;,7 1,7 [21,4 0,7
I58,2! I
i13 i2,4 1,6 2,0

Table 3: Regional breakdown ofpromoted investment forfarms
not effecting adevelopment plan andaverage promoted
volume ofinvestment
Bundesrepublik Deutschland
RegionNimber of
development
plansArticle 14paragraph 2
first subparagraphArticle 14paragraph 2a
(Art .8+14
par .l)I "
INumberAverage
volume ofinvestment
inUA -NumberAverage
volume ofinvestmen
inUA
ISchleswig - Holstein1.648 35 9.660
INiedersachsen 2.093 159 9.000
INordrhein - Westfalen 1.055 139 4.560 60 9.190
IHessen 631 220 6.020
IRheinland - Pflaz524 27 35.605 28 7.435
Baden -
Württemberg 915 56 73 9.005
Bayern 1.362 10 902 18.130
ISaarland 54
IHamburg 31
IBremen 22
Berlin 15
Bundesre­
publik [8.350
i233Ii
1.477
I

Table 3: Regional breakdown ofpromoted investment forfarms noteffecting
adevelopment plan andaverage promoted volume ofinvestment
Nederland
RegionNumber of
development'Article
first14»par .2
subparagraphArticle 14paragraph 2a
plans
(Article 8
.and14»
par .l)NumberAverage
volume ofinvestmeni
in.UANumberAverage ■
volume ofinvestmen
inUA
IGroningen 62 168 9.904
Friesland 264 176 12.140
Drentne 85 138 11.183
IOverijssel 180 271 13.583
Ijsselmeer -
polders46 193 11.619
IGelderland 181 292 12.477
Utrecht 77 57 14.197
IN-Holland 167 190 13.474
IZ-Holland 434 345 14.132
IZeeland 136 11.554
IN-Brabant 282 112 14.139
jLimburg64 107 13.634
Nederland 1.849 2.145 12.844
Sfuglque /Belgie
IAntwerpen 233 I 169 16.216 5Π 16.215
Brabant 105 132 16.487 29 15.023
IW-Vlaanderen 172 275 16.719 12 10.949
I0-Vlaanderen 213 159 11.007 30 16.718
!Hainaut 51 802 14.360 98 9.518
Liege 95 587 16.277 131 14.788
ILimburg 62 75 12.542 12 12.577
INamur 74 455 13.488 88 12.779
ILuxemburg 77 149 6.789 34 9.670
Belgique /
België1.082 2.803 14.187 484 13.126

Table 3• Regional breakdown ofpromoted investment for farms not effecting
adevelopment plan and average promoted volume ofinvestment
United Kingdom
RegionNumber of
ievelopment
plans
(Article 8
and 14»
par .1)Article
first14,paragraph 2,
subparagraphArticle paragraph 2a
NumberAverage -volume
ofinvestment
inUANumberAverage volume
ofinvestment
inUA
IEngland 285 31.961 j 5.098
IWales 87 2.851 3.535
IScotland 80 4.409 5.750
North
Ireland27 9.720 2.375
United
Kingdom479 48.911 4.525
Ireland
Western
Région (1)I
1.191I
421 1.222 2.545 1.994
Other Regions 4.254 358 3.357 1.280 3.654
Ireland 5.445 (2) 779 2.203 3.825 2.550
(1)excluding Cork (2)1974 and1975
Danmark
Siaelland 162 282 12.496
Storstrom 113 363 10.027
Bornholm 25 64 10.350
Fyn 235 393 11.000
Jylland 2.638 2.872 12.859
Danmark 3.173 3.974 12.956

