ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (79)438
Vol.1979/0153

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE, Euratom) n°354/83 duConseil du1erfévrier 1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublic desarchives historiques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergie atomique (JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifié par lerèglement (CE, Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossier estouvert aupublic. Lecaséchéant, lesdocuments
classifiés présents dans cedossier ontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article 5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No354/83 of1February 1983
concerning theopening tothepublic ofthehistorical archives oftheEuropean Economic
Community andtheEuropean Atomic Energy Community (OJL43,15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC, Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003 (OJL243,
27.9.2003, p.1),this fileisopen tothepublic. Where necessary, classified documents inthis
filehave been declassified inconformity with Article 5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr.354/83 desRates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L43vom 15.2.1983,
S.1),geändert durch dieVerordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom 22.September 2003
(ABI. L243vom 27.9.2003, S.1),istdiese Datei derÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden dieVerschlusssachen indieser Datei inÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel 5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(79)438 final
Brussels,27thJuly1979
»A#
/rTrr'"T^-;\\40çj_
THIRDREPORT ONTHEIMPLEMENTATION OFTHECOUNCIL
DIRECTIVES ONTHEREFORM OFAGRICULTURE OF17APRIL1972
COM(79)438final

TABLEOFCONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER ItIMPLEMENTATION OFTHEDIRECTIVES ONTHEREFORM
OFAGRICULTURE 1to3
CHAPTERII-RESULTS OFTHEIMPLEMENTATION OFTHEDIRECTIVES
INTHEMEMBER STATES 1
1.Implementation ofDirective 72/159/EEC 1
1.1.Numberandbreakdown ofdevelopment plans 1
1.2.Areaandexpansion offarms 7
1.3.Typeoffarming,natureandvolumeofproposedinvestments 16
1.4.Investment aidforfarmswithout adevelopment plan 32
2.Implementation ofTitleIIofDirective 75/268/EEC 36
3.Implementation ofDirective 72/160/EEC 39
3.1.Numberandbreakdown ofcessation annuities andpremiums 39
3.2.Sizeoffarmsgivenup 48
3.3.Usemadeofreleasedland 50
3.4.Conclusions
4.Implementation ofDirective 72/161/EEC 58
4.1.TitleI(socio-economi cguidance ) 58
4.2.TitleII(occupational skills) 59

INTRODUCTION
ThisThirdReportontheimplementation oftheCouncilDirectives of17
April1972onthereformofagriculture isbeingpresented atthesame
timeastheCommission 'sproposals concerning agricultural structures
1policy,whichincludeproposals amending thesaidDirectives .
ThemainaimoftheReportisthustoanalyse andassesstheimplementation
ofthesocio-structural Directives ,theirobjectives andtheresults
obtained . \
Itthusrelates asfaraspossible tothewholeoftheinitialfive-year
periodofimplementation oftheDirectives ,i.e.theperiodfrom1972to
1977.
However,indrawing upthisReport,theCommission hashadtorelyon
limitedinformation ,sometimes veryfragmentary inthecaseofcertain
MemberStates,particularly theFederalRepublic ofGermany asregards 1977.
Moreover,someMemberStateseitherbeganimplementation agooddeallater
thantheothersortookratherlongertoreachfulloperational conditions ,
sothataproperanalysis ofthesituation isnotyetpossible inthecase
ofItalyandLuxembourg andforFrance,forwhichvaliddataareavailable
onlyfrom1977,thesignificance ofsuchananalysisisstilllimited.
Theconclusions drawnbytheCommission fromthisinitialperiodof
implementation oftheDirectives onthereformofagriculture aresetout
2inPartIoftheSecondReportontheimplementation oftheDirectives
andtheexplanatory memorandum totheabovementioned newproposals
relating toagricultural structures policy.
COM
2COM(79)
(77)122
650final
final

