No C 53/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular Arti­
cles 47 and 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the requests made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 30 and 31 July 
1979 for an opinion, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its chairman 
on 15 September 1979 instructing the Section for 
Agriculture to prepare the Committee's work on the 
matter, 
Having regard to the opinion issued by the Section 
for Agriculture at its meeting on 4 October 1979, 
Having regard to the oral report submitted by the 
rapporteur, Mr Clavel, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 172nd plen­
ary session held on 24 and 25 October 1979 (meeting 
of 24 October 1979), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
unanimously: 1. The Committee approves the Commission's pro­
posals, on the understanding that the animals in 
question will not come from centres of infection but 
from protected areas and will be recognized to be 
healthy. The other proviso is that the following sent­
ence should be added to Annex I: 'The health mark 
shall consist of colouring agent authorized under 
Council Directive of 23 October 1962 (>)'. 
The Committee would point out in this connection 
that in its opinion of 16 September 1977, the Scien­
tific Committee for Food advocated reconsideration 
of thes use of methyl violet as a marking dye. 
2. The Committee would also like the Member 
States, in applying these Directives, to take every 
precaution to ensure that the transport of live ani­
mals and meat does not entail any risk of spreading 
disease germs. 
3. In conclusion, the Committee asks that these 
health provisions be consolidated to make them 
more easily understandable and enable them to be 
applied more rigorously. 
(•) OJNo 115, 11. 11. 1962. 
Done at Brussels, 24 October 1979. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
R. VANNI 
Opinion on the proposals on policy with regard to agricultural structures 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the Euro­
pean Communities No C 124 of 17 May 1979, page 1. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 28 March 1979 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econ­
omic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 43 of the Treaty establishing 
the European Economic Community. 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/23 
B. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
The Economic and Social Committee prepared its opinion on the above matter at its 
172nd plenary session held in Brussels on 24 and 25 October 1979. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular Arti­
cle 43 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council 
of the European Communities on 28 March 1979 for 
an opinion, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau 
on 3 April 1979 instructing the Section for Agricul­
ture to prepare the Committee's work on the matter, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the rappor­
teur, Mr Laur, 
Having regard to the opinion issued by the Section 
for Agriculture at its meeting on 4 October 1979, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 172nd plen­
ary session held on 24 and 25 October 1979 (meeting 
of 24 October 1979), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 58 votes to 14 with 38 abstentions: 
1. Introductory remarks: position of the Commun­
ity's structural policy in 1979 
1.1. Continuing structural imbalances in agriculture 
1.1.1. In its report on the agricultural situation in 
the Community in 1978 the Commission said that 
farm structures were continuing to change but that 
imbalances still existed. This was evidenced 'by the 
fact that some 77 % of farms are still less than 20 ha 
and occupy no more than 29 % of the total utilized 
agricultural area'. 
1.1.2. All available statistics show that farm in­
comes vary considerably depending on the Member 
State, region, type of production and farm in ques­
tion. There are still considerable disparities of in­come both within the farming sector and also in 
comparison with non-agricultural sectors. In its 
communication to the European Council on 5 and 
6 December 1978 the Commission wrote: 'Income 
disparities are due to a large number of factors some 
of which have existed for a long time. The common 
agricultural policy has not helped to reduce these 
disparities'. 
1.1.3. During the period 1968 to 1977 the annual 
rate of labour migration from farming was 4 % in the 
Community as a whole. Between 1973 and 1977, 
however, it declined to 3 • 1 %, with the figures for 
1975/76 and 1976/77 showing an even sharper de­
cline although the rate of exodus varied a great deal 
from one Member State and one region to another. 
These figures clearly show that with the onset of the 
economic recession in 1973/74 unemployment went 
up and alternative employment opportunities out­
side agriculture declined significantly 'with obvious 
adverse effects on the exodus of surplus labour from 
farming and by implication on the possibilities of 
improving the structural situation in agriculture' (re­
port on the agricultural situation in the Community 
in 1978). 
1.1.4. A comparison of the age pyramid of the ac­
tive farm population with that of the total working 
population shows that there are relatively more per­
sons engaged in agriculture in the 55 and over age 
group and relatively less in the under 35 age group. 
These facts indicate that structural reforms should 
become a possibility with the release of land. They 
may also reflect, however, the fact that young peo­
ple find it difficult to get started in agriculture, espe­
cially since a not inconsiderable proportion of the 
farming community still remains in farming after 
reaching the age for drawing the normal old-age 
pension. 
1.1.5. Another factor that needs to be taken into 
consideration is the varying amount of time farmers 
devote to farming. The figures given by the Com­
mission in its report on the agricultural situation in 
the Community in 1978 show that in 1975 36% of 
farmers in the Community worked full time on their 
farms, a further 20 % worked on their farms for be-
No C 53/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
tween 50 and 100 % of normal full-time working, 
while 44 % spent less than 50 % of normal full-time 
working on their farms. These figures vary consider­
ably from Member State to Member State and from 
region to region. 
1.1.6. To get an even fuller picture we would need 
to examine other aspects of factors of production, 
productivity and technical progress, but the limited 
information already provided gives us at least a 
general background against which to examine the 
Commission's proposals and assess the extent of the 
structural imbalances that continue to exist in Com­
munity agriculture. 
1.2. Price and structural policies 
1.2.1. The facts and figures given above show that 
structural policy is an essential element of the com­
mon agricultural policy. Despite the reticences of a 
number of Member States which readily hold to the 
view that structural policy should by and large re­
main an instrument of national government, the 
'Community aspect' of modernization measures 
should be given more emphasis so as to reduce dis­
tortions in the conditions of production prevailing 
in each Member State. 
1.2.2. It is also through the medium of structural 
policy that the Community is required to 'take ac­
count of the particular nature of agricultural activity 
which results from the social structure of agriculture 
and from structural and natural disparities between 
the various agricultural regions' Article 39 (2) (a) of 
the Treaty). 
1.2.3. The common agricultural policy must there­
fore be built upon twin pillars: (a) a price and mar­
ket policy, (b) a common socio-structural policy. 
The price policy itself remains a fundamental com­
ponent of the CAP and cannot be replaced by the 
structural policy. 
1.3. Structural policy funds 
1.3.1. Since the adoption of Regulation (EEC) No 
729/70, the Guidance Sections' financial resources 
are used: 
— to finance common measures decided by the 
Council in pursuance of the objectives laid down 
in Article 39 (1) (a) of the Treaty; 
— to finance special measures decided by the 
Council before the adoption of Regulation 
(EEC) No 729/70; — for capital subsidies for projects designed to im­
prove agricultural structures pursuant to Regula­
tion No 17/64/EEC. 
1.3.2. In the allocation of appropriations, priority 
has been given since 1977 to common and special 
measures; the financing of individual projects is 
continued only if the total amount allocated to com­
mon measures in a given year is less than the Guid­
ance Section's annual appropriations. It ought to be 
mentioned, however, that in May 1979 the Council 
adopted a Regulation stipulating that financial aid 
given under the Guidance Section of the EAGGF 
would be fixed on a five-yearly basis from 1 January 
1980. The total budget for 1980/84 will be 3 600 mil­
lion EUA, i.e. 720 million EUA per annum instead 
of the present appropriation which stands at 325 
million units of account. 
1.3.3. Total spending of the Guidance Section 
amounted to 218-2 million units of account in 1976, 
296-7 million units of account in 1977 and 275 mil­
lion EUA in 1978. These amounts still fall well be­
low those spent by the Guarantee Section and the 
difficulties in implementing the socio-structural 
Directives in a number of Member States partly 
explains why not all Guidance Section funds 
have been fully used. 
1.3.4. It should not be forgotten, however, that the 
spending of the Guidance Section has been topped 
up by national funds even though it is not possible 
to say with any accuracy how much of this has been 
allotted specifically to structural policy. 
1.3.5. Despite all this, the funds spent on moder­
nizing production, processing and marketing struc­
tures have so far been insufficient to solve the diffi­
cult problems involved in changing agricultural 
structures in the Community. 
