COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0MC90) 366 final 
Brussels, 2 October 1990 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
on the introduction and the maintenance 
of agricultural production methods compatible with 
the requirements of the protection of the environment 
and the maintenance of the countryside 
(presented by the Commission) 
- 2 -
Explanatory memorandum 
Agriculture and Management of the countryside 
Revision of some agricultural structural measures concerning extenslfication, 
set aside and the environment. 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1 -1. The relationship between agriculture and the environment 
The Commission (1), and also the Parliament (2) have frequently emphasized 
the need to adapt agriculture gradually to the requirements of protecting the 
environment and of natural resources and to the requirements of the 
maintenance of the landscape and the countryside, and the need to revise the 
Common Agricultural Policy to take more into account concerns that 
agriculture should be compatible with the environment and should have 
production guidelines adapted to meet market requirements. 
Besides, since the "Green paper" (3), the Commission has recognized that the 
role of agriculture Is not only to produce food. Agriculture also plays an 
increasingly important role as the main manager of the countryside and in 
conserving the environment. 
(1) The Future of Rural Society, C0M(88) 501 final, 28.7.88-, Environment and 
Agriculture C0M(88) 338 final, 16.8.88. 
(2) Report of Mr Roelants du Vivier on Agriculure and the Environment, PE 
101.184/fin., 3.2.86. 
Report of Mr Maher on the future of rural society, PE 127.268/fin., 
28.4.89. 
Resolution on the implementation of the resolution on Agriculture and the 
Environment of 16.2.90, OJ No C 68, 19.3.90. 
(3) Perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy, C0M(85) 333 final, 
13.7.85. 
- 3 
1.2. Existing schemes with an impact on the environment 
During the last few years, the Community has created a number of measures 
aiming to improve the agricultural structures in the Community. These 
measures have recently been revised within the framework of the 
implementation of the reform of the Structural Funds and the policy regarding 
rural development. One of the most fundamental elements of this revision has 
been to take better account of the requirements for the protection of the 
environment within the framework of the Improvement of agricultural 
structures and of rural develpment. 
Hence, the horizontal measures, in force throughout the Community (Objective 
5(a) incorporate activities which maintain the countryside into agricultural 
activities, aim at the adjustment of holdings with a view to the protection 
of the environment and at making them subject to restrictions concerning, 
directly or Indirectly, the protection of the environment (1). 
Besides these, there are regional schemes (Objectives 1 and 5(b) which, 
within the framework of rural development, provide for actions targeted 
towards specific problems concerning the protection and the conservation of 
the environment. Thus, many Community Support Frameworks foresee an 
environmental priority axis. 
Also worth mentioning are the forestry actions decided In 1989 (2), 
especially those regarding forest development with a view to the conservation 
of the soil and water and to erosion control in Objective 1 and 5(b) areas 
(3) as well as those regarding the protection of forests against atmospheric 
pollution and fires (4). 
(1) See Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 on improving the efficiency of 
agricultural structures In the version introduced by Regulation (EEC) 
No 808/89, 12.12.89. 
(2) 0J No L 165, 15.06.89. 
(3) Regulation (EEC) No 1610/89, 29.05.89. 
(4) Regulations (EEC) Nos 3528 and 3529/86, 17.11.86. 
- 4 -
1.3. Measures affected by the present proposal 
Among the existing horizontal measures there are three aiming directly or 
indirectly at the objective of integrating environmental factors into the 
Common Agricultural Policy, that need to be revised, either because in 1990 
they reach the end of their first period of application or because of the 
need for adjustment due to the requirements of environmental protection. The 
measures In question are : 
- premiums which the Member States can pay In environmentally sensitive areas 
to compensate farmers for their loss of Income as a result of pursuing 
farming practices which are compatible with the need to protect the 
environment. These farming practices may relate to a reduction In the use 
of fertilizers or plant protection products as well as to other farming 
practices in harmony with the environment and the countryside (e.g. by way 
of restrictions concerning the use of grassland such as stocking density, 
time and method of mowing, abstaining from draining etc). 