Table 4a Breakdown ofdevelopment according tomain type ofproduction andvolume ofinvestment perMWUjn1975 (info
1Total
Number -Cattle Pigs Horticulture
Member State% <20000 UA υ20000
<40000»;oooo ua * •<20000 UA 20000 UA
<40000n> <20000 UA 0000 u
0000\¿ >40000 UA
IDeutschland 8.350 40,4 48.5 28,3 23,2 7,1 41,6 58,4 6,2 79,5 16 4,5
INederland 1.849 60,5 5,8 54,5 39,7 0,1 0 100 29,1 44,4 46,1 9,5
IBelgique /Belqië1.082 42,1 79,6 18,6 1,8 6,1 83,3 16,7 26,5 91,6 4,9 3,5
IUnited KiKingdom479 36,1 67,6 67,6 19,7 0,6 66,7 33,3 5,3 52 28 20
IIreiand(*) 5.445 83,2 77,8 20,3 1/9 1,0 81,1 18,9 0,2 92,9 7,1
|Danmark3.173 59,3 23,9 48,6 27,5 16,1 11,8 88,2 3,9 40,8 31,2 28
<*> 1974 and 1975
Member StateTotal
Number -Arable Mixed
(<20000 UA20000 UA !
*0000 !#40000 UA £ C20000 UA 20000 UA
*40000*40000 UA
Deutschland
Nederland
Belgique /
België
United
Kingdom
Ireland (*)
Danmark8.350
1.849
1.082
479
5.445
3.17322,4
1,6
1,3
4,8
2,8
7,159,8
36.7
7b,6
56,5
56.8
■0,226.3
20
21.4
34,8
39,3
28,613,9
43,3
8,7
3,9
61,218,9
8,4
23,8
52,8
12,4
13,345,7
12,2
92.6
67,9
71.7
1937.6
59.0
7,4
25.7
26.1
50.216.7
28.8
6,4
2,2
30,8
(*> 1974 and 1975

Table 4b Breakdown ofthe development plans according tovolume ofinvestment per MWU with regard to
the main type ofproduction ofthe development plans in1975 (in%)
Member Stat sTotal
Number -20.000 UA/MWU 20.000 UA/ÉWU-<40.000 UA/MWU I
% CattleLpigs ihorti­
culture Arable Mixed1o1
Cattle PigsHorti­
cultureArable Mixed
IDeutschland 8.350 52,3 37,4 5/6 9,4 25,6 16,5 30,9 37,1 13,4 3,2 19,1 23,1
INederland 1.849 18,2 19,3 70,9 3,3 5,6 51,8 63,6 0,2 25,9 0,6 9,6
IBelgique / België1.082 86,1 39,0 5,9 28,1 1,2 25,6 12.? I
i!64,6
i8,3 10,6 2,3 14,4
United
Kingdom479
I66,4 36,8 0,6 4,1 4,1 53,1 24,0 29,6 0,9 6,1 7,0 55,6
IIreland 5.445 76,6 84,6 1,0 I0,3 2,1 11,6 21,5 78,6 0,9 0,1 5,2 15,0
|Danmark3.173 21,0 67,5 9,0 7,7!3-4 12,0 53,0 54,3 26,7 2,3 3,9 12,6
jMember State Totalover 40.000 UA/MWU
JNumber% Cattle Horticul -
ture•Arable Mixed I
IDeutschland 8.350 16,8 55,6 1,6 18,6 18,8
INederland 1.849 30,0 80,1 9,2 2,4 8,1
Belgique /
België1.032 1,7 44,1 55,6
Umted
Kingdom479I
9,6 !
I47,8 10,9 |
i4,4 34,8
Il I IrèlandIreland 5.445 1,9 80,2 42 'H'c I 5,7 14,1
IDanmark j3.173 I
I ii J?6,Q62,7
ί ■|16,915,8