CHAPTERI-IMPLEMENTATION OFTHEDIRECTIVES ONTHEREFORM OFAGRICULTURE
1.ByMay1979theregulations ofadministrative provisions necessary for
implementation ofthesocio-structura IDirectives hadbeenintroduced
inallMemberStates.
InApril,Luxembourg tookthelaststepstocomply,morethanthreeyears
late,withDirective 72/159/EEC.Attheendof1977Belgiumadoptedthe
provisions necessary fortheintroduction ofasocio-economic guidance
servicepursuant toTitleIofDirective 72/161/EEC.
InItaly,theprocessofreplacing national legislation forimplementing
theDirectives byregional legislation isnowalmostcomplete andinmost
regionsofnorthernItalyDirectives 72/159/EECand75/268/EEChavebeen
applied since1978.
TheonlycountryinwhichDirective 72/160/EECisstillnotbeingapplied
isDenmark .
However,duringtheperiodcovered bytheReport (1976-77),althoughall
thenational orregional provisions necessary forimplementation ofthe
Directives hadbeenadopted,theywerestillnotbeingappliedinsome
MemberStatesorelsewerebeingapplied onatokenbasisonly.Thisis
trueinparticular ofthemeasures provided forinTitleIofDirective
72/161/EECbutalsoasregardstheapplication ofDirective 72/160/EEC,
inparticular Article 1(1)(b)(cessation premium).Theresultsofthe
implementation ofthelatterDirective areconsiderably influenced by
thisfact.

-2-
2.Mostofthelargenumberofamendments oradditions totheprovisions
implementing theDirectives adopted bytheMemberStatesbetween 1August
1977and31December -1978wereminorones.
Theyinclude,however,thefollowing :
-theintroduction ofacompensatory allowance withinthemeaningof
Directive 75/268/EECintheNetherlands ,
-theintroduction ofapermanent systemofinvestment aidtofarms
withinthemeaningofthefirstsubparagraph ofArticle 14(2)incertain
regionsofGermany,
-achangeintheinvestment aidgrantedtofarmswithout adevelopment
planinFrance;thechangewassuchthattheCommission wasobligedto
adoptafindingthattheguidingprinciple ofDirective 72/159/EEC,
i.e.selectivity infavouroffarmers implementing adevelopment plan,
wasnolongerrespected .However,thepractical effectofthechange
wasminimal,andin1978Francerestored theprinciple ofselectivity
initsregulations .
DuringtheperiodtheCommission delivered oradopted atotalof80
opinions anddecisions undertheexamination procedure laiddowninthe
Directives .
3.Thecomparable incomefixedintheMemberStatespursuant toArticle 4
ofDirective 72/159/EECwasasfollows :

-3-
Comparable incomesin1975»1976,1977and1978
CountryUnitYear
1975 1976 1977 19781978„
inEUA
(1)
[GERMANY DM 22000 23100 24000 253009802
IFRANCE January 27700 31300 35800 393007017
I(notincluding Paris)FF
July 29800 34100 37700 424007571
IITALY Ut.30440003513000405100055530005225
INETHERLANDS F1 I?26000 24700 27000 2940010585
t(2ndliaIf)1
IBELGIUM ÏT) 318000365.000 39500042800010517
LUXEMBOURG Flx 35200034800039650040960010065
UNITED KINGDOM <;
IGreatBritain £ 2700 3000 3300 38005685
INorthern Ireland £ 2445 2700 ν3000 35005236
IIRELAND £ 2230 2530 2900 35505311
DENMARK DKr 6300073600 '866008780012508I
(1)Valueat30.6.1978
t

CHAPTER II-RESULTS OFTHEIMPLEMENTATION OFTHEDIRECTIVES INTHE
MEMBER STATES
1.Implementation ofDirective 72/159/EEC
1.1.Numberandbreakdown ofdevelopment plans
Bytheendof1977about77600development planshadbeenapproved in
sevenMemberStates.Implementation oftheDirective gotunderwayslowly,
withbigdifferences betweentheMemberStatesbothasregardsthenumber
ofplansapproved andthetimeneededtoreachanormallevelofworking.
Aftertwoyearsoffairlysteadyapplication withthenumberofplans
approved ranging from18000to20000in1975and1976,therewasabig
increase in1977,when25.000planswereapproved .
Thisincrease wasduemainlytoaverysharpriseinthenumberof
development plansapproved intheUnitedKingdom :from1952in1976to
71.45in1977.Inaddition,theprovisions forimplementing theDirective
whichenteredintoforceinFrancein1976tookeffectonlyin1977,so
thatthenumberofplansapproved rosefrom578in1976to2597in1977.
IntheNetherlands andinBelgiumthenumberofplansapproved roseby
nearly 50%from1975to1977.Thenumberremained steadyinIrelandand
fellby22%compared with1975intheFederalRepublic ofGermany,while
thetrendinDenmark wasverydifferent fromintheotherMemberStates.
In1974,thefirstyearinwhichtheDirective wasapplied,3983plans
wereapproved inDenmark,representing nearly 32%ofallplansapproved,
thehighestpercentage intheCommunity .In1975,1976and1977this
numberfellbyover20%,26%and43%respectively .