(Article 19 of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85) 
- premiums for the extensifIcation of certain productions 
. either by way of a 20% reduction of the quantity produced ("quantitative 
method") 
. or by modifying production methods especially by way of a reduction In 
the use of intermediate products e.g. use of lower levels of fertilizer 
("qualitative method"). The Member States must justify that the 
authorized method would, In general, result in the reduction of the 
product ion by 20%. 
(Article 1b of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85) 
- premiums to farmers who set aside at least 20% of their arable land 
(Article 1a of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85) 
5 -
The re-examInatIon by the Council of the first two measures, (i.e. the 
extensification scheme (Article 1b of Regulation 797/85) and the scheme for 
the introduction or retention of production methods compatible with the 
environment (Article 19 of Regulation 797/85) as foreseen in Article 6 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 1760/87 (1), in 1990, after a period of 3 years from the 
date of the Council's original decision, presents an opportunity to pursue 
the goal of reinforcing the relationship between agriculture and the 
environment in light of the experience gained. 
2. Experiences gained and problems encountered during the implementation of 
the three measures 
Even though the measures referred to above have only been effectively In 
force for a maximum of two years in the Member States, a number of 
conclusions can be drawn as to their efficiency and their contribution to the 
achievement of the pursued goals. 
2.1. Article 19 
2.1.1. The practical scope of the scheme 
The scheme Is at present only implemented in four Member States (UK, D, NL, 
DK). Current experience, however, demonstrates that the required 
demarcation of environmentally sensitive areas has considerably limited the 
scope and the use of the scheme in relation to the essential aim, namely, in 
general, to encourage the introduction of farming methods which are 
compatible with the environment while at the same time contributing to the 
solving of agricultural market problems. 
In fact, It is in consequence of this limitation of the scheme to sensitive 
areas that the measures adopted by the Member States often aim, In the first 
place, at the protection of the flora and fauna or of specific blotopes in 
numerous small or minuscule areas demarcated with a view to nature protection 
and with a direct link to existing national legislation in the field. On the 
other hand, the schemes have not allowed for problems concerning land 
categories (e.g. grassland In general, field edges etc....). 
(1) OJ No L 167, 26.6.87. 
- 6 -
2.1.2. Problems encountered which cannot be solved by the existing provisions 
Many areas in the Community are increasingly affected by an abandonment of 
agricultural or forestry activities or even by an alarming depopulation. 
These areas are consequently threatened by natural hazards such as erosion 
and flooding or by fire risk. 
It has turned out that the present Article 19 does not allow for a 
contribution towards resolving the specific problems related to the 
management of the countryside in those areas mentioned above. 
Indeed, afforestation of agricultural land does constitute one of the methods 
to improve the problems of the areas In question. However, afforestation by 
the competent public authorities cannot at the moment be sponsored by the 
Community except in areas classified under Objectives 1 and 5(b) as set out 
in Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88. 
2.2. Extenslfication 
As far as extenslfIcation of production is concerned, presently only four 
Member States (D, B, F and IT) have enforced it. The implementation of the 
alternative method known as "production technique" is counteracted by 
considerable difficulties originating mainly from the regulatory obligation 
for the Member States to verify that the sectoral technical methods chosen 
would In general lead to a reduction of at least 20% of the production. The 
principal difference between this measure and the measure in Article 19 of 
Regulation 797/85 Is that the latter is only applicable in areas demarcated 
as sensitive beforehand, that a 20% reduction of the production is not 
required and that the eligible premiums are lower. 
Otherwise, the two measures clearly do overlap, even though they were 
conceived with different goals (for the first measure, the reduction of 
market surpluses and for the other, environmental protection). 
2.3. set aside 
For set aside it transpires that the existing provision does not permit 
sufficient latitude to instigate uses of set aside land which are of public 
utility and particularly not a management of this land in line with the 
requirements of the environment. Besides, in certain cases the maximum 
premiums do not cover the real costs caused by such management. 