2. The new structural measures proposed by the 
Commission 
2.1. The proposals on policy with regard to agri­
cultural structures presented by the Commission to 
the Council on 19 March 1979 follow on from the 
guidelines contained in the Commission document 
submitted to the Council on 31 January 1979 and 
entitled proposals on the fixing of prices for certain 
agricultural products and on certain related mea­
sures. 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/25 
In its latest set of proposals (those of 19 March 
1979) the Commission: 
— makes one or two changes to the socio-structural 
Directives of 1972; it is impelled to do this by 
difficulties encountered in implementing the 
Directives and by changes in the general socio­
economic climate; 
— introduces specific action programmes to de­
velop agricultural production in certain particu­
larly deprived regions as well as in regions where 
there is a high concentration of small farms; 
— proposes a number of integrated regional devel­
opment programmes for 'a category of region in 
which agricultural development cannot be effi­
ciently conceived unless it is accompanied by re­
gional investment programmes aimed at develop­
ing alternative non-agricultural activities'. 
2.2. The Commission also proposes a special mea­
sure on the slaughtering of pigs and the processing 
of pigmeat in France and the United Kingdom. 
3. General comments by the Committee on the new 
measures proposed by the Commission 
3.1. Application of the socio-structural Directives of 
1972 
3.1.1. Before proposing changes to the 1972 texts 
the Commission should not only have given a full 
account of what had been achieved up to 31 Decem­
ber 1978 but should also have given a detailed 
analysis of the obstacles preventing implementation 
of the Community Directives. The third report on 
the application of socio-structural Directives pub­
lished on 27 July 1979 fills this gap only to some ex­
tent. 
3.1.2. With regard to the development plans car­
ried out under Directive No 159/72/EEC or under 
Directive No 268/75/EEC on hill farming and 
farming in less prosperous areas, estimates based on 
data taken from a variety of sources indicate that 
just over 100 000 farms had received development 
aid by the end of 1978, which is less than 2 % of the 
total number of farms in the Community. The same 
sources reveal that aid has also been distributed very 
unevenly among the Member States and among the different regions. In Denmark and the Netherlands 
about 10 % of farms of more than 1 ha have received 
aid under the development plans whereas this per­
centage falls to between 5 and 6 % in Belgium, the 
United Kingdom and Ireland, to less than 4% in 
Germany, and to less than 1 % in France. 
3.1.3. Whatever the reasons for these unsatisfac­
tory figures — and the complexity of administrative 
procedures in some Member States may be one of 
them — one cannot but agree with the Commission 
that 'the existing measures have not been such as to 
bring about improvement in the structural situation 
of a substantial number of farms, particularly those 
which are small and especially those in difficult 
areas'. The fact that the abovementioned categories 
of farm are denied the 'benefits of the common 
structures policy' is also extremely unsatisfactory for 
the overall economic development of those regions 
(Commission proposals on the fixing of prices for 
certain agricultural products and on certain related 
measures). 
3.1.4. The Commission's recognition that 'the 
number of farms just managing to achieve the target 
income levels set in the development plans is too 
small', and its statement in the explanatory memo­
randum that 'current measures to improve structures 
should be adjusted in the light of the changes in the 
general socio-economic situation and should be 
supplemented so as to enable a substantial number 
of farms not so far eligible for these measures to be­
nefit from them' are extremely positive signs. 
3.1.5. A more careful look at the specific measures 
shows, however, that because of additional con­
straints arising out of the situation in dairy farming, 
pig farming and greenhouse cultivation, fewer and 
not more farms are likely to receive modernization 
aids. As a result, planned expenditure under the 
Guidance Section of the EAGGF is likely to be less 
than amounts currently disbursed. The Committee 
for its part considers that more development plans 
could be brought under Directive 159/72/EEC if 
the aims that had to be set were not so stringent. 
3.2. Flexibility and selectiveness 
3.2.1. The poor achievements of the socio-struc­
tural Directives — with the exception perhaps of the 
Directive on hill farming and farming in less pros­
perous areas — inevitably means that questions are 
going to be raised about the selectiveness criteria 
used in the Directives. Failures, however, should not 
No C 53/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
mean a challenge to the very principle of 'selective-
ness'. Selectiveness after all is justified because 
Community aid is intended to benefit those whose 
needs are greater from the point of view of farm 
modernization and the raising of incomes to levels 
comparable with those obtaining outside agricul­
ture. It is also justified because — however much 
one would like to see the ceiling raised — the total 
volume of aid is inevitably limited. 
3.2.2. Nevertheless if the policy is to give a larger 
number of farmers the possibility of benefiting from 
development plans, then one needs to take a fresh 
look at the conditions determining development 
and modernization. The Community's concept of a 
single development plan aimed at enabling the 
farmer to achieve the 'comparable income' target in 
one go would not appear to be an appropriate solu­
tion. Such a linear conception of development is 
hardly relevant to the vast majority of the farming 
community since it calls for a high level of technical 
competence, a capacity for controlling large invest­
ments, an ability to adjust to the problems posed by 
bigger farms and more equipment, and considerable 
strength of character — and all these at the same 
time. Farmers cannot really be expected to show all 
these qualities when so far they have only had to 
tackle problems on a scale commensurate with their 
modest holdings. In other words when development 
is too rapid, farmers are ill-prepared to master the 
varying situations that present themselves. A grad­
ual approach would be more satisfactory, which is 
why the refusal to take into consideration the notion 
of stage-by-stage development is so regrettable. Nor 
is it likely that the principle of temporary aid, as 
proposed by the Commission, will help matters. 
3.3. Relationship between structural policy and mar­
ket situation 
3.3.1. The link which the Commission has esta­
blished between structural policy on the one hand 
and the position of, and outlook for, agricultural 
markets on the other, poses a whole series of prob­
lems. 
3.3.2. Structural reform in agriculture calls for a 
medium and long-term strategy; it cannot merely be 
a reflection of current economic considerations. 
Nevertheless it must be sufficiently flexible to adapt 
to changing economic situations and to require­
ments that vary in both extent and kind. principle of the gradual, continuous and essential 
modernization of the Community's production 
machinery. It would also mean that young farmers 
would not be able to establish themselves in sectors 
where there is considered to be surplus production 
at present. This in turn is likely to jeopardize in­
creased production in the future. Suspending invest­
ment aids would also ossify a large number of agri­
cultural structures and perpetuate the current dispar­
ities between countries, regions and farms. Invest­
ments aids to rationalize production and reduce 
production costs should not therefore be suspended. 
3.3.4. Maintaining some investment aids in the 
sectors in question can therefore be justified for 
both economic and social reasons. Nevertheless, it 
is important to be consistent and realize the con­
tradiction between increased price and market sup­
port expenditure on the one hand, and the granting 
of investment aid in the sectors referred to above, on 
the other. 
3.3.5. The question of investment aids cannot 
therefore be isolated from the overall problem of 
having to work out a price and market policy, and 
having to establish a trade policy towards non-mem­
ber countries. The solutions to the problems of (a) 
prices and (b) the contribution of producers to the 
financing of surpluses and to expanding domestic 
and foreign market outlets must also be taken into 
consideration. Finally, whilst it is necessary to en­
courage farms to increase their efficiency, measures 
to do so should be carried out on a selective basis 
and should take into account the nature of the in­
vestments, the type of soil and the need for a more 
autonomous, more economical method of produc­
tion. 
3.3.6. In this respect, however, the Commission's 
proposal is too restrictive, for investment aids 
should be granted not only to farms in hill areas, 
less prosperous areas and areas where there is per­
manent pasture land, but also to farms capable of 
producing a considerable proportion of their feed 
requirements. 
Aids should also be granted to rationalize produc­
tion and reduce production costs. 
3.4. Regionalization of structural policy 
3.3.3. The suspension of investment aids in certain 
sectors would not appear to be compatible with the 3.4.1. The Commission considers that changes to 
the socio-structural Directives are not in themselves 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/27 
sufficient to bring about substantial changes in cer­
tain regions where the prospects of structural im­
provements are not very bright. This is why the 
Commission proposes: (a) to develop agricultural 
production through specific action programmes and 
(b) for another category of region, to tackle agricul­
tural development within the framework of regional 
investment programmes designed to promote alter­
native, non-agricultural activities. This policy calls 
for a number of remarks. 