-2-
TA3LS 1:1TJ:3SC? PLiTSAPPP.CVZD
Country 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Total
Germany 1211 4771I8350 «237I6S14I27083
SBI1211 46426196 4704•I4632J22185
tira.1554 1533'I1682 4C9Ô
yrunri 163 578 2597I-3338
SB
m 163 578 X502I2243
LFR1095 1095
Italy
Netherlands 1842 2398 1849 '2204 2860Il153
Belgium 1082 1477 1«52.42U
KB 925 ■1290 1413-3628
,187 239 '523
Luxeabourg .-J
'UnitedKingdoa 145I479 1952 I7145 9721
NB I 145 479 1390 -4861 6575
LFE.I ,562 2284 ?&16
Xrvlond Imm 5445 2994 2921 11360
HB I 5445 2729 1899 10073
I •265 1022 l287
Denmark I- 398.3 3173 23?6 1313•10795
EEC I3053Γ1129720541Γ1776825002Γ77661
m I3053 11168I18830I15221 18680 66552
ILFB|129 1711 2547 6-322 10709
(1)1974+1975
KR*norvalregions
Lra=less–favoured regions

-3-
Ofthetotalnumberofdevelopment plansapproved intheCommunity,
almost35%areintheFederalRepublic ofGermany,14.6%inIreland,
•14.3%intheNetherlands ,13.9%inDenmark,12.5%intheUnitedKingdom,
5.4%inBelgium and4.3%inFrance.
However,thesefigures canmisleadastotheextenttowhichthe
Directive isappliedinthevarious MemberStates.Itistherefore
usefultocomparetherelative data,although suchacomparison can
onlyserveasaguide.
TABLE2-NUMBEROFDEVELOPMENT PLANSPER10000HAOFUAA1
:Country ::1973 :1974 ::1975 :1976 :1977 :Total :
1973-1977 :
:D :0.91 :3.59 :6.5 :4.7 :4.9 :20.4 :
:F :0.8:1.03 :
:Ν :8.8 :11.5 :8.8 :10.57 :13.72 :53.51 :
:Β 7.09 :9.68 :10.8 :27.61 :
:UK :0.08 :0.25 :1.05 :3.8 :5.24:
:Irl 9.52 :5.24 :5.11:19.87 :
:DK 13.58 ::10.8 :7.9 :4.47 :36.8 :
UAAin1976(forIreland in1975)
21974and1975
Theabovetableshowsthatthenumberofdevelopment plansper10000ha
ofUAAisbyfarthehighest iritheNetherlands ,followed ataconsiderable
distance byDenmarkandBelgium.IntheFederalRepublic ofGermanythe
densityislessthan40%ofthatintheNetherlands andispractically the
sameasinIreland.ThefiguresfortheUnitedKingdomandFrancearefar
lower.InthecaseofFrancethisisexplained bythefactthat1977was

-L-
thefirstyearinwhichtheDirective wasfullyapplied,whileinthe
UnitedKingdomtherelatively favourable sizestructure offarmsplayed
adefinite role.
Thereareverywideregional differences inthedistribution of
development plansinthevarious MemberStates (seeTable 1annexed).
IntheFederalRepublic ofGermanyin1976thedifference fromthe
national average (100)variedbetweenextremes of222and60(Schleswig-
Holstein andBavaria),thesamesituation asintheprevious year.In
thecaseoftheotherLander,however,thedifference fromtheaverage
werefairlysmall,eveninregionswithpoorstructures (Hesse,
Rhineland-Palatinate andBaden-Wijrttemberg ).
InFrance,wheretheonlyvaliddataarefor1977,theregionaldifferences
areconsiderable .Thereismorethantwicethenational averageof
development plansintheParisregion,Champagne-Ardenne ,Brittany and
Auvergne andonlyaboutaquarterinHaute-Normandie ,theCentreregion,
theProvence-Cote d'AzurandCorsica .
IntheNetherlands theSituation isthesameasinprevious years:there
isacloseconnection betweentheregionaldistribution ofdevelopment
plansandthemaintypeoffarmingpractised .InSouthHolland,where
horticulture predominates ,thefiguresarebyfarthehighest (about
threetimesthenational average )whilethelowestfiguresarerecorded
intheprovinces ofGroningen andZeeland,wherearablefarmingis
dominant .Intheprovinces whichspecialize incattlerearing
(Friesland,NorthHolland andUtrecht )thefiguresareslightly above
average,although thereweredifferences between 1976and1977.