- 7 -
Similarly, it is ascertained that only an Insignificant part of the set aside 
land has been afforested (less than 4%). In general it can be stated that 
the existing scheme to encourage the afforestlon of agricultural land Is 
insufficient to cover the Initiai period of approximately 20 years, this 
being the period when afforested land is not profitable (the set aside 
premium is limited to five years). Besides it appears that the financial 
participation by the Community towards afforestation costs as set out in 
Article 20 of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 does not always cover the real costs 
which may be much higher. 
3. THE APPROACH PROPOSED 
The first report on the implementation of the measures has demonstrated that 
they need to be modified in order to fulfil their functions, I.e. at the same 
time and right across the Community, to bring into account the requirements 
for environmental protection and the situation of the agricultural markets. 
In fact, every farmer, whatever the region in which he works and whatever the 
type of production he undertakes, acts as a manager of the countryside and as 
such contributes to agricultural production. Every farmer should therefore 
be persuaded to continue or to adopt farming practices which respect the 
environment and the countryside while also meeting market requirements. 
A. Voluntary schemes for the farmers 
It is thus proposed : 
1. Article 19 and extensIfIcation 
to retain and complete the principles of the aid schemes in the present 
measure for environmental protection and In the present qualitative method of 
extensifIcation and to merge them into a single scheme with the following 
principal characteristics : 
a) obligatory measure 
introduction of an aid measure which the Member States would be obliged to 
apply throughout their respective territories designed to reduce pollution of 
an agricultural origin through a substantial curtailment in the quantities of 
fertilizers and plant protection products used, while encouraging methods of 
farming which are less intensive and thus better adapted to market 
requirements. 
- 8 
The production and application of animal manure constitute a serious 
environmental problem. However, given the complexity of the problem, whether 
In terms of Its production or In terms of the methods of using the animal 
manure, further thorough reflections are absolutely necessary. Hence, the 
present proposal only applies to chemical fertilizers. But the Commission 
has already recently started those reflections. It will, before 30 November 
1990 present the outcomings and appropriate concerning the problems of 
environmental protection proposals and animal stock-raising. 
b) optional measure 
In the aid scheme referred to above the Member States may include incentives 
to introduce or retain other farming practices compatible with the 
requirements of the protection of the environment and of natural resources or 
with the requirements of the maintenance of the countryside and the 
landscape. This second level, which corresponds broadly to the existing 
Article 19, may apply throughout the country or to designated areas of the 
Member State, (geographical areas or categories of land, etc). As examples 
the following could be mentioned : 
- the maintenance of certain non-profitable productions 
- land use practices, especially of grass-1 and (frequency, date and method of 
mowing, etc) 
- the maintenance of "classical" agriculture (maintenance of hedgerows, walls 
and ditches, undertaking not to drain, etc). 
c) areas threatened by natural hazards or fires 
In areas particularly threatened by natural hazards or by risk of fire, 
especially engendered by the abandonment of agricultural or forestry 
activities, the Member States may introduce an aid scheme to meet services 
provided such as the active upkeep of farmland or restoration of the 
environment. 
Furthermore, it is also proposed to encourage afforestation of land by the 
competent public authorities, something which Is not yet covered by existing 
measures. 
2. Adjustment of the set aside scheme 
To adjust the set aside scheme with a view to enhancing its environmental and 
forestry aspects : 
- by Introducing a supplementary premium in return for special undertakings 
given by the beneficiaries with a view to protecting the environment; 
- 9 -
- by prolonging to 20 years the maximum period for which the set aside 
premium may be paid in the case of afforestation of land set aside from 
agrlcuitura! production, or, in the case of an ecological use of which the 
Community interest is well established; 
-by allowing the Commission to adjust the conditions for ai locating 
afforestation aid in the case of afforestation of land set aside pursuant 
to the Community set aside scheme. 