Table 55 Number andregional breakdown ofannuities andpremiums forthecessation offarming
OEUTSCHLAND (cessation annuity ) *anduseofreleased areas in1975
Recipient
ofannuity -Released areas receiving holdings Use ofreleased areas
RegionTotal
INumberafwhich |
eligible .total
haiverage
per
récipient
haNumber of
récipients Number|ofwhich |
effecting
developm .
planArea per
farm
naArt .
5par 1a
haArt .
5
par1b
haArt .
5
par 2
haArt .
5
par 3
ha
jSchleswig-Holstein -
jische LAK500 9.788 21,4 458 1.333 156 7,3 1.990 8 7.738 52
LAK Oldenburg-Bremen 248 3071 14,8 207 643 114 4,7 674 20 2.367 9
Hannoversche LAK 1.112 14.220 14,4 989 2.467 1.250 5,7 7.177 70 6.935 37
Braunschweigische
LAK 80 1.160 14,5 80 359 154 3,2 433 2 709 17
Lippisch «LAK 8 83 I10,4 8 14 6 5,9 26 57
AKder rhein .Land­
wirtschaft|
j68510.032 11,7 859 1.665 6,0 10.032
Westfälische LAK 559 6.910 14,1 490 960 80 7,2 584 24 6.283 20
LAK Hessen-Nassau 257 2.761 10,7 257 1.214 382 2,2 1.460 6 1.253 43
LAK Darmstadt 152 1.666 12,4 134 494 325 3,3 1.150 503 13
•LAK Pheinhessen -
! Pfalz 397 3.507 10,2 343 1.911 24 1,8 134 1 3.353 19
ILAK fürdas Saar­
land 18 189 11,8 16 34 17 5,5 88 101
LAK Oberfr .und
Hittelf r.281 3.213 11,9 269 652 4,9 25 3.188
|lAKNtederbayern - !
Oberpfalz287 2.175 8,6 253 443 48 4,9 411 3 1.721 40
ilAKUnterf ranken 212 2.076 11,4 182 398 41 5,2 248 1.827 1
<LAK Schwaben 328 2.291 9,2 250 780 16 2,9 87 |
I3
I2.191 10
!LAKOberbayern287 1.600 10,2 ' 157 229 7,0 27 1.572
ilAKBaden 184 1.664 9,7 172 1.044 18 1,6 31 1.633
!lAKWürttemberg 543 I 4.795 9,5 506 2.137 233 2,2 684-
I4.111
A*fur den Gjrtentju 62 96 1,6 62 97 27 1,0 28 |1 63 I 4
jPeutschUnj p7200219 71.297 12,5 5.692 16.874 2.891 4,2 15.205 [190 55.637 265

Table 5 Number andregional breakdown ofannuities andpremiums forthecessation offarming
anduse ofreleased areas in1975
DEUTSCHi_AND (premium )
!
i IIRecipient
iofpremium j|Released areaReceiving holdings Use ofreleased areas
„ . iRegion
JITotal
munber
Li
iTotal
haAverage
per
RécipientWumberofwhich -
effecting
development
planArea
per -
farm
haArt .
5
par 1a
haArt .
par 1b
ha_– – iArt .
5„par 2
haArt .
par 3
ha
I
Ischleswià -HoLstein 84 1.353 16-1 166 166 8,2 1.353
Hamburg
Niedersachsen (1) 257I
I
I
Bremen
Nordrhein -West falen 120 851 7,1 173 173 5,0 864
Hessen (1) 132
Rheinland-Pf alz 68
Baden-Wurt temberg 260 1.188 4,6 368 275 3,2 979 209
Bayern 602 3.236 5,4 719 719 4,1 2.958 110
Saarland
Berlin ]
DEUTSCHLAND (1) 1.523 6.628 6,2 1.426 1333 4,6 6.154 110 209
(1)Inthecase ofLower Saxony ,Hessen andRhineland-Palatinate only data onnumber ofpremium recipients available