-5-
TherearealsoLargeregionaldifferences inBelgium.Inonlyfourof
thenineprovinces arevaluesclosetotheaverage.Thehighestdensity
in1977isintheprovince ofAntwerp (333%),wherehorticulture is
veryimportant,followed byEastFlanders (200%).Thelowestdensity,
asinprevious years,isintheprovinces ofHainautandNamur,where
itisonlyathirdofthenational averageorless.
Regionaldifferences arealsoverygreatintheUnitedKingdom.In
Englandthedensityofdevelopment planswasonly50%in1976and63%
in1977whereasinWales,Scotland andNorthern Irelandthedensityin
1976was150%.In1977thefiguresforScotland andNorthern Ireland
wereevenhigher (215and192%respectively ).Itwouldseemthathere
too,asintheNetherlands ,thereisalinkbetweenthedensityof
development plansandthemaintypeoffarmingpractised,sincethe
highestfiguresarethoseforregions wherecattlefarmingpredominates .
InIrelandregional differences aremarked.IntheSouthEast,South
WestandMidWestregionsthefiguresforthetwoyearsexceedthe
national average.Thelowestfiguresforthetwoyearswererecorded
intheWestandNorthEastregions,althoughitshouldbestressedthat
inthesetworegionsthedensityofdevelopment plansdoubledbetween
1976and1977.
InDenmark ,theregionaldifferences inthedistribution ofdevelopment
plansweresmallerin1976and1977thaninthepreceding period.Thus
in1976theextremevalueswere113(Iylland )and50(Siaelland )but
hadfallento109(Iylland)and62(Storstrom )in1977.IfBornholmis
leftoutofaccountthereseemstobealinkbetweenthedensityof
development plansandthetypeoffarmingheretoo,fortheregionwith

-6-
thegreatest numberofcattlefarmscapableofdevelopment alsohad
thehighestdensityofdevelopment plans.
For1976and1977theCommission has,forthefirsttime,separatedata
concerning theimplementation oftheDirective intheless-favoured
regions.Thesedataconfirmtheopinionexpressed bytheCommission in
theSecondReport,totheeffectthatthenumberofdevelopment plans
submitted intheseregionsisrelatively high.IntheFederalRepublic
ofGermany,FranceandtheUnitedKingdomthepercentage ofdevelopment
planssubmitted intheseregionsisalmostequaltotheshareofless-
favoured regionsinthetotalUAAoftheMemberStateinquestion .The
situation isdifferent onlyinIreland.In1977onlyabout30%ofIrish
development plansrelatedtoless-favoured areas -whereasthelatters'
shareinIreland'sUAAisabout50%.
Itshouldbeemphasized thatinIrelandthenumberofplanssubmitted
in1977forless-favoured areashadquadrupled compared withthe
previous yearaLthough thetotalnumberofplanswaspractically
unchanged .Thiscouldbeexplained bythefactthatthemorefavourable
termsforfinancing development plansinless-favoured areaswerefully
appliedonlyfrom1977.IntheFederalRepublic ofGermany,although
thenumberofdevelopment plansfellfrom8350to6514between 1975
and1977thenumberofplanssubmitted forless-favoured regions
increased slightly (from1554to1682).Moreover,anexamination of
thedevelopment planssubmitted inGermany showsthattheamountofaid
grantedperdevelopment planintheareasoflowdensity washigheron
averagethantheamountgrantedinareasofhigherdensity.