B. Restrictions imposed via Community actions 
The Community's contribution within the framework of Article 19 is presently 
limited to compensation for commitments voluntarily undertaken by the 
farmers. However, one of the fundamental problems is the issue of a payment 
to farmers, with Community participation towards the compensation paid for 
the restrictions imposed on them. This issue would be particularly pertinent 
for provisions including restrictions extending considerably beyond a code of 
good farming practice. This situation certainly reflects the Polluter Pays 
Principle. But it should also be acknowledged that the distinction between 
voluntarily undertaken restrictions and compulsory restrictions can lead to 
unsatisfactory situations, especially where the Imposed restrictions could 
threaten the existence of the family-farm type of agriculture. Thus, it 
seems justified to make a provision so that, in the case where restrictions 
similar to those compensated for in the case of voluntary commitments are 
imposed on farmers as a result of measures taken to apply Community 
legislation, the Commission should have the ability to allocate funds, on a 
case by case basis, from Community resources to finance aid schemes, 
according to the type of scheme applied. 
c. Accompanying measures 
To reconcile agriculture with a type of management in harmony with the 
environment supposes a considerable effort for the farmers to acquire the 
necessary technical background and training. This is particularly true for 
agricultural practices in line with a code of good farming practice with a 
view to the environment. This aim will be facilitated by the introduction of 
a specific provision for assisting demonstration and training projects 
relating to practices undertaken in this spirit. 
- 10 -
D. The Implementation of the scheme 
The implementation of the proposed measures lies with the Member States , as 
is the case for all existing objective 5 la) measures referred to at 
Article 1 of Regulation 2052/88. Accordingfy, the Member States must 
stipulate : 
- the undertakings to be given by farmers 
- the amount of the payments to be granted in view of the agreement made and 
the resulting loss of Income. However, the maximum eligible amounts 
payable are those currently for extenslfication (see 2.1 above) and under 
Articles 19 or 20 (see 2.2 above). 
The Commission will check and approve these measures using the Management 
Committee procedure (STAR Committee). 
E. Community assistance 
The levels of participation by EAGGF in the measures foreseen are those 
applying to Objective 5a measures and set out in the framework of Regulation 
(EEC) No 797/85. 
4. BUPGETARY CONSEQUENCES 
The financial impact of the environmental part of the proposal will be 
subject to some delay given the time needed for implementation of the scheme 
at national level, the time lag of one year between the incurment of the 
costs at national level and the reimbursement from the Community. 
Thus, it is estimated that the first financial impacts would not be incurred 
before 1993. Given the fact that the proposal is meant to replace the 
existing Article 19 and "qualitative" extensification, there would be some 
financial compensation from what was budgeted for those two measures, and its 
funding would be possible within the existing financial budgets for the 
accounting periods 1989-1993. 
The proposal in question could entail considerable costs where it develops 
Into agricultural income support linked to environmental aims. However, the 
financial impact should not be expected before well after 1993. -f 
- 11 -
On an indicative basis and using a number of assumptions only valid for the 
cereals sector figuring in the Annex to the financial sheet, the annual 
expenditure from the Community's budget for assisting national costs for one 
million hectares would be of the order of 47 MECU. This expenditure should 
be compared to a reduction of the order of 100 MECU following a decreased 
yield by 20% in this case. 
The conditions under which the individual Member States would Implement the 
scheme are uncertain at this stage. The present financial framework expires 
in 1992. The financial impact after 1993 as well as the funding of the 
measure would have to be reexamined according to the national schemes for 
implementing the measure which would be adopted during 1991 if the proposal 
could be agreed In 1990. 
Concerning the proposal to adjust the set aside scheme to further the 
environmental aims, this could have a financial effect from 1992. However, 
following the hesitant development in the application of the set aside 
scheme, It is considered that the additional cost In 1992 could be financed 
without exceeding the ceiling fixed at 300 MECU for 1992 in terms of 1988 
prices, or 354 MECU at 1992 price levels. 