Table 5 Number and ,regional "breakdown ofannuities andpremiums forthecessation offarming
anduse ofreleased areas in1975FRANCE '1*
I J Recipient ofannuity Released Area receiving farms use ofreleased area
RegionA%
60-65 I•β
55-60Total
Ntumberofwhich
IeligibleTotalAverage
per
ïecipient
bâNumber
of
ReciriehlNumber
sofwhich
with
ievelopm .
planArea
per
fa™haArt .
5§1a )
haArt .
5§1b )
haArt .
5§2
haArt
5§3"
ha
Parisienne 39Π 44
I1.318 30,0 44 62 11,6 3 716
Champagne 21 104 36 140 3.420 24,1 142 240 12,5 2980
Picardie 22 91 51 142 2.890 19,5 148 301 1 7,21 2143
IHaute-Normandie 23 38 18 56 1.242 22,2 56 87 11,9 31032
Centre 24 309 103 412 9.952 23,4 425 656 10,8 44 7070
Basse -Normandie 25 234 122 356 4.499 12,3 366 557 6,3 10 3496
Bourgogne 26 196 117 313 7.153 22,5 318 544 9,9 43 5343
Nord 31 107 88 195 2.748 13,5 204 455 4,7 25 2110
Lorraine 41 77 53 130 3.004 22,4 134 291 8,7 23 2515
Alsace 42 73 55 128 1.556 11,9 131 253 1 5/916 1466
Franche-Comte 43 87 78 165 3.179 18,?175 415 6,0 36 2483
Pays delaLoire 52 713 336 1049 17.287 15,9 1087 1928 1 6,038 131 Β1380
(Bretagne 53 520 319 839 9.299 10,6 880 1443 1 4,87 88 6801
Poitou-Charente 54 319 163 482 8.739 17,7 494 738 8,9 11 6517
Aquitaine 72 288 158 446 5.922 12,8 463 441 9,9 77 4347
Midi-Pyrénées 73 166 401 7.640 18,1 423 448 12,1 95426
ILimousin 74 101 92 193 3.442 16,7 206 226 10,8 130 2332
Rhone-Alpes 82 294 185 479 6.414 13,0 492 683 1 7,8 174 5287
IAuvergne 83 170 164 334 7.489 21,0 356 456 10,6 72 4824
Lanouedoc 91 140 101 241 3.243 12,6 258 273 3 9,835!34 2643
Provence-Côte d'Azur 93 119 44 163 2.367 13,2 180 190 9,5 135 1790
Corse 94 4 1 5IU6 24,3 ! 6r 3|119,6Ll_J59
!_
jFrance4258 2435 6713 0 iiS.**+i|I16,16 10690Li7,79 1048 &2760 0
*'including 225recipients ofpremium

Table 5
NEDERLANDNumber andregional breakdown -ofannuities andpremiums forthecessation offarming
anduse ofreleased areas in1975
RegionRecipient of
innuity and premiurArea released receiving holdings use ofreleased areas
Numbefr I
total *Ii
|ofwhich
['eligibletotal
haaverage pei
recipient
haNumberwith
ievelopment
planarea
per
farm ,haArt .
5§1a )
haArt .
5§1b )
haArt .
5§2
haArt .
5§3
ha
Gronmqen 8 73,7 9,1
Frieseland 18 204,47 11,4
Drente 23 276,55 12,0
Ovenj ssel 16 148,66 9,3
|Gelderland14 105,06 7,5
Utrecht 4 5,07 1,3
Noord Holland 23 73,86 3,2
Zuid Holland 47 77,32 1,7
Zeeland 9 49,41 5,5
INoord Brabant 18 39,28 2,2
Limburq 82 130,59 1,6
NEDERLAND 262 3 1.183 4,5 342 2,5 31 855 297
*including atotal of15<5recipients under 55years ofage

Table 5 Number andregional "breakdown ofannuities and ,premiums forthecessation offarming
and use ofreleased areas in1975
Belgique/België-Luxembourg
I Recipients jIReleased area Receiving holdings Use oi?release ?dareas
! Region ! ofannuity of
premium
Numberi
Total
i hai
per
récipient
t
iNumberofwhich
effect .
developm
planArea
per
farm
haI
Art.5
Abs.1aArt .5
Abs.1
bArt .5
Abs.2Art .5
iAbs.3
i
Numberofwhich
eligible
Antwerpen
Brabant
k'est-VLaanderen
Oost-Vlaanderen
Hainaut
Liège
Limburg
Luxembourg
Namur17
37
51
72
48
20
12
38
27I1
5
2
12
11
6
5
13
10117
270
284
432
556
212
107
498
4166,5
!6'4
5,4
5.1
9,4
8.2
6.3
'9,8
11,229
102
79
149
133
51
21
97
742!2,8
!2,4
!3-1
!2,6
4,0
3,7
4,7
4,6
5,31880
243
244
392
533
187
81
449
391
IBELGIQUE 322 1 2.892 (i)7,15 735 2 3,7 18I_ 2.600
LUXEMBOURG 93 26 1.126 9,5 316 3,5 31 1.095UlJ
(1)including 274hawhich were returned toleaser