-7-
Tosumup,Directive 72/159/EECwasappliedinanincreasingly uniform
mannerfrom1975to1977boththroughout theCommunity andwithin
MemberStates.However,inspiteofthesometimes markedreduction of
thedifferences between MemberStatesandbetweenthevariousregions,
andinspiteofamuchgreaterbalancein1977compared withprevious
years,therearestillbigdifferences betweentheeffectsofthe
Directive inthedifferent MemberStates,asTable2makesclear:
whereasinfourMemberStatesthedensityofdevelopment plansin1977
wasclosetotheCommunity averageitwasalmost400%ofthataverage
intheNetherlands ,330%inBelgium andonly25%inFrance.
Development inrecentyears,however,donotconfirmthefearsofthose
whothoughtthattheDirective couldbeappliedonlyinthe"good"
regions oftheCommunity .Onthecontrary,thefiguresfor1976and
1977showthatthedensity ofdevelopment plansinsomeless-favoured
areas,wherestructures arelessrational,ishighandsometimes only
slightly belowthatinareaswithbetterstructures .
1.2.Areaandexpansion offarms
AsTable3shows,about70%offarmsintheCommunity submitting a
development planin1977hadaUAAofmorethan20habutlessthan
100haandthe20-50hasizecategory accounted fornearlyhalfthe
totalnumberofplans.Thepercentage offarmswithmorethan100ha
ofUAAwas15%,whereasthecategory offarmswithlessthan10haand
the10-20hasizecategory eachsubmitted 10%ofthedevelopment plans.
Therewasaslightchangecompared with1975asregardsthesize
categories above20ha:thepercentage ofthe20-50hacategoryfell
from57to45%whilethepercentage rose,respectively from18to20%
andfrom3to15%.

-8-
Thebreakdown offarmsbysizecategory variesconsiderably fromone
MemberStatetoanother.IntheFederalRepublic ofGermany,France,
IrelandandDenmarkmorethanhalfofallfarmswithadevelopment plan
belongtothe20-50hasizecategory andatleast75%tothe20-100
hacategory .Theunder-20hasizecategory accounts for69%ofplans
inBelgium and55%intheNetherlands ,withnearlyhalfofthesefarms
inBelgium andalmostathirdintheNetherlands belonging tothe
category withlessthan10ha,whereasintheotherMemberStatesthis
category'spercentage doesnotexceed 11%.Thepercentage ofthesize
category withmorethan100haofUAAdoesnotexceed6%inanyMember
State,withtheexception oftheUnitedKingdom,whereitaccounts for
nearlyhalfofthedevelopment planssubmitted .
Compared withprevious years,thedistribution offarmsamongthe
varioussizecategories hasnotundergone anysignificant changeinthe
FederalRepublic ofGermany,France,BelgiumorDenmark.Inthe
Netherlands thepercentage offarmsintheunder-20hacategory has
increased slightly andinIrelandthepercentage ofthe10-20ha
category hasgrownwhilethatoftheover-50hacategory hasfallen.
IntheUnitedKingdomthepercentage offarmswithlessthan10hahas
declined whilethatofthe20-50hacategory hasincreased slightly .
Acomparison betweenTable3andthetypesoffarmingpractised (Table
5),ontheonehand,andthenatureoftheinvestments made(Table6),
ontheother,showsthatthebreakdown ofdevelopment plansaccording
tosizecategoryispartlydetermined bythetypeoffarming.Thusin
mostMemberStatesthepercentage offarmsunder10haisroughlyequal
tothepercentage offarmsspecializing inhorticulture orfruit-
growing.ThisisnottrueofBelgium,however,wherethepercentage of
farmswithlessthan10hais49%andthepercentage ofhorticultural ha
holdings whichhaveinvested inproduction underglassis25%.