- 12 -
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) 
on the Introduction and the maintenance 
of agricultural production methods compatible with 
the requirements of the protection of the environment 
and the maintenance of the countryside 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 
and in particular Articles 42 and 43 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament, 
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee, 
Whereas environmental considerations must be gradually integrated into the 
common agricultural policy and European agricultural practices; 
Whereas farmers can serve society as a whole by introducing or continuing 
to use production methods compatible with the increasingly urgent need for 
protection of the environment and natural resources and upkeep of the 
landscape and the countryside-, 
Whereas the Introduction of an aid scheme to encourage substantial 
reductions In the use of fertilizers or plant protection products can 
contribute not only to a reduction in pollution through farming but also to 
the adjustment of a number of sectors to market requirements by encouraging 
less intensive production methods; whereas, therefore, such a scheme could 
- 13 -
replace the extensification scheme provided for in Article 1b of Council 
Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on Improving the efficiency of 
agricultural structures1, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 752/902 
and defined in Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 4115/883; 
Whereas the scale of the problem requires that such a scheme be applicable 
to ail farmers In the Community; 
Whereas such a scheme must at so write it possibte to encourage the 
Introduction of special production methods to solve specific problems 
related to the protection of the environment or the countryside; 
Whereas many areas in the Community are threatened by increasingly serious 
natural hazards such as soil erosion, flooding and the danger of fires, and 
whereas the introduction of special measures te encourage the upkeep or 
afforestation of land can reduce such hazards; 
1 OJ NoL 93, 30.3.1985, p. 1. 
2 OJ No L 83, 30.3.1990. p. 1. 
3 OJ No L 361, 29.12.1988. p. 13 
- 14 -
Whereas the set-aside scheme provided for in Article 1a of Regulation (EEC) 
No 797/85 should be adjusted to make It more compatible with environmental 
requirements; 
Whereas extending the period during which the set-aside premium is granted 
could encourage beneficiaries to afforest agricultural land set aside under 
the scheme; 
Whereas both the Community and the Member States must increase their effort 
to educate and inform regarding the introduction of production methods 
which are compatible with the environment, and in particular regarding the 
application of a code of good farming practice-, 
Whereas the rules laid down by Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 regarding the 
implementation of measures by the Member States and the Community's 
financial contribution can apply mutatis mutandis to the measures provided 
for in this Regulation, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
- 15 -
Article 1 
A common measure within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 4256/884 is hereby Introduced under Objective 5(a) as defined in 
Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 2052/885 and intended: 
(I) to encourage the Introduction or continued use of farming 
practices compatible with the requirements of protecting the 
environment and natural resources, thereby contributing to the 
adaptation and adjustment of agricultural production in line with 
market requirements-, 
(II) to encourage upkeep of the landscape and countryside, 
particularly in areas sensitive in this respect and in areas 
threatened by natural hazards and fires. 
Article 2 
1. Member States shall, pursuant to the common measure referred to in 
Article 1, Introduce an aid scheme to encourage farmers substantially 
to reduce their use of fertilizers and plant protection products, 
thereby achieving less intensive forms of production compatible with 
the need to protect the environment. 
2. The aid scheme shall consist in an annual premium per hectare granted 
to farmers who undertake, for at least five years, to reduce their use 
4 OJ No L 374, 31.12.1988, p. 25. 
5 OJ No L 185, 15.7.1988, p. 9. 
- 16 -
of fertilizers and of plant protection products, provided that the use 
of such products Is not increased on other parts of their holdings and 
that other production capacity does not increase. 
3. Member States shall determine: 
(a) the conditions for granting the aid, in particular the detailed 
rules for reducing the use of fertilizers and plant protection 
products; 
(b) the amount of the aid on the basis of the undertaking made by the 
recipient and the loss of income, and the extent to which the 
measure is to act as an incentive; 
(c) the undertaking to be made by the recipient, particularly with a 
view to verifying that the use of fertilizers and plant protection 
products is actually reduced; 
(d) the conditions under which the premium may be granted where the 
farmer himself Is not In a position to make an undertaking for a 
period of five years. 