3.4.2. There have often been difficulties in imple­
menting socio-structural Directives, hence the need 
to take a closer look at regional factors and to adjust 
Community Directives accordingly. It is doubtful 
whether the regional character of socio-structural 
directives has hitherto received sufficient attention. 
3.4.3. The improvement of structures and the de­
velopment of agriculture in certain regions has been 
handicapped by the absence of a proper EEC re­
gional development policy. 
3.4.4. From the very outset the common agricul­
tural policy has suffered from isolation and the fact 
that related development policies have failed to get 
off the ground. The Commission's fondness for inte­
grated programmes, as well as for development pro­
grammes designed to promote agricultural produc­
tion on a regional basis, must not however lead to 
the abandonment of a proper common regional pol­
icy. 
3.4.5. Integrated programmes have an appeal since 
they satisfy the desire to bring the development of 
all agricultural and non-agricultural activities under 
the one umbrella. Coordination of the Community's 
various financial instruments should help to con­
centrate funds on a limited geographical area. 
Nevertheless it is important to make sure that the 
Guidance Section of the EAGGF only makes a fin­
ancial contribution to those schemes it is responsi­
ble for itself. 
3.4.6. Finally, the selection of regions eligible for 
aid under, integrated programmes would seem to 
stem more from the wish to preserve a political 
balance between the Member States than from an 
overall policy decision to correct the most flagrant 
imbalances within the Community. The lack of 
Community criteria in selecting regions seems to 
be a proof of this interpretation. 3.4.7. The failures of the socio-structural Direc­
tives of 1972 should not, however, lead to a gradual 
abandonment of the Commission's initial commit­
ment to the development of individual farms. The 
regionalization of structural policy — an innovation 
of undoubted interest —. must not supplant the 
Commission's original objectives but must supple­
ment action already taken by the Community. It is 
vital to give as many farmers as possible the oppor­
tunity to modernize their farms on the basis of Com­
munity criteria so that conditions of production can 
be gradually harmonized in EEC agriculture. 
3.5. Complementary measures 
3.5.1. By widening the scope of the provisions on 
cessation annuities, the Commission hopes to bring 
about a speedier release of land, thus making it pos­
sible for farms to expand and be modernized. 
3.5.2. By no longer insisting on such a close link 
between cessation annuities on the one hand and 
the allocation of land to farms submitting a devel­
opment plan on the other, the Directive on the ces­
sation of farming ought to be more flexible and so 
easier to implement; the result should be increased 
mobility of land. One important problem the Com­
mission cannot afford to ignore, however, is the up­
ward pressure on the price of land all over Europe 
as a result of the various agricultural and non-agri­
cultural uses to which land can be put. Higher land 
prices are a serious obstacle to farm modernization; 
they also give rise to excessive indebtedness on the 
part of farmers. Given this trend we have to ask our­
selves what methods can be used — within the 
framework of land management techniques — to 
delimit areas reserved for agriculture and ensure that 
those who need land most are given priority of ac­
cess. 
3.5.3. The problems involved in setting young 
farmers up in agriculture is another important aspect 
of the gradual modernization of production struc­
tures. For several years now the Commission has 
been presenting the Council with proposals to help 
young farmers. One of these proposals in that spe­
cial aid be granted when, a farm is developed and 
modernized. The Council ought to take a decision 
on this proposal at the same time as it takes deci­
sions on all the other proposals currently under dis­
cussion. 
No C 53/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
4. Specific comments by the Committee on the new 
measures proposed 
4.1. Directive 72/159/EEC 
4.1.1. Phased development plan 
The Committee feels that the Commission does not 
take adequate account of the mediocre results ob­
tained in implementing the development plans, par­
ticularly in those Member States where success is 
most needed. A farm development strategy aimed at 
achieving comparable incomes in one step does not 
make sufficient allowance for the various problems 
involved in modernization. The Committee there­
fore supports proposals to aid farmers who are will­
ing to improve their incomes gradually until they are 
eventually able to submit development plans prov­
ing that they are capable of earning incomes com­
parable with those obtained elsewhere. 
Under a phased development plan, farm moderniza­
tion measures should receive financial support from 
the Community in exactly the same way as they 
would under a development plan. 
The problems of farmers who for various reasons are 
unable to submit a development plan should be 
studied with careful attention at national level. 
4.1.2. Transitional aid (Article 4) 
The Committee endorses the idea of a single transi­
tional aid granted on terms similar to those provided 
for in Article 8 of Directive 72/159/EEC of 17 April 
1972. 
As regards the requirement to keep accounts for at 
least five years, the Committee feels that the aims of 
the investment should not be lost sight of. 
If a farmer who, by virtue of his age, is eligible for 
subsequent aid under the Directive on the cessation 
of farming, obligatory book-keeping seems unreas­
onable unless it is simplified. If, on the other hand, 
it is designed for farmers just starting out on a mod­
ernization scheme that will eventually entitle them 
to aid under a development plan, then there is justi­fication in requiring that simplified accounts be 
kept without any time limit. 
The Committee feels, however, that there may well 
be a case for providing this transitional aid at Com­
munity level, in order to prevent discrimination 
against the great majority of farmers who will have 
to remain in agriculture for their working lives and 
cannot submit development plan because of diffi­
culties in obtaining new land, their age, or lack of 
alternative jobs in the non-agricultural sector. 
For this group of self-employed farmers who make a 
major contribution to the output of high-quality 
agricultural produce, incentives should be provided 
— though on a limited scale — for the moderniza­
tion of farming techniques. Modernization is indis­
pensable if acceptable levels of productivity are to 
be maintained. 
4.1.3. Level of comparable income (Article 1(1)) 
Assuming that the Commission does not accept the 
concept of a phased development plan — even 
though this would seem to be the best way of ensur­
ing progress for the largest number of farmers — the 
Committee endorses the proposal to reduce the in­
come level threshold per man-work unit. 
The Committee feels, however, that the Commis­
sion's arguments are not relevant. Farmers, just like 
non-agricultural workers, clearly devote part of their 
time and income to travel, particularly because of 
the way farms are divided up and because of the 
distance between farm buildings and land. Nev­
ertheless, it would be preferable to make it clear that 
since farm incomes lag behind non-farm incomes, 
steps ought to be taken to reduce the income target 
by a certain percentage in order to enable a larger 
number of farmers to submit development plans. 
i 
This does not in any way mean an abandonment of 
the principle of parity of income between agricul­
ture and other industries. It merely acknowledges 
that a large number of farmers cannot achieve in­
come parity in one go. 
The Committee feels that the Commission's figure 
of 10% is inadequate and should be raised to at 
least 20 %. This would entail acceptance of the fact 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/29 
that a farmer submitting a development plan would 
aim to achieve 80 % of the average gross salary of 
non-agricultural workers in this area. 
The Committee notes, moreover, that regional com­
parable incomes vary significantly from one Com­
munity region to another. This means that farmers 
located in economically developed zones are able to 
submit a development plan even though their in­
come is often already higher than that of farmers 
who are located in under-developed areas and can­
not submit development plans. Regional disparities 
are therefore perpetuated and can even be exacer­
bated. Whilst it is reasonable that the aim of the first 
stage of development should be to catch up with av­
erage non-agricultural incomes in the same area, 
subsequent efforts should be concentrated on find­
ing ways and means in less-developed areas of 
achieving average Community incomes. 
4.1.4. Calculation of non-farm incomes 
The current Directive covers only income from 
farming. Given recent trends and the increase in 
part-time working in the EEC, however, the Section 
feels that even if only one man-work unit is em­
ployed, income from activities directly related to 
farming such as forestry, aquaculture and farm tour­
ism, should be taken into consideration up to 20 %. 
4.1.5. Return of farmers, own capital (Article 1 (2)) 
The Committee feels that a minimum single rate for 
return on own capital will facilitate the harmoniza­
tion of farm management conditions and methods 
of calculating farm incomes. An analysis of the re­
turns of the FAN (farm accountancy network.) 
shows, however, that rates of return on own capital 
vary widely not only within agriculture but also 
within individual production systems and according 
to the size of the production unit in question. 