TaPLe_3_:_Breakdownofdevelopment plansaccordingtofarmssizecategoryandpercentage ofdevelopmentjnanswhichprovideforanextention oftheutilizedagricultural area
Development Dlansapprove
–d,
t–I' 1977
«
MemberState
*1975
I19761977<10ha 10-<.20ha20-<50ha50-<100haI>100ha
NumberPercer ^
tage
jith
expan­
sion^NumberPercen
tage
with
sxpan-
sionNumberPercen-
tage
with
expan­
sion^NumbeiPerceri
tage
with
expan­
sionNumberPerçen-
tage
nth
expan­siondumberPercen-
tage
with
expan­
siondumberPercen-
tage
with
expan-
sionNumberPercer
tage
with
expan­sion
Germany 8.350486.237 446.51440»11»42*8*45*61*43*18»31*2*r
18«
France 16339578302.59729 2478315530 2826 619
Netherlands 1.849 132.204 142.86015301125.134118 423 043
Belgium 1.082 131.477 121.65214491020 72422 538 211*
UnitedKingdom 47971.952 77.145 6119 14214.31 546 6
Ireland 5.445682'2.994 792.92175.1532>14692'65742'18832>293
Denmark 3.173 22.326 21.313 16021 159 213 2 1 0
EEC20.541I
jUj17.768 3425.002 26»"10»19*10»27*45*35*20*23*15*G
1)1974♦1975 ....
2)-Includesnotonlynewareastaken_over byjthefarmbutalsoexistingareasnewlybroughtintocultivation .
•Provisional figures.
I

-10-
Alsostrikingisthelargepercentage oflabour-intensive farmsinthe
10-20hacategory intheNetherlands ,BelgiumandDenmarkwhich,on
thebasisoftheavailable data,cannotbeconsidered asrepresentative
ofanyspecific typeoffarming.IntheUnitedKingdom,ontheother
hand,whatisstrikingisthehighproportion offarmsofmorethan100
ha(46%).Theavailable dataprovides nosatisfactory explanation of
theseextremes .Differences inproduction intensity andinyieldper
unitofareadoubtless playarole.
For1977,forthefirsttime,wehavedataconcerning thenumberof
man-work (MWUs)perfarmoncompletion ofthedevelopment plan.The
percentage offarmswithbetweenoneandtwoMWUsrepresents 53%ofall
development plansintheCommunity in1977.
Denmark (78%)andIreland (84%)arewellabovethisaverage,whereas
theUnitedKingdom (28%)iswellbelowit.Thehighproportion (48%)
offarmswithmorethanthreeMWUsintheUnitedKingdomisparticularly
striking andismorethantwicetheCommunity average.
Thepercentage offarmswithrelatively lowproduction potential (small
size,LessthantwoMWUs)isfairlyhighinIreland,Denmarkand
Belgium,whereasintheUnitedKingdomthepercentage offarmswith
relatively highproduction potential (largesize,morethanthree
MWUs)isexceptionally large.Thissituation obtainsbothinareas
whereproduction conditions arefavourable andinthosewherethey
arelessso.

-11-
TABLE3-NUMBER OFDEVELOPMENT PLANSBROKEN DOWNBYNUMBER OF
MAN-WORK UNITSIN19771
MemberState:1<2MWU :2-<3MWU :>3MWU
:Number : %:Number :%:Number :/. :
:Germany :3370:57 :1954:33 :594:10:
:France :1467:56 :908:35 :222:9:
:Netherlands :1564:55 :687:24 :609:21:
:Belgium :1000:61:450:27 :202:12:
:UnitedKingdom :2008:28 :1728:24 :3409:48:
:Ireland :2445:84 :377:13 :99:3:
:Denmark :1021:78:231:18 :61:4:
:EEC :12875:53 :6335:26 :5196:>21:
Provisional fngures
IntheCommunity asawholethepercentage ofdevelopment plansproviding
foranextention oftheutilized agricultural areafellby17%in1976
andby23.6%in1977whileremaining constant inmostMemberStates.In
1977thispercentage was26%asagainst 41%in1975(seeTable3).
Thissituation isduepartlytothesharpincrease inthenumberof
development plansintheUnitedKingdom,whereexpansion isveryrare,.
andpartlytoafallinthenumberofplansinFranceandGermany.These
twoMemberStateshave,afterIreland,thehighestfarmexpansion rates
intheCommunity .