4. Member States may, besides the reduction in the use of fertilizers and 
plant protection substances, extend the measure to include the 
introduction of other farming practices compatible with protection of 
the environment and natural resources and with upkeep of the landscape 
and the countryside, as well as environmental preservation practices 
traditionally linked to farming, especially in areas which are 
particularly sensitive from this point of view. 
5. This Regulation shall not apply to the spreading of animal manure. 
- 17 -
Article 3 
1. The maximum amount of the annual premium per hectare eligible for aid 
from the Fund shall be: 
- ECU 180 for annual crops and pasture 
- ECU 300 for specialized olive groves 
- ECU 900 for citrus fruits 
- ECU 600 for other perennial crops and wine. 
2. Under conditions to be set by the Commission in accordance with the 
procedure laid down in Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85, the 
Fund may also contribute to annual premiums per hectare granted by 
Member States to compensate for losses of income resulting from the 
compulsory restrictions referred to in Article 2 following the 
implementation In the Member States of measures adopted under Community 
rules. 
Article 4 
1. Member States may, in areas particularly threatened by natural hazards 
(such as erosion and flooding) or fire due notably to abandonment of 
farming or large-scale depopulation, introduce an aid scheme to 
encourage the upkeep of abandoned farmland or woodlands. 
- 18 -
2. The aid scheme shall consist in an annual premium per hectare granted 
to farmers within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) 
No 797/85 who undertake to be responsible for the upkeep of abandoned 
farmland or woodlands for at least five years. 
3. The Member States shall determine 
(a) the areas referred to In paragraph 1; 
(b) the measures to be undertaken for the upkeep of land; 
(c) the conditions for granting the aid; 
(d) the amount of the premium, which may not be less than ECU 30 per 
hectare; 
(e) the conditions in which the premium may be granted to persons other 
than farmers, where no farmers are available. 
4. The maximum amount of the annual premium per hectare eligible under the 
Fund shalI be ECU 150. 
Article § 
Where a beneficiary under the set-aside scheme provided for in 
Article 1b of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 undertakes to apply special 
measures for the upkeep of land set aside under this scheme with a view 
to protecting and Improving the environment, a premium of ECU 100 per 
hectare may be granted in addition to the aid for set-aside. 
- 19 -
Member States shall determine the conditions of this undertaking and 
the amount of the additional premium. 
2. Where a beneficiary under the set-aside scheme afforests land in 
respect of which set-aside aid has been granted, or where he uses this 
land for ecological purposes of which the Community interest is welt 
established, the aid may be granted for a period of not more than 
20 years. 
Member States shall determine the duration of such aid on the basis of 
the species or types of trees used for afforestation, as well as the 
duration and the conditions of use towards ecological ends. 
3. The Commission may, in accordance with to the procedure laid down in 
Article 25 of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85, adapt the conditions for 
granting aid to afforestation, provided for in Article 20 of the said 
Regulation, when it is carried out on land taken out of production in 
application of the Community set-aside scheme. 
Article 6 
Subject to the maximum eligible amounts laid down in Article 20 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 797/85, the Fund can contribute to afforestation 
operations carried out by the competent authorities of Member States on 
farmland in the areas referred to in Article 4. 
Article 7 
1. The aid scheme provided for in Article 21 of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 
may cover courses of Instruction or training in farming practices 
compatible with protection of the environment and natural resources and 
the upkeep of the landscape and countryside, in particular the 
introduction of a code of good farming practice. 
- 20 
The scheme may cover demonstration projects concerning farming 
practices compatible with protection of the environment. In particular 
the application of a code of good farming practice and assistance for 
training and education initiatives by competent local or non­
governmental organizations in this field. 
Article 8 
For the purpose of this Regulation, application of Article 1b of Regulation 
(EEC) No 797/85 shall be restricted to the quantitative method of 
extenslfIcation, as defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 4115/88, 
on the basis of the actual reduction In quantitative terms. 
However, Member States may continue to apply the extenslfication schemes 
adopted before the entry into force of this Regulation and approved by the 
Commission In accordance with Article 25 of the abovementioned Regulation. 
