21.4.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC98/15
Opiniononthereformofthecommonagriculturalpolicy(CAP):
—DraftCouncilRegulation (EEC)establishingasupportsystemforproducersofcertain
arablecrops
—DraftCouncilRegulation (EEC)onthecommonorganizationofthemarketincereals
—DraftCouncilRegulation (EEC)amendingRegulation(EEC)No2727/75onthecommon
organizationofthemarketincereals
(92/C98/08)
On15November1991theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicandSocialCommittee,
underArticle198oftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanEconomicCommunity,onthe
abovementioned draftRegulations .
TheSectionforAgricultureandFisheries,whichwasresponsibleforpreparingtheCom­
mittee'sworkonthesubject,adopteditsOpinionon6February1992.TheRapporteurwas
MrGuyau.
Atits294thPlenarySession(meetingof26February1992)theCommitteeadoptedthe
followingOpinionbyalargemajoritywith2votesagainstand8abstentions .
0.1.ThisOpiniondoesnotproposethatthecommon
agriculturalpolicy(CAP)beredefined.TheCommittee
hasalreadygivenitsviewonthisquestionbystressing
theneedtokeepaminimumcommonorganizationof
markets,inordertosafeguardEuropeanfarmsand
production (1).1.3.1.Suchamarkeddropinpriceswouldresultin
aconsiderablelossofjobsonfarmsandinrelated
industries.Moreover,itisunlikelythattheCommunity
wouldagreetothenecessarybudgetarycommitment ,
atanyrateafterafewyearsofthenewarrangements .
1.4.TheCommitteethereforecannotacceptthesize
orthetimescaleofthepricereductionproposedbythe
Commission .
1.5.Theloweringofthethresholdpricewouldjeop­
ardizetheprincipleofCommunitypreference.The
differentialofECU20/tonnebetweentheintervention
andthresholdpricesproposedbytheCommission
wouldnotevencovertransportcostsintheCommunity .
TheMemberStateswhichimportcerealswouldtend
tobuytheirsuppliesfromthirdcountriesinsteadof
Communityproducers.
1.5.1.TheCommitteesuggeststhataminimumdif­
ferentialofECU40/tonnebemaintained .
1.5.2.Pricepolicycanhavethefurtheraimof
encouraginghighquality,inaccordancewithmarket
demand.1.Loweringprices
1.1.TheCommissionproposalisbasedonthe
assumptionthattheworldpriceforcerealswillstabilize
ataboutECU100pertonne,i.e.anincreaseof54%
onthecurrentworldprice.
1.1.1.ThiswouldenabletheCommissiontoalign
theCommunitycerealspriceonworldpriceswithout
loweringcurrentCommunitypricesbyhalf.
1.2.ThepurativepriceofECU100/tonneisnotonly
unlikelybutsuggestsanevenmoreuncertainobjective
—aworldpricereflectingproductioncosts.
1.2.1.Theworldmarkethasbecomeapoliticalfoot­
ballforthemajorproducercountries.
1.3.AlignmentonworldpriceswouldexposeCom­
munityfarmerstoexchangeratefluctuations,and
wouldtherebymaketheirincomesunstable,whereas
oneoftheaimsoftheCAPistoprotectthemfrom
incomeinstability.1.6.Inaddition,theCommissionproposalpreempts
theresultofthenegotiationsontheGeneralAgreement
onTariffsandTrade(GATT),inwhichtheCommunity
isseekingtoobtainsomethinginreturnforitscon­
cessions(ondeficiencypayments,balancingmeasures
etc.).
1.6.1.IntheCommittee'sviewtheCommissionmust
avoidatimetablewhichwouldobligetheCommunity
tomakeunilateralconcessions . (')OJNoC40,17.2.1992,p.56.

NoC98/16 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 21.4.92
onahistoricalbasisequaltotheaverageyieldofcereals
inthefive-yearperiodfrom1986/1987to1990/1991,
omittingtheyearofthehighestyieldandthatofthe
lowestyield.
3.2.1.Thisprovisioncouldhavethreeworrying
consequences .
3.2.1.1.Theproposedarrangementswouldincrease
theadministrative obligationsoffarmersaswellas
themonitoringtasksoftheadministration .Whenthe
arrangements cameintoforce,farmerswouldhave
todeclaretheircroprotationandtheiryieldforthe
marketingyears1986/1987to1990/1991andthen,for
eachharvest,theywouldhavetodeclaretotheadminis­
trationthelandareaactuallywithdrawnfrompro­
ductionordevotedtoagri-industrialproduction .2.Controlofproduction ;compensation measures
2.1.TheCommission isaimingtocontrolpro­
ductionbyreducingtheareaoflandundercultivation .
Inthiscontext,itproposesthatsmall-scaleproducers
beexemptedfromcompulsoryset-asideandthata
ceilingbeplacedonset-asidecompensationforlarge­
scaleproducers .
2.2.Onemustnotattempttosolvesocialproblems
byregulatingmarkets.Thosefarmswhicharethefoun­
dationofEuropeanagriculturalpowermustnotbe
penalized .
2.2.1.Thesmall-scaleproducersincertainCom­
munityregions,whoareaspecialcase,requireaspecial
socio-economic policybasedonspecificregulatoryand
financialarrangements .
2.2.2.Theceilingforset-asidecompensation ,cur­
rentlysetataproductioncapacityof230tonnes,must
thereforebeabolished .
2.2.3.IntheCommittee'sviewthereshouldbetotal
compensation ,takingaccountofeffortstocontrolpro­
duction,whateverthesizeofthefarm.
2.3.Theexemptionfromcompulsoryset-aside
grantedtofarmswithaproductioncapacityofless
than92tonnesofcerealsisunacceptable .Thisceiling
istoohighandtakesnoaccountofthecaseoflarge
farmswhichgiveonlyafewhectaresovertocereal
crops.
2.3.1.TheCommitteetakestheviewthat,inthe
contextofamarket-orientated agriculturalpolicy,this
ceilingmustbeloweredandfixedatalevelatwhich
themeasurebecomespracticable .
2.3.1.1.TheCommitteeregardsthethresholdofone
hectareappliedunderthepresentarrangementsforset­
asideasareasonableone.
2.3.1.2.Itendorsestheprovisionsonindustrialuses
ofset-asideland,providedthattheinterestsofpro­
ducerspermanentlyinvolvedintheseactivitiesarepro­
tected.3.2.1.1.1.Takingensilagemaizeintoaccountraises
adelicateproblem,sincelandusedforitdoesnot
normallyqualifyforapremium.Itisverydifficultto
distinguishensilagemaizeintendedasfodderfromgrain
maize.Sincecerealcropsforownconsumption ,unlike
foddercrops,areeligibleforapremium,thesystem
proposedbytheCommissioncouldencouragefraud.
3.2.1.2.Paradoxically ,thisincreaseintheadminis­
trativeburdenwouldbeaccompaniedbyadismantling
oftheCAP.ThelimitswhichtheCommission has
placedonitsownresponsibilities concealthetruescope
ofitsproposals,inthattheregionaldivisionofthe
Community'sagriculturallandisentrustedtotheMem­
berStatesratherthantheCommunity .Infactthis
regionalization programmewouldmeanthedistri­
butionofaseparateoverallbudgettoeachMember
State,withitsmanagementscarcelysupervisedbythe
Communityinstitutions .TheCommunity'sagricultural
policywouldnolongerhaveanything'common'about
it.TheCommitteewouldasktheCommissiontoensure
consistenttreatmentofsimilarregions.
3.2.1.3.ThisdivisionoftheCommunity'sterritory
intoreferencezonescorresponding tothevariouspro­
ducingregionswouldhaveanotherseriousconsequence
—andthisistheCommittee'sthirdcauseforconcern.
3.Administrative aspectsandregionalization
3.1.Europeanagricultureisthreatenedwitha
seriousdanger:over-administration .Inwishingtocon­
trolsupplyandsafeguarditselfagainstunforeseeable
futuredevelopments ,theCommission isproposinga
procedurewhichwouldbeonerousforfarmersand
runscountertoeconomiclogic.
3.2.Toavoidanystampedeforpremiumsonthe
partoffarmers,theCommissionproposesthatthe
referencequantitiesforeachproductionregionbefixed3.2.1.3.1.Anyproducerexceedingtheaveragepro­
ductionforhisregionwouldinfactbepenalizedintwo
ways:
—theobligationtosetasidelandwouldmeanfor
himaneffectivefallinproductiongreaterthanthe
referencequantityusedasthebasisforcompen­
sationpaid,
—thelossesentailedbythefallinpriceswouldbe
greaterthanthecompensation allocatedforthe
hectaresundercultivation .

21.4.92 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC98/17
3.2.1.3.2.Onlyanindividualreferencequantity
couldremovethisdifficulty.However,theproducer
wouldbefacedinthiscasewiththerigidityofpro­
ductionquotas—asystemcontrarytoeconomiclogic
sinceitpreventsanychangesinproductionovertime.
3.2.1.3.3.Inthelongterm,itisnotcertainthatthese
referencequantitieswouldcorrespondtoagricultural
reality.Forexample,theproductivityeffortsofsouth­
ernEuropeanproducerswouldnotberewarded.Itis
thereforesuggestedthattheCommissionshowgreater
flexibilitywhenfixingreferencequantitiesforthose
MemberStates.TheprovisionsintheCommissionpro­
posalreferringtothepossibilityofamendmentstotake
accountofproductiontrends,productivityandmarkets
arevagueanddevoidofanybindingforceforthe
Communityauthorities .
3.2.2.TheCommittee isconcernedaboutthesedan­
gers.Initsviewthedesiretoobtainapremiummustnotbeallowedtoassumemoreimportanceforthe
farmerthantheworkofproduction .
3.2.2.1.Takingaccountoftheseproblemsofover­
administration andofathreattotheCAP,theCom­
mitteewouldasktheCommissiontostudythepossi­
bilityofintroducingasinglepremiumperhectare,
whateverthetypeofcrop,onthebasisoftheaverage
wheatyieldperregion.
3.2.2.1.1.Forcropswithaloweryieldthanwheat,
anadditionalcompensatory paymentwouldbemade.
Properlycalculated,thissupplement,whichwouldbe
paidondelivery,dependingonactualyields,would
discourageanystampedeforpremiums.
3.2.2.1.2.Thepremiumperhectarewouldbethe
basisofthesystem,whiletheprovisionsspecificto
certaincropswouldbecomplementary toit.
3.2.2.1.3.Inproposingthissinglepremiumperhec­
tareofmajorcrops,theCommitteetakestheviewthat
greatersimplicity,andthereforegreaterfairnessand
efficiency,canbeachievedthereby.
DoneatBrussels,26February1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
MichaelGEUENICH