-12-
Theproportion offarmswhosedevelopment planscallforextention of
theutilizedagricultural areaishighestinIreland (75%),followed
bytheFederalRepublic ofGermany (40%)andFrance (29%).Thisorder
hasremained thesamesince1975.From1975to1977theproportion of
farmsplanning toexpandvariedbetween 13and14%inBelgiumandthe
Netherlands andbetween 1and2%inDenmark .Attention shouldbedrawn
totheparticularly lowpercentage ofexpansion operations inthe
latterthreecountries,whichnevertheless havearelatively large
numberoffarmsoflessthan20hapresenting development plans.The
relationship betweenfarmexpansion andfarmingcessation incentives
isunmistakable .InthoseMemberStateswheresuchincentives havebeen
mosteffective (FederalRepublic ofGermany andFrance)thenumberof
expansion operations plannediswellabovetheCommunity average,
whereasinDenmark,whereDirective 72/160/EEChasnotyetbeen
applied,thepercentage ofexpansion operations isonly1to2%.
Thereareregionaldifferences inalmostallMemberStates (seeTable
2annexed )andonlyinIreland andtheFederalRepublic ofGermanyis
thereafairlybalanced situation .
IntheNetherlands andBelgium,therehasbeennochangesince1975in
theregionshavingpercentages wellinexcessofthenational averages
-Ijsselmeer polders,NorthHolland andFriesland intheformer
country andHainaut andNamurinBelgium.

-13-
IntheFederalRepublic ofGermany,FranceandIreland,ontheotherhand,
thepercentage offarmsplanning toexpandishigherinareaswith
unfavourable sizestructures orpoorproduction conditions (Hesse,Baden-
Wurttemberg ,Rhineland-Palatinate ,Brittany,Midi-Pyrenees ,Limousin,
Rhone-Alpes ,Auvergne,NorthWestregion)thaninotherareas.
IntheFederalRepublic ofGermany,FranceandtheUnitedKingdommost
farmssubmitting adevelopment planwhichprovides forexpansion arein
theunder-20 hacategory whereasintheNetherlands andinBelgiumthey
areintheover-20 hacategory .
Ofthetotalnumberofdevelopment plansproviding forexpansion
submitted intheCommunity ,over60%concernfarmswithbetween twoand
threeMWUsand12%aresubmitted byfarmswithmorethanthreeMWUs.In
Irelandthepercentage oftheseplansfromthe1-2MWUcategoryis
84%whereasitisonly22%intheUnitfedKingdom.Thecategory offarms
withmorethanthreeMWUsrepresents 58%ofallexpansion plannedinthe
UnitedKingdom and30%intheNetherlands .
Thepatternofexpansion isshowninTable4.IntheUnitedKingdomand
Denmarktheproportion offarmswhichexpanded bylessthanfive
hectaresisverysmall(lessthan20%)whereasexpansion ofthisorder
concerned 54%offarmsinGermany,34%inFrance,60%intheNetherlands ,
49%inBelgium and71%inIreland.
However,itisparticularly significant thatinallMemberStatesthe
proportion offarmsexpanding bylessthantwohectaresissmallerin
less-favoured areasthaninotherareasand,conversely ,expansion by
morethantwohectaresismorefrequent intheless-favoured areas.

Table4-Percentage breakdown ofexpanding farmsaccording tonumber
ofhaadded
1 i
haadded
'«
.<2ha2ha-<5ha5ha-<10ha >10ha
Germany1975
1976
19771?
18
21.29
30
33',0.
29
2726
23
19
Frano* 1975
1976
197713
8
930
26
25 "22
24
.2635
42
40
Netherlands
j1975
1976
197726
29
3022
26
•30''j18.
22
2234
23
18.
Belgium I
'i1975
1976
197718
35
3616.
20
1321 ■
.16
.20 ■■•45
29
.31
UnitedKingdom1975
1976
1977.6
11
5
/16
11'
1210
.18
1268
60
71
Ireland •11975
1976
■1977I'■27
31
i34I35■
35•,
37.!"22
19
17.16
15
12
I
Denmark1975
1976
19775
il
.o17
•16
1232
40.
1246
33
76
.«.1975
1976
197721
24
2531
31
3226
24
2222
21
21