The Committee emphasizes that it is not standard 
practice to set a part of the return on own capital 
against earned income. Nevertheless it accepts the Commission proposal in view of the objective in­
volved. 
4.1.6. Income in excess of the average regional in­
come 
4.1.6.1. The Committee agrees that the earned in­
come set as a target under a development plan may 
not exceed the regional average by more than 20 %. 
4.1.6.2. It must, however, be borne in mind that 
farms which have achieved income parity can main­
tain their position only if there exists a prices policy 
such as was defined when the socio-structural Direc­
tives were adopted. This means that the annual price 
increases adopted by the Council of Ministers on 
the basis of objective criteria must aim to keep farm 
incomes moving ahead in parallel with income in 
other industries in the region. 
4.1.7. Investments (Article 2) 
The Committee endorses the proposal to raise the 
ceiling on investment per man-work unit qualifying 
for the interest rate subsidy provided for in Article 8 
(2) of the Directive of 17 April 1972. 
The Committee feels, however, that this figure 
should be reviewed annually in order to take ac­
count of investment costs and price trends in the 
Community. 
4.1.8. Limitation of aid to investment (Article 3) 
Farm modernization must be a permanent, long-
term feature of the common agricultural policy. It 
must not be brought to a sudden halt by invoking 
imbalances on certain markets. A decision to freeze 
all aid to investment and modernization in a given 
production sector would jeopardize the moderniza­
tion and development of the Community's produc­
tion machinery and in the long run would gainsay 
the policy of supplying consumers at reasonable 
prices. The Committee therefore feels that the prin­
ciple of aid to investment in the various production 
sectors should be maintained, subject to a number 
of conditions. 
The primary aim of investment should not be to 
boost production. It should be to arrive at an econ-
No C 53/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 3.3.80 
omic optimum that will secure the best possible in­
come for farmers. 
Aids should be granted to rationalize production 
and reduce production costs. 
4.1.9. In the dairy sector: 
The Committee feels that investment aid must be 
maintained in those regions where there is no alter­
native to milk production (these are mainly hill-
farming and disadvantaged areas), in farms where at 
least 35 % of the UAA is under grass, and in farms 
which produce at least 70 % of their own feed re­
quirements. 
The Committee also suggests that on account of its 
undoubted socio-structural value the Commission 
should resurrect its 1977 proposal (') to grant a Com­
munity premium per hectare of feedstock surface to 
farmers aged between 55 and 60 who agree to with­
draw from farming and to slaughter milk cows and 
replacement heifers. This premium would be paya­
ble up to the end of the 65th year from funds ob­
tained from the co-responsibility levy. 
Such action would ecourage financial solidarity be­
tween farmers giving up milk production and those 
investing in modernization. 
4.1.10. In pig farming: 
The Committee feels that the proposed ban on in­
creasing the number of fat stock or breeding sows is 
not warranted by the market situation and consumer 
trends. 
It also considers that the criterion of 65 % of the 
UAA under crops is not particularly useful in view 
of the fact that farms vary considerably in size from 
one region to another. The Committee feels that 
more attention should be given to ensuring that in­
centives are not given to large industrial farms — 
which are also large consumers of imported prod­
ucts and energy. The Committee feels that it is 
preferable to maintain the previous criterion which 
specified that on completion of the development 
plan, the farm should be at least 35 % self sufficient 
in pig feed. 
(») OJ No C 96, 19.4. 1977, p. 1. The feed requirement must be stiff enough to ensure 
that industrial-scale pig farms are not set up. The 
present investment ceiling of 54 565 units of ac­
count should be altered and replaced by an upper 
ceiling on the volume of output. 
4.1.11. Production under glass: 
The Committee feels that the maintenance of invest­
ment aid in this area can be justified only if enough 
energy and costs are saved. 
While endorsing the principle of optimum location 
of production, the Committee considers that prod­
uction under unheated glass enables certain regions 
to provide regular market supplies. 
The Committee, therefore, feels that production un­
der glass should continue to qualify for investment 
aids, but only if such aids reflect a genuine attempt 
to save energy or develop renewable sources of 
energy. 
4.1.12. Aid for land purchase (Article 5) 
Directive 159/72/EEC does not deal with the pur­
chase of agricultural land. An analysis of farm struc­
tures has shown that a large number of farms have 
been prevented from expanding by a shortage of 
land. Improved farm incomes, one of the key objec­
tives of farm modernization and development, can 
be achieved, for example, by increasing productivity 
and increasing the size of farms. Measures to in­
crease productivity will in most cases boost output 
but this is not necessarily desirable given the situa­
tion on certain markets. On the other hand, an in­
crease in farm size either by leasing or by purchasing 
land where there is no other alternative, can help to 
improve profitability and income without the need 
to intensify production. It is particularly important 
to study all the methods used by the Member States 
to solve the difficult problem of land (land zoning, 
right of pre-emption, legislation against land hoard­
ing, land investment company). In the view of the 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/31 
Committee the Commission should look at the 
whole question of,land and submit proposals. 
4.1.13. EAGGF expenditure (Appendix) 
The Commission estimates of the financial cost of 
amendments to Directive 72/159/EEC show that 
increased expenditure on measures to ease the con­
ditions for submitting development plans will be 
fully offset by the cut-backs on aid to investment in 
dairying, pig breeding and glass-house construction. 
It should also be stressed that if certain potential ex­
penditure were not undertaken, further savings 
would be possible. 
The Committee cannot accept this result. It runs 
counter to the objective of the Commission proposal 
which was to enable the submission of a larger num­
ber of development plans in order to improve the re­
sults obtained to date. 
4.2. Directive 75/268/EEC 
4.2.1. Reduction of utilized agricultural area 
(Article 1 (1)) 
The Committee takes the view that the minimum fi­
gure of two hectares of utilized agricultural area 
should also apply to farms in the Scottish Highlands 
and Islands. 
4.2.2. Amount of compensatory allowance 
(Article 1 (2)) 
The Committee approves the proposal to increase 
the compensatory allowance from 50 to 75 units of 
account. The minimum of 15 units of account 
should, however, be raised to 30 units of account. 
4.2.3. Restrictions on the grant of the compensa­
tory allowance in respect of dairy cows 
(Article 1 (3)) 
The proposal to abolish restrictions on aid to dairy 
farming in hilly areas of Italy where there is a short­
fall in milk production would seem to be justified. A 
number of other regions in disadvantaged areas are 
also in a similar situation, for example, the Scottish 
Western Islands, which have to obtain milk prod­
ucts at high cost. The Committee wonders if it is possible to apply the Commission proposals to these 
areas. It is also debatable whether such procedures 
are compatible with the need to apply certain com­
mon criteria to all Member States. 
4.2.4. Reimbursement rate (Article 1 (4)) 
The Scottish Highlands should also qualify for the 
higher reimbursement rate proposed for the Mezzo-
giorno and the west or Ireland. This is warranted on 
historical grounds and by the area's serious geo­
graphical handicaps. 
4.2.5. Additional comment 
In some disadvantaged areas farmers are unable to 
fatten their cattle from their own crops. This is 
mainly because of the climate. The Committee 
therefore wonders whether there is not a case for 
providing aid in respect of winter fodder crops. 
4.3. Directive 72/161/EEC 
4.3.1. Attendance allowances and premiums 
(Article 1) 
To some extent Directive 72/161/EEC lays the 
foundations for the socio-economic guidance and 
occupational skills of persons engaged in agricul­
ture. The Directive is therefore fundamental to farm­
ers' capacity for obtaining training — training that 
will enable them to submit development plans and 
to rationalize their farming. The results achieved to 
date have been unsatisfactory. 
Experience shows that farmers who wish to moder­
nize are very often unable to follow training courses 
because of the conditions under which they them­
selves operate: working hours, difficulty and cost of 
finding replacements on the farm, costs occasioned 
by training, etc. 
In order to encourage more persons employed in 
agriculture to attend training courses which qualify 
for Community aid, the Committee feels that people 
attending training courses should receive an ade­
quate attendance allowance. 
The Committee wonders if it is feasible to treat time 
spent on training as working time. In the case of de-
No C 53/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
velopment plans, training time should be included 
for the purposes of calculating earned income per 
man-work unit. 