Article 9 
1. Articles 19 to 19c of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 are hereby repealed. 
However, they shall continue to apply to aid granted before the entry 
into force of this Regulation. 
- 21 -
2. The maximum amount eligible under the Fund for aid granted before the 
entry into force of this Regulation pursuant to Article 19 of 
Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 shall be Increased, for annual premiums 
still to be paid after the Introduction of the measures provided for in 
this Regulation, to the maximum eligible amount resulting from the 
application of Article 3(1) of this Regulation. 
Article 10 
Articles 24 to 28, 31 and 31a of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 shall apply, 
mutatis mutandis, to the common measure provided for in this Regulation. 
Article 26(1), second sentence of Regulation (EEC) No 797/85 shall apply to 
expenditure incurred by the Member States within the framework of actions 
provided for In Article 5(1) and (2) of this Regulation. 
Article 11 
Without prejudice to the second paragraph of Article 8, Member States shall 
take the necessary measures to implement this Regulation not later than 
12 months after Its entry into force. 
Article 12 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of 
its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in 
all Member States. 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
*- cLi 
FINANCIAL SHEET 
concern Ing 
Proposal for a Council regulation concerning the environment, 
agriculture and the management of the countryside. 
1. Budget Ilne : B2-101 Improvement of agricultural structures 
B2-500 Set aside "guidance" 
B1- 40 Set aside "garantee" 
2- Legal base : Art. 42, 43 
3. Class IfIcatIon : Obligatory expenditure for "set-aside" 
Non obligatory expenditure for structural 
Intervent i on. 
4. Purpose/description of the measure : The proposal replaces 
the existing version of article 19 of Reg. 797/85 and the 
scheme for qualitative extensIfI cat I on with a new scheme 
where the environmental aspect prevails. At the same time, 
and with a view to the environment, a modification of the 
set aside schme Is proposed. 
5. Method of calculation .-
5.1. Form of expenditure : Reimbursement of a part of eligible 
national expenditure. 
5.2. Community contribution : to be settled by the Commission 
in accordance with the provision In articles 26 and 27 of 
Reg. 797/85. 
5.3. Caleu I at Ion : see annex. 
6. Financial Implication as regards operating appropriations : 
6.1. Schedule of Commitment appropriations and payment 
approprlations (MECU) C.E./C.P. 
Account Ing Environment part (1) Set-as I de 
year 
1990 
1991 
1992 - +4,2 
1993 p.m. + 4,5 
6.2. Financing during current year : 
7. Observât ions : 
(1) Concerning the "environment" part of the proposal, the 
first financial Implications would not be felt before 
1993. T-fn that accounting year, and for the reasons set 
out In the annex, there would not be any extra expenses 
for the budget years 1989-93. 
With regard to the implications beyond 1993, for the 
reasons set out In the annex It would be pertinent to 
re-examine them as well as the funding of the measure In 
the light of the national schemes for Implementing the 
measure which would be adopted during 1991 when the 
decisions are to be taken on the new financial framework. 
- 23-
ANNEX 
1. Proposal concerning a reduction In the use of fertilizers 
and plant protection products 
The proposal replaces the scheme for qualitative 
extensifIcation which amounts to a reduction In intermediate 
consumption and the present scheme supporting the environment 
(Art. 19 of Reg. 797/85). 
Given that the new scheme would replace the two measures 
mentioned above, there would be a financial compensation and 
the funding would be possible within the budgets settled for 
the period 1989-1993. 
The table below Indicates the estimated expenses in MECU for 
EAGGF-Gu i dance. 
F InancI a I Env i ronment ExtensIfIcatI on TotaI of which 
year In obj. 1 
regIons 
1990 7 10 17 0,1 
1991 8 13 21 6,0 
1992 8 15 23 8.0 
1993 10 17 27 11.0 
Total - 33 55 88 25.1 
The use of the extensIfication scheme has not developped as 
fast as foreseen. Thus, following the suppression of the 
scheme for "qualitative" extensIfIcatI on, It could be 
estimated that an amount of the order of 35MECU would become 
available for other uses including the present proposal. 