Table 5
IRFI.ANft^Number andregional "breakdown ofannuities andpremiums forthecessation offarming
anduseofreleased areas in1975
RegionRecipients of
annuity and premiunArea released receiving holdingsuse ofi■eleased areas
11
ÏNumber !
! i
iofwhich
eligibletotal
haAverage
per
récipientNumberwith
development
planArea
perfarm
haArt .
5S1a )
haArt .
501b )
ha
IArt .
5S2
haArt .
5Û3
ha
Western
Région *
other
Regions'
!
75
38> 1
1027
74813,7
19.56
66
612,16
12,773
77954
671
i
Ireland 113 9 1775 15,7 12 12 12,5 150 1625
*excluding Cc
UNITEDU-!–– ii I
>rk
KINGDOM
I' 1 1 11111 r- 1 1
England
Wales
Scot land
North Ireland179
31
122
44– 1
4371
1081
4826
86724,4
34,9
39.6
19.7178
31
113
432
1
4
12*»,5
34,9
39,7
19,043
97
224
162
345
494326
984
4257 j
802
United
Kinridom 376 * 2 11145 29,6 :>65 8 29,5 3âu
> , II3*6 I
!..I
1U36V ;
*including 14premiums

Table o Breakdown offarms given updueto "benefit ofcessation according tofarm size category (1975 )
BUNDESREPUBLIK P3UTSCHIJLTD (annuity )
Region:S==C&~==3S=C3SSSr3fiC3Z
Number of
recipients
ofannuitiestssssassaBBcuasBaBnass ::;BaaaB8B8B2Ussessssssrs =:
farm size category:sSafiKarS»BBtCBEBBaKBB
I
<10ha
*10-<20ha >20ha
Ia
ISchleswig-Holsteinische LAK 458 10,9 36,8 52,3 I
ILAKOldenburg-Bremen 207 29,9 41,5 28,6
IHannoverache LAK 989 34,8 42,1 23,1
IBraunschweigische LAK 80 20,0 63,7 I 16,3
ILippische LAK '8 50,0 37,5 12,5
IAKderrhein .Landwirtschaft 859 50,4 37,0 12,6
IWestfälische LAK490 30,2 45,7 24,1
ILAKHessen-Ifassau 257 43,5 47,0 9,5
ILAK Darmstadt134 26,1 61,9 12,0
ILAKRheinhessen-Pfalz 343 55,6 30,3 14,1
ILAKftlrdasSaarland 16 43,7 37,5 18,8
ILAKOberfr .undMittelfr . 269 33,0 34,5 32,5
ILAKNiederbayern-Oberpfalz 253 66,7 29,6 3,7
ILAKDnterfrank en 182 42,3 57,6 0,1
ILAK Schwaben250 54,8 41,2 3,8
ILAKOberbayern 157 52,8 35,0 12,2
LAK Baden 172 52,9 38,9 8,2
ILAKWürttemberg 506 54,1 42,6 3,3
IAKfUrdenGartenbau 62 100,0
5<>92 41,9
ΙΚ«Β·η·Β·Β·η··ΒΒ·Β3·α·*Ι40,3
Ι·····Μ··Β·Β>·ΒΒ·Β3Β3Β>Χi 17,8
:BsaaB8B&assr:&B3ssiiBi

Breakdown offarms given updueto "benefit ofcessation according tofarm size category (1975 )
Table 6
BunHepre^rib !ikTSeutschland (premium )
farm size category
Region Recipients ofpremium <10ha
h10-<20ha
â>20ha
Schleswig -Holstein
Hamburg
Niedersachse.-i
Bremen
Nordrhein-Westfalen
Hessen
Rheinland-Pfalz
Baden-Wurttemuerg
Bayern
Saarland
Berlin84
257
120
132
68
260
6O244,4
74,2
95.4
86.5
92,434,5
17,5
3,8
i^-7 i
»■ ι
7,621,4
8,3
0,8
0,8
(
-DEUTSCHLASD 1.523 86,2 11,2 2,6