Finally, the Committee would point out that Direc­
tive 72/161/EEC also covers the socio-economic 
training of agricultural wage-earners. It therefore 
urges that this provision be actually implemented 
throughout the Community. 
4.3.2. Replacement of the heading of Title III 
(Article 2) 
The Committee notes that the old Title III of Direc­
tive 161/72/EEC on the retraining of persons en­
gaged in agriculture who wish to take up an occupa­
tion outside agriculture, is superfluous since this 
area is now covered by the European Social Fund 
which part-finances such retraining to the tune of 
50 %. 
4.3.3. New heading of Title III (Article 2) 
The Committee disagrees with the use of the word 
'undertaking' in the Title. Since managers and staff 
of producer organizations — and particularly agri­
cultural cooperatives — are involved, the term 
'undertaking' should be dropped to remove any 
ambiguity and should be replaced by the phrase 
'economic organizations controlled by agricultural 
producers'. 
The Committee approves the proposal to provide 
training for managers and staff of agricultural or­
ganizations responsible for producer groups and for 
the processing and marketing of agricultural prod­
ucts. 
4.3.4. Training programme (Article 4) 
The Committee approves the proposal to provide 
specialized training for persons who already have 
adequate basic training and sufficient experience of 
farming. 
The Committee, however, has its doubts about the 
wording of lines 5 and 6 of the first indent of para­
graph 1. The Committee would like 'undertakings' 
to be replaced by 'economic organizations con­
trolled by producers and particularly cooperatives'. 
The Committee does not understand what is meant 
by 'in the field of cooperative techniques'. The Committee considers it essential that this mea­
sure be applied in the same way and on the same 
scale i in all EEC Member States. Consideration 
should be given to appropriate coordination with 
other training and further training programmes, 
especially those of the cooperatives, and to the use 
of existing training facilities. The training pro­
gramme itself should concentrate on the appropriate 
functional and structural areas. It must be stated 
clearly, for example, that on the one hand the 'man­
agement of agricultural producer groups' and their 
'creation' is part of the programme for managers of 
producer cooperatives, and on the other hand that 
the 'viable economic initiatives as regards the mar­
keting and processing of agricultural products' and 
'preparation of programmes and implementation of 
projects as provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 
355/77' is part of the programme for managers of 
cooperatives. 
4.3.5. Financial resources (Article 4 (3)) 
The Committee welcomes the Commission proposal 
to provide financial support for training. The struc­
ture of agricultural supply is still inadequate and it 
is particularly important that producers make perso-
nel efforts to improve the quality of agricultural 
produce, the structure of agricultural supplies and to 
provide regular uniform high quality batches. 
Equally, Community funds should be used to en­
courage agricultural producers involved in market­
ing and processing agricultural products. 
The Committee regrets, however, that the cost of 
training courses is to be borne entirely by the Mem­
ber States and that the Community is only to subsi­
dize attendance allowances and premiums. This 
decision may discriminate against some farmers in 
those Member States where adequate training struc­
tures have not yet been established. 
4.3.6. Financial resources (Article 5) 
The Committee approves the proposed increases in 
the flat-rate amount payable in respect of socio­
economic advisers and the actual expenditure on 
training of socio-economic advisers. 
The Community has not contributed to the cost of 
training courses for farmers or for managers and 
staff of 'economic organizations controlled by farm­
ers'. The Committee, therefore, suggests that the 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/33 
Community should subsidize attendance allowances 
and premiums to the tune of 75 % instead of 50 % as 
proposed. 
4.4. Directive 72/160/EEC 
Directive 72/160/EEC was designed to encourage 
the retirement of farmers and the reallocation of 
utilized agricultural areas to farms which had sub­
mitted a development plan. The Committee notes 
that the hoped for success has not been achieved. 
The Committee attributes this lack of success to: 
(a) changes in the general economic situation which 
has encouraged farmers to postpone retirement; 
(b)the inadequate level of incentives for retirement; 
(c) strictures peculiar to the proposals in questions, 
which were unsuitable for the specific conditions 
in certain regions. 
While farmers in some Member States have retired 
from farming, the aids granted by these States were 
generally not contingent on aggregate conditions 
such as the age of the beneficiary, withdrawal from 
farming and transfer of land to a farmer who had 
submitted a development plan. The number of ces­
sation annuities which qualified for EAGGF aid 
was therefore extremely small. 
In view, however, of the current state of agricultural 
structures and the very large number of small farms 
run by elderly farmers, the Committee is adamant 
that the key objective of Directive 72/160/EEC, i.e. 
the transfer of land to farmers whose production 
structures are the most deficient, must be top prior­
ity for the modernization of farms and the rationali­
zation of production structures. 
The Committee feels that this objective can be 
achieved by adapting the Community draft and 
gearing it more closely to the actual conditions in 
the various Community regions. It is therefore obvious that the decision to introduce 
a retirement scheme for elderly farmers in particular 
is important and will benefit agricultural restructur­
ing. This being so, the scheme should qualify for 
Community aid. The Committee feels that where re­
tired farmers' land is reallocated to farmers who 
submit a development plan, additional Community 
aid should be forthcoming. 
4.4.1. Payment to elderly farmers (Article 1(1) (a)) 
The Committee approves the proposal to increase 
the cessation annuity to maximum of 2 000 units of 
account per year for married farmers and 1 500 units 
of account per year for single farmers. 
The Committee suggests that the lower age limit 
should be retirement age minus 10 years but should 
not be lower than 50. The upper limit should be 
raised in all Member States for a limited period and 
only farmers who are currently over 65 years old 
should be eligible. In many Member States a large 
number of fanners over 65 continue to farm large 
areas. Efforts should be made to transfer such land 
to farmers who wish to develop their holdings. 
4.4.2. Structural premiums (Article 1(1) (b)) 
The Committee approves the proposal that struc­
tural premiums should qualify for EAGGF aid. It is 
not completely satisfied, however, with the defini­
tion of the premium as at least four times the rental 
value of the utilized agricultural area released. The 
areas which need a vigorous structural policy most 
are not always those with the highest rental values. 
The premium should perhaps therefore be increased 
in sparsely populated areas or areas where farm 
leases do not fetch high prices. 
The premium which qualifies for EAGGF aid — up 
to 300 units of account per hectare — should be suf­
ficiently attractive. 
No C 53/34 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
4.4.3. Grants for permanent hired or family 
workers (Article 1 (1) (c)) 
Having examined the proposals in respect of agri­
cultural workers aged between 50 and 65 employed 
on a farm whose owner qualifies for retirement ben­
efits, the Committee feels that all agricultural 
workers in a similar situation should be eligible for 
severance payments and that all these allowances 
should attract EAGGF aid. 
The Committee feels, moreover, that the Commis­
sion should examine the case of farms where the im­
plementation of a development plan or work ration­
alization would lead to labour shedding. The Com­
mittee feels that laid-off workers should qualify for 
the cessation annuity and that part of the costs of 
these payments should be subsidized by the 
EAGGF. 
The Committee approves the proposal to increase 
the maximum eligible amount to 1 500 units of ac­
count per year. 
4.4.4. Single anticipatory premium (Article 1(1) 
(d)) 
The Committee feels that potential candidates for 
retirement should be encouraged to give advance 
notice of their intention to retire and to assign their 
land within five years to a development plan. They 
should for example be paid a sliding-scale premium 
related to the date on which they decide to retire. 
The Committee therefore feels that the determina­
tion of the lower age limit for granting the premium 
should — like the retirement premium proper — be 
related to the retirement age in each Member State. 
The Committee feels that the anticipatory premium 
should be increased if the farmer agrees to retire and 
to rent his land to a farmer who submits a develop­
ment plan. In such cases the amount eligible for 
EAGGF aid should be raised to 600 units of ac­
count. 
4.4.5. Cessation and enlargement annuity 
(Article 1 (l)(e)) 
This proposal may encourage land transfers and 
provide elderly farmers with an alternative source of income. The problem of enlarging holdings is not 
peculiar to disadvantaged areas. Community statis­
tics show clearly that this problem affects most of 
the Member States. 