The proposed scheme would have financial Implications as from 
1993 : If It were adopted at the end of 1990, the Member 
States would have one year at their disposal to lay down the 
conditions for Implementing it and thus it would only have 
effect at the national level as from 1992. Since it is a 
measure to be refunded, the first expenses for EAGGF would be 
incurred In 1993. 
It is difficult to estimate exactly the financial extent of 
the measure as the conditions under which It would be 
implemented by the Member States are unknown. Besides, Its 
general implementation would be expected to be attained 
gradually from 1992. However, some estimations of magnitude 
could be made on a hypothetical basis. 
- 24 -
This, by limiting the estimation to the cereals sector, 
simulations by RICA for two types of holdings with a reduction 
of 10 % In the use of fertilisers and plant protection 
products have given the following results : 
Holdings using Holdings using 
high rates of medium rates 
fertilizers of fertilizers 
- Northern - Southern 
Europe - Europe -
- loss of 
revenue 158 ECU/ha 85 ECU/ha 
- yield 
reductIon 20 % 20 % 
On the basis of the hypothesis : - average loss of revenu 
amounts to 135 ECU/ha; 
- Community assistance 
rate is 35 %; 
So, for one million hectares affected, the cost for EAGGF-
GuI dance would be : 1 ml I I Ion ha x 135 ECU/ha x 35 % « 
47,5 MECU. 
The reduced costs for EAGGF-GuI dance In the wake of a yield 
reduction by 20 % for cereals would be 20 % (1 t/ha x 1 mio ha 
x 105 ECU/t = 105 MECU). 
It should be noted that for 1993, the starting year for the 
system, the acreage benefitting from the scheme would only be 
a smaI I percentage of the one ml I I Ion hectares. 
2. Proposal concerning particularly threatened areas by 
natural hazards 
For the reasons set out under point 1, the scheme would only 
be Implemented at national level as from 1992. In 
consequence, the first expenses for EAGGF Guidance should be 
expected from 1993. 
Building on experiences with this type of scheme, it can be 
assumed that after three years from 1992, the acreage of land 
benefitting from the scheme would be approximately 250.000 ha 
with a cost for EAGGF Guidance of : 
250.000 ha x 50 ECU/ha x 35 % = 4,4 MECU. 
To this amount should be added approximately 0,5 MECU yearly 
originating from the afforestation measure provided for In 
article 6 ÔT the proposal. 
- 25 -
The expenditure for the budget by accounting period would be : 
1993 : 1,5 MECU 
1994 : 3,0 
1995 : 4,9 
The funding for 1993 could be contained inside the budgets set 
for 1989-93 for objective 5a and objective 1, based on the 
amounts released from the extensIfIcatIon scheme as explained 
above. 
3. Costs under article 7 of the proposal (pilot and 
demonstration projects) 
The funding of the actions provided for by this article could 
In 1993 lead to extra expenditure to the order of 1 MECU based 
on the amounts released from the extensIfication scheme. 
4. Modification of the set aside scheme 
Maximum foreseeable costs for "set aside" in 1992 
1. Ordinary scheme : 1,4 m I I I ion ha x 400 Ecu/ha x 49 % » 
274,4 MECU; 
2. Non-food scheme : 440.000 ha x 280 Ecu/ha x 49 % -
60,4 MECU; 
3. Environmental scheme : 140.000 ha x 100 Ecu/ha x 30 % « 
4,2 MECU 
Total : 339 MECU 
Ce I IIng : 354 MECU 
It can be concluded that the celling would not be passed. 
Concerning the proposal to prolong the support period for 
afforestation, this would rcot increase costs up to the horizon 
of 1992 but It would prolong them in time. 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM (90) 366 final 
DOCUMENTS 
15 03 EN ___-
Catalogue number : CB-CO-90-490-EN-C 
TSBN 92-77-64500-8 
PRICE 1 - 30 pages: 3.50 ECU per additional 10 pages: 1.25 ECU 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg