REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the experience obtained from the 1997 basic survey on areas planted with certain species of fruit trees (Council Directive 76/625/EEC)

I. Introduction

The 1997 basic survey was carried out under the general framework laid down by Council Directive 76/625/EEC of 20 July 1976 [1], last amended by Directive 1999/87/EEC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 November 1999 [2], with the aim of informing the Commission on the production potential of plantations of certain species of fruit trees in the European Union (apple, pear, peach, apricot, orange, lemon and small-fruited citrus); it was also able to provide medium-term forecasts on production and market supply.

[1] OJ L 218, 11.8.1976, p. 10

[2] OJ L 16, 21.1.2000, p. 72

In accordance with the latest amendment of Directive 76/625/EEC, the collection and transmission to the Commission of annual data on the grubbing-up and new plantations of fruit trees are optional and are not stated in this report. The same applies to the annual reports that the Commission must present to the Council, as this information is not essential for determining the medium-term potential and trend of Community production.

II. the survey methods used

In order to ensure statistical reliability and the comparability of data from the Community surveys, harmonised methodological rules have to be applied to them for all the Member States concerned.

In the case in question, these rules essentially concern the dates for carrying out the surveys and how to apply the definition of the survey characteristics. The second point did not raise any particular problems for the Member States, and the situation set out in the table in Annex 1 can be considered satisfactory in overall terms, but the following two aspects should however be noted:

II.1) Date of carrying out surveys

Most Member States started carrying out their survey from spring onwards, as specified in point 1 of article 1 of Directive 76/625/EEC (see Annex 1). It should however be noted that the delay in the case of Spain came from the fact that the surveys on citrus fruit were carried out in autumn or in winter, in view of their ripening period.

II.2) Scope of the surveys

An analysis of the situation presented in Annex 1 reveals a lack of harmonisation, from the point of view of both "the minimum threshold of holdings to be surveyed" and "the area of orchard considered"; this lack of harmonisation exists at both vertical level (intra-survey), owing to different criteria from country to country, and at horizontal level (inter-survey), owing to the change in criteria in some countries from one survey to another.

More specifically concerning "the minimum threshold of holdings to be surveyed", there is a range of diverse situations from country to country, ranging from "no threshold: all holdings" to "minimum threshold

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

30 ares", some countries having changed criterion from one survey to another (as in the case of France, Ireland, Denmark and the United Kingdom).

According to Directive 76/625/EEC, Article 2 paragraph 1C, as regards "the area of orchard considered", the area to be transmitted to the Commission (Eurostat) must be "net". However, four types of case can be noted from country to country: those which always take into account the "net area" (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Portugal); those which regularly use the "gross area" (Greece, Spain, Finland and Sweden); those which changed the reference level from one survey to another, moving from "net area" to "gross area" (France, United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark) and, lastly, Austria, in 1997 surveyed gross and net areas separately. In this regard, in 1998, at the meeting of the Working Party on crop statistics, having noted the diverse situations across the Member States, the Commission proposed that the minimum threshold provided for in Directive 76/625/EEC, regarding holdings to be surveyed, should be 15 ares and that the area to be transmitted should be "net" or "gross", accompanied by a correction coefficient (solely for "gross" area).

III. Results

III.1) Communication of the results

Directive 76/625/EEC lays down the deadline for transmission to the Commission of the results of the basic surveys as 1 April of the year following the surveys in question. The deadline for making available these data is an essential factor in their "usefulness". Unfortunately, this has not been adhered to by all Member States (see table 2 in Annex 2), thus calling into question the benefit of the surveys, which is to make available recent information to users.

III.2) Processing of the results

Once the tabular data had been received from the Member States, the Commission carried out a validation of them, involving a series of intra- and inter-tabular checks. A certain number of corrections thus had to be made to the original data to remove all the discrepancies and so that they could be accepted by the Commission (the table in Annex 2 summarises this operation).

IV. Brief Presentation Of The Results

A summary analysis of the results of the 1997 surveys is presented in the publication "The European Orchard in 1997". This report comments on the most important results and looks principally at the trend observed between 1992 and 1997.

IV.1) The European orchard in 1997

In 1997, the total area of the European Orchard had the following breakdown:

>TABLE POSITION>

Orchard considered:

- The seven species in Italy, Greece, France and Portugal

- Apple trees in the 15 EU countries

- Pear trees in the EU, except in Ireland and Finland

- Apple, pear, peach and apricot trees in Austria

It can be seen that the contribution of the three new Member States (Austria, Finland and Sweden) is somewhat modest in relation to the situation existing before their accession. In fact, the area relating to these three countries is less than 1% of that of the EU-15 total.

The main comparisons presented in Annex 3 are based on the EUR 12 aggregate.

Table C in Annex 3 shows that the European Orchard declined by approximately 55 000 ha between 1992 and 1997. This decline was notable for apple, peach and orange trees. On the other hand, there was an increase for lemon and small-fruited citrus trees. A country-by-country analysis shows that, with the exception of Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg, areas under fruit trees shrank in all Community countries.

IV.2) Trend in varieties

An analysis of the proportion of each variety within each species reveals considerable developments linked to changes in consumer preferences. At European level, the phenomenon is significant for apple, pear and lemon trees (Annex 4).

More details for each country are given in the publication "The European Orchard in 1997".

IV.3) Regional specialisation

The variables are surveyed at regional level. Nevertheless, the breakdown of the territory of the Member States into "regional units" shows large differences in the size of the various subdivisions: for example, "la Rioja" (total area: 5034 km2) is found alongside South-East France (total area: 111 326 km2). Regional specialisation was therefore studied using the following indicator:

Total area under fruit trees

Total utilised agricultural area (UAA)

This indicator was calculated for each region, each species and the European regions as a whole. In the calculation of the EU total, of course, only the regions in which the phenomenon was significant were taken into account: for instance, as regards France and citrus fruits, only Corsica was included.

Each regional indicator was divided by the European average for the species in question. The results, in which EU = 100, are set out in tables 1 to 7 in Annex 5.

V. Conclusion

This Community survey was able to record several significant factors with regard to market monitoring and the economic importance of fruit production in the various regions. There are, however, still certain problems concerning in particular the survey methodology. It does in fact seem rather misleading to use the same statistical techniques in a country such as Spain (469 832 ha over 7 species) as well as in Finland (533 ha for a single species). Alternative solutions are currently being studied and discussed by a working party in order to improve the next survey in 2002.

Member States are asked to make an additional effort to shorten the deadlines shown in Annex 2.

ANNEX 1

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

ANNEX 2 1997 Basic survey of fruit trees

>TABLE POSITION>

ANNEX 3

Table A: Breakdown of the various fruit species by country and for EU-12, 1997

>TABLE POSITION>

(*) Species not covered by Council Directive 76/625/EEC

Table B: Breakdown of the various fruit species by country and for EU-12, 1992

>TABLE POSITION>

(*) Species not covered by Council Directive 76/625/EEC

Table C: EU-12, 1997 - EU-12, 1992

>TABLE POSITION>

(*) Species not covered by Council Directive 76/625/EEC

ANNEX 4 Breakdown of area of species of fruit trees by variety, EU

Apple trees

>TABLE POSITION>

Pear trees

>TABLE POSITION>

Peach trees

>TABLE POSITION>

* Formerly Group Merril Franciscan

** Variety included in the Group Cresthaven

Apricot trees

>TABLE POSITION>

Orange trees

>TABLE POSITION>

Lemon trees

>TABLE POSITION>

Small-fruited citrus

>TABLE POSITION>

ANNEX 5

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>

>TABLE POSITION>