The Committee therefore suggests that this cessation 
annuity be payable where areas released are used to 
expand a farm. 
There is of course no obligation to assign land to a 
development plan. The Committee therefore feels 
that this grant should be lower than the grant paid 
when restructuring is achieved under a development 
plan. 
4.4.6. Succession allowance (Article 1(1) (0) 
The Committee approves the proposal to grant a 
succession allowance to farmers aged 60 and over. It 
does so in view of the need to promote the swiftest 
possible structural adaptation and to enable persons 
taking over farms to modernize. 
The Committee approves the condition that the 
farm should be transferred definitively by notarial 
act to a family heir but queries the proviso that this 
heir should have been employed on the farm for not 
less than five years. It considers that economic 
trends could justify a relative with the requisite 
qualifications returning to a farm even though he 
had not been employed on it for five years. The in­
dent should therefore be amended to read 'a family 
heir employed for more than five years on the farm 
or an heir possessing adequate qualifications'. 
Since this proposal may provide an impetus for 
Community agriculture, the Committee does not 
agree that the succession allowance should be con-
finded to certain less-favoured areas. 
4.4.7. Less-favoured regions (Article 1 (2)) 
Assuming that the abovementioned measures (ex­
pansion allowance and succession allowance) are to 
be applied only to less-favoured areas, the Commit­
tee feels that the additional criterion of 'the exist­
ence of deficient agricultural structures' should be 
added. 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/35 
4.4.8. Assignment of land (Article 2) 
The Committee has its doubts about the proposal to 
reduce from 85 % to 66 % the agricultural area which 
farmers must release in order to qualify for the re­
tirement allowance. In fact modernization and de­
velopment of structures presuppose greater flexibil­
ity in transferring land. There is a risk that the 
lowering of the percentage of land released would 
prevent the achievement of the desired objective. 
4.4.9. Reimbursement of expenses eligible for 
EAGGF aid (Article 3) 
The Committee feels that expenditure qualifying for 
EAGGF aid under Article 1 (1), (a), (b) and (c) 
should be reimbursed to Member States up to a ceil­
ing of 50 %. This would encourage Member States to 
promote the release of land under rules associated 
with development plans. 
4.5. Specific programmes for the development of 
agricultural production 
4.5.1. Preliminary comments 
The Committee endorses the Commission statement 
that the improvements to the 1972 socio-structural 
Directives, and more specifically to the conditions 
for submitting development plans, will not be suffi­
cient to resolve the problems bedevilling the Com­
munity's disadvantaged areas. It is felt that many 
farmers will be unable to modernize under the pro­
posed development schemes. 
The Committee is pleased that the Commission has 
committed itself to specific regional programmes for 
the development of agriculture. However, it would 
ask the Commission not to abandon the idea of 
promoting development designed (a) to enable 
farmers to catch up with the wage levels of other 
socio-professional categories and (b) to encourage 
farm modernization in line with Community cri­
teria. 
While the Committee generally endorses the propo 
sals contained in the specific programmes for devel­
oping agricultural production, the following com­
ments are necessary. The Commission seems intent on pursuing a re­
cently launched strategy (l) via measures with a spe­
cifically regional slant. The Committee endorses the 
Commission's efforts to reduce disparities and im­
balances at regional and sectoral level but stresses 
the need to implement such measures on a basis 
genuinely compatible with the objectives of Com­
munity policy in all the Member States. 
While applauding the Commission's decision to en­
courage the development of certain deficit products 
and to improve infrastructures, the Committee won­
ders if these measures are a match for the problems 
in disadvantaged areas. The Committee considers 
that measures to expand agricultural production 
alone cannot solve the difficulties deriving from over 
all economic underdevelopment or inadequate 
economic, social or cultural infrastructures. 
The Committee also considers that the Commission 
proposals do not sufficiently emphasize the antici­
pated profitability of certain investments and the 
expected results from the aids granted. 
The Committee finally queries the exclusive use of 
the Guidance Section of the EAGGF to subsidize 
the specific programmes. In a number of instances 
the benefits deriving from the investments will not 
be confined to agriculture alone. It might therefore 
be desirable to bring other Community Funds into 
play, particularly in view of the need for infrastruc­
tures and facilitities to back up agricultural develop­
ment. 
4.5.2. Development of beef cattle and sheep prod­
uction in Italy 
In view of the significant shortfall in beef and mut­
ton production in Italy and the particularly severe 
impact on the balance of trade, the Committee ap­
proves the proposal to develop cattle and sheep 
farming in mountain areas, in hill areas of the north, 
in the centre of Italy and in the Mezzogiorno. 
(») Regulation (EEC) No 1360/78 OJ No L 166, 23.6. 
1978, p. 1), Regulation (EEC) No 1361/78 (OJ No 
L 166, 23. 6. 1978, p. 9), Directive 78/628/EEC (OJ, No 
L 206, 29. 7. 1978, p. 5). 
No C 53/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
The Committee stresses however that certain mea­
sures have been omitted, in particular market organ­
izations for mutton and measures to (a) encourage 
the amalgamation of holdings, (b) bring about struc­
tural improvements and (c) halt the rural exodus. 
The Committee points out that an expansion of 
agricultural production in these regions should be 
backed up by the requisite processing and marketing 
facilities. 
4.5.3. The stimulation of agricultural development 
in the west of Ireland 
The Commission proposals to assist the west of Ire­
land relate to infrastructures, training facilities and 
the expansion of agricultural production 
Although the under-developed regions of the west 
of Ireland are largely agricultural, the low level of 
development cannot be attributed to agriculture 
alone. Inadequate communication networks, public 
services, training facilities, piped water and elec­
tricity supplies, etc., make it very difficult for other 
dustries to establish themselves in the west. 
While the development programme would be parti­
cularly useful, the Committe points out that a signi­
ficant proportion of the investment involved will 
benefit areas other than agriculture. The regional 
policy aspect of the proposed measures should thus 
be taken into account. 
A clearer distinction should therefore be drawn be­
tween measures which (a) concern the improvement 
of agricultural production and processing infrastruc­
tures, training, the development of agriculture and 
forestry, and qualify for EAGGF aid, and (b) mea­
sures which concern infrastructure, which is the res­
ponsibility of the public authorities and is eligible 
for Regional Development Fund aid. 
Given the importance of this programme and the 
objectives involved, the Committee stresses the need 
for a commitment by the farmers concerned that 
they will play a vigorous role in undertaking invest­ments, which will generally only be profitable in the 
medium or long term. 
4.5.4. Development of sheep farming in Greenland 
The Committee queries the decision to develop 
sheepfarming in Greenland. The reasons underlying 
this programme are not economic and it is unlikely 
to be profitable. 
The Committee finds it difficult to assess the case 
for the project. Apart from the fact that Greenland 
mutton will certainly be the most expensive ever, 
the Committee wonders if the harbour facilities 
financed by the EAGGF would not also benefit 
the non-farming community. 
Moreover, the Commission does not take sufficient 
account of the need to encourage farmers to market 
and process their own produce, in view of the han­
dicaps associated with transport conditions in the 
area. 
The Committee would remind the Commission that 
in view of the large amount of money to be spent in 
establishing 50 new sheep farms, the programme 
should above all enjoy the total support of all farm­
ers concerned and their commitment to undertake 
the proposed investment. 
4.6. Integrated regional programmes 
4.6.1. Preliminary remarks 
The Committee endorses the principle of integrated 
development programmes. In some regions agricul­
tural development is only feasible if backed up by 
regional investment programmes aimed at the ex­
pansion of economic activity other than farming. 
The Committee notes that the integration problem is 
the same in all regions in so far as a high degree of 
integration at all levels is a sine qua non for harmon­
ious economic balance and development. This is 
why the Committee feels that the specific pro­
grammes referred to earlier can succeed only if the 
development of agricultural production is backed 
up by a set of related activities and services. 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/37 
The Committee considers that close coordination of 
private and public action in conjunction with differ­
ent types of investment will make it possible for the 
Community's various financial instruments to be 
used for structural purposes. It is equally important 
that the Member States concerned make a financial 
contribution to these investments in addition to the 
financial efforts of the Community itself. 
The Committee, however, queries the Commission's 
choice of region and the criteria used. 
The level of development of the three regions con­
cerned differs considerably. Whilst the implementa­
tion of integrated development programmes in these 
regions may teach us a number of lessons about how 
to set in motion and operate a project, the Commit­
tee would stress that a regionalized structural policy 
should not lead to a state of affairs where areas of 
intervention are determined by political factors. The 
Committee therefore urges that the new strategy be 
implemented on the basis of clearly defined Com­
munity criteria. 
The situation in some of the regions in question is 
so serious that the very viability of some of the local 
communities is at stake. This is why the Committee 
has turned its attention to the complex problem of 
maintaining a rural population in areas that would 
be depopulated if purely economic considerations 
were followed. The desire of rural peoples to live in 
their own area and to bring about the economic and 
social development of backward regions is some­
thing that must be fully supported by the national 
governments and the Community. 
The Committee also feels that the Commission pro­
posals do not pay sufficient attention to the prob­
lems posed by the preservation of the environment 
in which production takes place. The whole social 
and cultural background should therefore be taken 
into consideration as soon as a project gets under 
way; proposals should not be based on purely econ­
omic grounds. 
The Committee notes that the proposed pro­
grammes do not relate solely to the agricultural sec­
tor. It is therefore extremely difficult for the Com­mittee to take a stand on the real level of integration 
likely to be achieved. Indeed, until the Member 
States concerned have actually submitted pro­
grammes to the Community authorities, it is not 
really possible to make a meaningful assessment of 
their form and content. 
Finally, the Committee is convinced that the Com­
mission should encourage the local population to 
play an active role in working out its future and de­
veloping genuine economic and social democracy. 
The implementation of integrated programmes 
should provide the impetus not only for individual 
initiatives but also for the development of associa­
tions and cooperative organizations. 
4.6.2. Integrated development programme for the 
Western Isles of Scotland 
Having carried out an on-the-spot survey of the dif­
ficulties facing the Western Isles, the Committee 
supports the principle of an integrated programme 
for the area. From the socio-economic point of view 
the Western Isles are in a particularly unfavourable 
position. Their position can, however, be improved. 
Given the preponderance of the crofting system and 
low incomes generally derived from a number of 
part-time activities, Directives 72/159/EEC and 
72/160/EEC — even if amended by the Commis­
sion's current proposals — do not appear to be ade­
quate from the point of view of securing a satisfac­
tory improvement in agricultural structures. 85 % of 
crofts provide less than 100 man/days of work per 
year and 8 % between 100 and 200 man/days. 
The criteria that have to be met under Directives 
72/159/EEC and 72/160/EEC would therefore ap­
pear to rule out the possibility of most of the crofters 
receiving aid unless there are large-scale amalgama­
tions of holdings — and such amalgamations would 
disrupt the existing socio-economic systems. 
In view of the fact that the crofting system has 
shown itself capable of meeting the challenge of 
technological change, maintaining a rural popula-
No C 53/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 3.3.80 
tion, and displaying initiatives and vitality when it 
comes to creating jobs and setting up cooperatives, 
the Committee suggests that the development pro­
gramme should be based on existing systems and 
rural communities. 
The Committee has not yet received the integrated 
development programme but has seen individual 
projects that have already been carried out. The 
Committee consequently hopes that a planning 
team will be set up as soon as possible so that it will 
be able — in collaboration with the Western Isles 
Council and the Highlands and Islands Develop­
ment Board — to draw up a blueprint for simulta­
neous deployment of all the Community's financial 
instruments. 
Having taken cognizance of the views expressed in 
various administrative quarters during its study tour, 
the Committee considers that the programme should 
be kept within the geographical limits proposed by 
the Commission. Though aware that the whole 
Highlands and Islands of Scotland area has charac­
teristics similar to those of the Western Isles, the 
Committee considers that the integrated programme 
experiment will have a greater chance of success if 
confined to the Western Isles. This is all the more so 
since local bodies and residents already seem to be 
highly motivated by the preparation of projects. 
Nevertheless, the Committee does not preclude the 
possibility of eventually either bringing in the whole 
Highlands and Islands of Scotland area, or of 
widening the scope of the agricultural measures in 
order to re-introduce a number of provisions (ferti­
lizers, fodder and transport subsidies) currently 
suspended. 
The Committee broadly endorses the agricultural 
section of the integrated programme though it 
stresses the need to improve the supply of capital 
goods and services and to develop Community 
structures for processing and marketing agricultural 
products. The Committee also suggests that a study 
be made of the problem of milk production and 
supplies in the Western Isles. The Committee would 
also like to see a special effort made to: (a) develop 
port installations on the Western coast, (b) encour­
age fishing for certain varieties of crustaceans, and 
(c) promote fish farming. Communications should 
not be neglected either. 
In view of the fact that the Western Isles are labour­
ing under serious handicaps, the Committee won­
ders whether the financial resources earmarked for 
the agricultural section of the integrated programme will be enough. The Committee is of the opinion 
that such aid as is given will stand a better chance of 
increasing profitability and improving the socio­
economic situation of the Isles if the particular mea­
sures adopted are the outcome of a consensus of 
opinion between the various administrative eche­
lons involved and if the aid granted comes on top of 
what is already done by the United Kingdom 
Government. 
The Committee draws the attention of the Com­
munity authorities to the relevant facts and figures 
and to those parts of the report dealing with the 
Western Isles. 
4.6.3. Integrated development programme for the 
department of Lozere 
The Committee welcomes this integrated pro­
gramme in so far as the socio-economic position of 
Lozere is particularly serious and measures to im­
prove the situation require a concentration and 
simultaneous development of available resources 
and instruments. 
The Committee has not yet received the overall inte­
grated development programme. It nevertheless 
hopes that the planning team will be set up as soon 
as possible so that, working in close collaboration 
with local bodies and residents, it can draw up a 
blueprint for simultaneous deployment of all the 
Community's financial instruments. 
The Committee endorses the agricultural phase of 
the programme. It stresses the need to expand struc­
tures for processing and marketing agricultural 
products and to provide capital goods and services. 
4.6.4. Integrated development programme for the 
Belgian province of Luxembourg 
Though noting that the development level of the 
south-east of Belgium is considerably below the Bel­
gian average but significantly above that of many 
other Community regions, the Committee welcomes 
the implementation of an integrated development 
programme for this region. 
The Committee believes that the implementation of 
simultaneous projects in the various sectors of the 
economy would halt the deterioration of the present 
situation. 
The Committee has not yet received the overall inte­
grated development programme. It nevertheless 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/39 
hopes that the planning team for which the Belgian 
authorities are responsible will be set up as soon as 
possible so that, working in close cooperation with 
local bodies and residents, it can draw up a pro­
gramme setting out objectives and priorities. 
The Committee endorses the agricultural phase of 
the programme. It is particularly pleased at the em­
phasis placed on the establishment of experimental 
centres for new agricultural products, production 
techniques and agricultural management methods. 
Efforts in these areas are a guarantee of progress in 
the future. 
4.7. Measures to improve the conditions under which 
agricultural products are processed and mar­
keted (special measures in respect of the slaugh­
tering of pigs and processing of pigmeat in 
France and the United Kingdom) 
The Commission proposals are designed to improve 
the conditions under which pigmeat is processed 
and marketed in France and the United Kingdom in 
order to correct the inadequate structures and tech­
nical facilities in slaughterhouses in those Member 
States. The Committee approves this proposal but 
notes that the Commission text is singularly short on 
data and points of reference. 
The Committee notes that while Regulation (EEC) 
No 355/77 is designed to grant supplementary 
funds in the area concerned, applications for funds 
have to be submitted as part of specific pro­
grammes. The Committee alerts the Commission to 
the need to ensure that the present proposals do not 
create a precedent liable to undermine the effective­
ness of Regulation (EEC) No 355/77. 
The Committee therefore feels that the financial re­
sources allocated by the Council for implementing 
Regulation (EEC) No 335/77 should be increased 
significantly in order to cope with the multiple tasks 
involved in improving processing and marketing 
structures. 
5. Conclusions 
Given persistent and wide disparities within agricul­
ture, and the unsatisfactory nature of the results ob­
tained in implementing the socio-structural Direc­
tives of 1972, the Committee is pleased that the 
Commission of the European Communities has 
thought fit to bring in new proposals. 
The Committee would reiterate its view that al­
though the structural policy is a vital plank of the 
common agricultural policy, it evidently cannot take 
the place of a price policy. In modernizing and de­
veloping their holdings farmers must be able to take it for granted that prices can change and that this 
will enable them to retain parity of income with 
people working in other sectors. 
Although it approves the continuation of a certain 
type of selectivity and endorses the general mea­
sures to make aid criteria more flexible, the Com­
mittee is convinced that, for farmers whose needs 
are greatest, modernization and development must 
be carried out in stages. A phased development plan 
is therefore the most suitable solution. 
When aid is granted, consideration shall also be 
given to the need to comply with labour legislation. 
The Committee also feels that the mediocre results ob­
tained in implementing the socio-structural Direc­
tives, and the difficulties involved in pursuing a 
Community structural policy based on common cri­
teria, must not lead in the more difficult areas to an 
abandonment of this policy and to its replacement 
by regional development programmes. 
The Committee takes the view that however fitted 
these regional development programmes are for 
meeting the specific needs of the region or area in 
question, they have the disadvantage of sometimes 
being drawn up without reference to economic 
analysis or Community criteria. 
Subject therefore to a clear-cut definition of criteria 
for selecting regions, the Committee supports the 
proposal on specific programmes for the develop­
ment of agricultural production and the proposal on 
integrated programmes (of which the agricultural 
section alone is known at present). 
Because it is interested in overall development the 
Committee regards the second of the abovemen-
tioned proposals as being particularly relevant. 
There is, after all, no point in encouraging the devel­
opment of agricultural production if the whole 
economic, social and cultural infrastructure is pro­
gressively disintegrating. The proper line of ap­
proach would be the simultaneous deployment of 
Community financial instruments plus close in­
volvement of local residents in the projects in ques­
tion. 
The Committee would finally like to stress that the 
far-reaching changes in the current economic situa­
tion make it necessary to give serious thought to the 
direction which the Community's agricultural and 
structural policies will have to go in. Despite a num-
No C 53/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
ber of fears that have been expressed, the main aim 
of the Community's socio-structural policy is not to 
increase agricultural production but to streamline 
farm structures so that farmers can bolster their in­
comes through a more rational utilization of factors 
of production. 
In view of: (a) changes in the general economic 
situation, (b) the energy supply crisis and (c) spirall­
ing production costs, any adjustment of the Com­
munity's structural policy should be seen as an op­
portunity to examine the question of the type of 
development considered desirable for farms. In 
there not a case for being less wasteful whilst at the 
same time seeking to improve production through 
technological means? Agriculture has, in fact, be­
come increasingly dependent on sectors both up­
stream and downstream of farming proper. Indebt­
edness has grown by leaps and bounds, as has the 
consumption of intermediate products (mostly im­
ported). Energy consumption has increased notice­
ably and in some cases additional output has been 
obtained only at very high cost in terms of energy 
inputs. 
The Committee now wonders whether it is perhaps 
wise to support a production model based on the substitution of capital for labour and on the in­
creased use of imported intermediate products. At 
any event the elimination of wastefulness is in no 
way in contradiction with increased productivity. 
Such changes, however, can only be gradual. A 
more economical farming sector does not imply a 
low level of production. In dairy farming, for exam­
ple, more intensive fodder production can replace 
the growing tendency to turn to imported foodstuffs. 
This would mean no longer having to build up herds 
of cattle around a system that is both fragile and de­
pendent. More intensive crop-growing is also com­
patible with greater economies, especially if catch 
crops or fertilizing crops are grown. And even if 
lower costs do not increase output, they can still 
mean greater productivity — and hence a bigger in­
come for farmers. The perfecting and dissemination 
of new farming techniques are similarly of consider­
able importance in the creation of a new model of 
agricultural development. 
Finally, the Committee would draw the attention of 
the Commission to the decline in value over time of 
the aids proposed. It consequently requests that the 
principle of annual readjustments be incorporated 
in Community Regulations. 
Done at Brussels, 24 October 1979. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
R. VANNI 
ANNEX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
The following amendments were rejected during the discussion: 
Item 1.2.3. 
Add the following at the end of this paragraph which ends with the words 'policy which aims to 
modernize structures': 
'The price policy should take into consideration the assessment made by the Council of Min­
isters on 5 and 6 December 1978. In working out a price policy the Commission should there­
fore be encouraged to take into account regional realities both in individual countries and 
within the Community as whole; the price policy has up till now failed to resolve the prob­
lems of structural imbalances and income disparities.' 
3. 3. 80 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 53/41 
Voting 
For: 3; against: large majority; abstentions: 20. 
Item 1.2. 
The following text should replace point 2: 
'Thus while the socio-structural policy is an integral part of the CAP and has the prime task of 
enabling the agricultural workforce to enjoy living conditions and income levels comparable 
with those obtaining outside agriculture, the price policy must be such as to ensure that mod­
ernized farms can hold their ground. It was with this in mind that in 1972 the Commission 
brought in objective criteria for fixing prices, taking into consideration in particular the ge­
neral economic context and the market situation in the different products. Thus, any aban­
donment of this method, which has been repeatedly endorsed by the two sides of industry and 
the Economic and Social Committee in particular, is likely to jeopardize the changes of 
achieving the Community's socio-structural policy objectives. 
Finally, the Committee would draw attention to the critical situation of the large number of 
farmers in the Community who (a) cannot hope to modernize their farms through the Com­
mission's structural action because they are unable to present development plans, and (b) 
cannot hope to achieve equitable income levels through the Community's price policy be­
cause their farms are too small.' 
Reasons 
The Committee's opinion should incorporate a key idea set out in the Section's draft opinion, 
namely, that the common agricultural policy should be based on close coordination between the 
price and structural policies and should take into account the situation and problems of all farm­
ers in the Community without discrimination. 
The Committee has set out these views on several occasions and it is essential to repeat them in 
this present opinion which deals with the most important Commission proposal on agricultural 
structures of the past 10 years. 
Voting 
For: 30; against: 46; abstentions: 20. 
Item 4.1.9.: dairy sector 
Replace 70 % by 50 %. 
Reason 
The 70 % feed requirement will impede rational and economic stock-breeding on smaller farms. 
50 % is enough to preclude industrial farms. 
Voting 
For: 9; against: 57; abstentions: 21. 
Item 4.3.3.: new heading of Title III (Article 2) 
The first paragraph should be deleted. 
Reasons 
According to the draft Directive training and further training should be available not only to the 
managers and staff of agricultural producer organizations but also to the managers and staff of 
small and medium-sized undertakings engaged in the processing and marketing of agricultural 
products. 
No C 53/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 3. 80 
There is no reason why the Economic and Social Committee should exclude managers and staff 
of small and medium-size undertakings from such further training and give preference to agricul­
tural cooperatives. 
Voting 
For: 30; against: 34; abstentions: 24. 
Item 4.4.1.: payment to elderly farmers 
The second sentence of paragraph 2 should be replaced by the following: 
'The upper limit should not exceed 60, though for a limited period of time it could be 65.' 
Voting 
For: 4; against: 40; abstentions 33. 
Item 4.7.: paragraph 1 
Replace 'approves' by 'notes'. 
Reason 
Such advance approval of special projects which the Commission has proposed is contrary to the 
opinion on Regulation (EEC) No 355/79. What is required is a general increase of the resources. 
This is moreover also proposed in the final paragraph of paragraph 7. 
Voting 
For: 13; against: 30; abstentions: 40. 
The following passages in the Section opinion were replaced by amendments adopted at the ses­
sion: 
"The Section feels that it is inappropriate to implement a provision to the effect that, after the 
conclusion of the development plan, a farmer's income may not exceed the regional average 
by more than 20 %.' 
Voting 
For: 58; against: 15; abstentions: 20. 
"The present ceiling of 54 000 units of account should be altered and replaced by an upper 
ceiling on aid or volume of output.' 
Voting 
For: 54; against: 2; abstentions: 26.