Table 6
FRANCEBreakdown offarms piven updueto "benefit ofcessation according tofarm size category (1975 )
Ι··8Η···Β····>Β»Β(·Ι·Κ8·Β8Ι
Region38BB8BBBBSBBBSB8BSB8BI
Number ofa8BBBBB88BBB8BBBBBBBBBBSBBSaB&BBBaiBeBS838888B8SB88a8SBBS8BB8BB8BBBBBBBBBBB
farm size category
recipients
ofannuity and
premium<10ha
i10-<20ha
%20-<50ha
*>50ha
%
(parisienne 11 44 47,6 9,0 24,9 18,1
iChampagne 21 142 30,9 22,5 33,0 13,3
IPicardie 22 148 38,4 25,0 30.3 6,0
IHaut e-No rmandi e 23 56 41,0 25,0 23,2 10,7
ICentre 24 425 33,6 21,1 33,8 11,2
IBasse-Normandie 25 366 59,1 19,6 19,1 1.9
IBourgogne 26 318 32,9 25,4 30,1 11,3
Nord 31 204 52,3 24,0 21,9 1.4
ILorraine 41 134 37,2 16,4 36,5 9,7
IAlsace 42 131 51,8 33,5 13,7 0,7
iFranche Comte 43 175 29,6 37,1 28,5 4,5
(Pays delaLoire 52 1.087 36,9 33,6 27,5 1,N7
IBretagne 53 879 57,0 31,3 11,1 0,3
IPoston-Charentes 54 494 40,9 42,5 16,4 0,0
IAquitaine 72 463 44,4 37,7 17,0 0,6
IMidi-Pyrennées 73 423 30,7 37,5 27,3 4,2
ILimons in 74 206 33,9 36,4 26,1 3,3
IRhSne-Alpes 82 492 49,1 31,3 18,6 0,8
IAuvergne 83 356 31,9 29,1 29,7 8,9
ILanguedoc 91 258 62,7 24,0 9,6 3,4
IProvence -Cote d'Azur 93 180 59,4 25,5 9,4 5,5
ICorse 94 6 49,9 16,6 '16,6 16,6
FRANCE
■8·ΒΒΒ8Β888ΒΒΒ8ΒΒ8Β8Β888Β8ΒΒί| 6.988 |
laBBBBBBBBBBSBBBBBBfiaBi42,7
ΪΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΒ !| 30,0 j| 22,9 |
■BBBBBBBBBBBBaBBaBBI4,0
ΙΒΒΒΒΒΒΒΪΠΒΕΒΒΒΒΒΒΒ

Table 6
KKDERLANDBreakdown offarms given updue -tobenefit ofcessation according tofarm size category (1975 )
■taMBMHBurau Ι··&ΒΚΜ =ΒΒ8·*Βα39Β·Β*Κ *« :=aaaorssB3Bmc IBIiaBMBnBfl =BO=B=BSBaB
I
Number offarm size category
I Region recipients of
annuity and premium 10-Clha I1-<2 ha 2-3ha I3-<5ha 15-<7ha ]7-<10ha!XÎOha
I* %I % |% *1i
IGroningen 8 25 25 50
IFriesland 18 11,1 5,6 11,1 5,6 66,6
IDrente 23 8,7 4,3 4,3 4,3 8,7 69,7
IOveriissel 16 6,3 12,5 6,3 31,2 43,7
IGelderland 14 50 7,1 42,9
IUtrecht 4 25 50 25
If-Holland 23 30,4 8,7 21,7 13 17,5 8,7
IZ-Holland 47 74,5 14,8 4,3 2,1 4,3
IZeeland 9 li.l 22,2 11,1 11,1 44,5
iH-Brabant 18 50 27,8 5,6 5,611
ILimburg 82 60,6 24 4,9 2,8 |
I3,7 |
12,8 |
Hederland 262 43,9 14,8 6,9 4,2 3,8 5,0 |
\21,4
:Stichting ontwikkel ings-ensaneringsfonds voor delandbouw
Verslag over het jaar 1975

Table 6 Breakdown offarms given updue -tobenefit ofcessation according tofarm size category (1975 )
Belgique /Belqiè
Number of
recipients of
annuity andpremiumfarm size category
Region <10ha
%10-<20ha
%20-<50ha
%^50ha
%
IAntwerpen 18 88,8 11,2
IBrabant 42 78,6 21,4
IWest-Vlaanderen 53 92,5 ! 7,5
IOost-Vlaanderen 84 95,2 4,8
IHainaut 59 57,6 I 40,7 1,7
!Liège 26 65,4 34,6
ILimburg 17 82,4 17,6
ILuxembourg 51 54,9 41,2 3'9 I
|Namur37 37,8 54,1 8,1
Belgique /BelgiëI 387
l73,6 24,8 1,6

Table 6 Breakdown ,offarms given updue "bobenefit ofcessation according "tofarm sizecategory (1975 /
United Kingdom
RegionNumber of
recipients of
annuity and premiuifarm size category
<10ha
%10-<20ha
%20-<50ha
X50ha
%
iNorthern 27 3'7 14,8 70,4 11/1
IYorks /Lancs ! 18 11/2 55,6 16,6 16,6
!EastMidland j 32 3/1 j 18,8 j 65,6 12/5
jWestMidland j 9 33,4 j 22/2 22,2 22,2
jEastern j36 33,4 22,2 38,9 5/5
jSouth Eastern j15 6,6 40,1 46,7 6,6
ISouth Western i 42 4/7 23,9 66,7 j<iLJ
ITOTAL ENGLAND 179 12/3 25,6 52,5 j
i9/4
IWales 31 19,3 I
i67,8 12,9
IScotland 122 12,2 18,0 i 46,8 23,0
INorthern Ireland 44 18,1 50,1 27,3 4"5 I
Total UK 376 11/9 25,6 48,9 13,6

Table 6 Breakdown offarms given updue tobenefit ofcessation
according tofarm size category (1975 )
Irland
Γ
Number of
recipients of
annuity +PremiuiI farmsizecategory I
Region10ha
ι %10- 20ha
X^20ha
X
ICarlow
Cavan 16 31,2 56,3 12,5
ICork 13 30,8 69,2
IClare 6 100,0
IDoneqal
I 8 12,5 62,5 25,0
IDublin
IGalway 6 100,0
IKerry 1 100,0
IKildare
IKilkenny 1 100,0
ILaois 8 12,5 50,0 37,5
ILeitria 3 33,3 66,7
ILimerick 3 100,0
jLongford5 20,0 40,0 40,0
ILouth
IHayo 9 22,2 55,6 22,2
IHeath 1 100,0
IHonaghan 4 100,0
IOffaly 3 66,7 33,3
IRoscoaaon 9 11,1 77,8 11,1
ISligo 8 37,3 50,0 17,5
ITipperary 3t 66,7 33,3
IWaterford
Uestmeith 3 66,7 33,3
IUexford 3 33,3 33,3 33,3
jWickLow
IRELAND 113 15,0 61,1 23,9
Western
Régions75 18,67 68,0 13,33
Other
Régions38 7,89 47,37 44,74 I

Table 7 Breakdown ofreleased area according toownership situation and form oftransfer ofarea in1975 (%)
Released area farming done by - kind oftransfer ofthereleased area I
Member StateTotal
haowner itenant farmer transfer ofownership leasing area not transferred
IDeutschland 76.734 (1) 68,06 :31,94 36,12 (2) 56,80 7,08
!France 110.379 48,20 I51,8 (3) 26,5 (4) 71,60 1,90
Nederland 2.158 1,53
Belgique /
België3.040 a»4,84
ILuxembourg 1.186 80,78 19,22 2,70 89,63 7,67
IUnited
I Kingdom12.054 31,02 68,98 30,88 61,58 7,54
jIreland1.847 100,00 | 91,124,98
CI)area released duetocessation annuity only
(2)*incl .31,94 iolease returned
(3)incl .4,3 %share cropping
<4)incl .12,4 iolease returned