-15-
In<r977theprincipal wayofexpanding farmsinmostMemberStateswas
throughleasingland.Landpurchases accounted forthefollowing
percentages ofexpansion projects :
Germany 29%against 27.5%in1975
France 29%against 14.3%in1975
Netherlands 30%against 23.6%in1975
Belgium 45%against 15.6%in1975
UnitedKingdom 26%against 42.3%in1975
Ireland 48%
Denmark 35%against 62.5%in1975
Compared with1975thepercentage offarmsexpanding bymeansofland
purchase increased inFrance,theNetherlands andparticularly inBelgium,
whereas acontrary trendcanbeobserved intheUnitedKingdom andin
Denmark.
Tosumup,thepercentage offarmsextending theirareaundera
development planwaslowerin1977thanin1975;expansion issomewhat
lessfrequent onaverageinless-favoured areasorareaswithpoor
structures ;and,although expansion continues tobeeffectedprincipally
bymeansofleasing,thepercentage oflandpurchases hasnevertheless
increased insomeMemberStates.
ItshouldbenotedthatinthecaseofIrelandthedrainage ofareas
alreadybelonging tothefarmer,aswellasthebringingintocultivation
areashitherto unused,couldalsocontribute greatlytoexpansion .

-16-
1.3.Typeoffarming,natureandvolumeofproposed investments .
In1977,asinprevious years,Directive 72/159/EECwasappliedmainly
inthecattlefarmingsector.Thisistruewhether weconsiderthetype
offarmingpractised whentheapplication wassubmitted orthenature
andvolumeoftheproposed investments ,andisinlinewiththetrend
intheCommunity .
However,theproportion offarmsspecializing incattlerearingatthe
timewhentheplanwassubmitted hasfallenslightly,from56.6%in
1975to53%in1976and49%in1977.Ontheotherhand,overthesame
periodthepercentage offarmswhosedevelopment planprovided for
investment incattlehousingrosefrom44%in1975to51%in1976and
56%in1977fortheCommunity asawhole.Theproportion offarmswhose
planprovides foranincrease inheadagehasalsofallen,from71%in
1975to60%in1977.Thesedivergencies showthattherelationship .
betweentypeoffarming andthenatureoftheproposed investments is
complex andthatin1977evenfarmswhosemainactivity wasnotcattle
rearingplannedtoinvestincattlehousing.
Asinprevious years,othertypesoffarmingweremuchlessinevidence .
However,itisinteresting tonotethetrendovertheperiod.Compared
with1975,thepercentage ofmixedfarmshadalmostdoubledin1977
(risingfrom16.5to29%)whilethatoffarmsgrowingfieldcropshad
fallenfrom11.4to7%.Theproportion ofhorticultural holdings
remained unchanged at7%whilethatofpigfarmsfellfrom6to3%.

-17-
In1977,asinprevious years,thedistribution ofdevelopment plans
betweenthevarioustypesoffarmingvariesagooddealfromMember
StatetoMemberState.Asregardscattlefarming,Irelandleadswith
about80%ofplans,nochangehavingtakenplaceinthatcountryover
thepastthreeyears.Thissector'spercentage isalsoabovethe
Community averageintheNetherlands andinFrance(52and58%
respectively ).
However,thereisahighproportion ofhorticultural holdings inthe
Netherlands (35%)andofpigfarmsinDenmark (26%),andbothofthese
haveincreased sharplysince1975.
ThefiguresforBelgiumfor1977aresodifferent fromthosefor1975
and1976thattheiraccuracy shouldbeverified .Apartfromthehigh
percentage ofmixedfarms(85%against 24%in1975and20%in1976),
whatisparticularly strikingisthesmallproportion ofhorticultural
holdings,whichissaidtobeonly6%whereas 25%ofdevelopment plans
provideforinvestment ingreenhouses .Thereisasimilarsituation in
thecattlesector.
AsTable5and6show,thereareconsiderable differences between Member
Statesasregardsthetypeoffarmingpractised whentheplanwas
submitted andthenatureoftheproposed investments .Particularly in
IrelandbutalsoinGermany,thepercentage offarmsspecializing in
cattlerearingismuchhigherthanthepercentage offarmswhichpropose
toinvestincattlehousing.Theopposite isthecaseinFrance,Denmark,
and,inparticular ,theUnitedKingdom,whereonly47%offarms
specialize incattlerearingbut81%ofdevelopment plansprovidefor
investment incattlehousing.

-18-
Inthepigsector,theproportion offarmsplanningtoinvestinpig
housingismuchgreaterthantheproportion offarmsspecializing in
pigrearing;inGermany,FranceandIrelandtheratiois3:1and
inDenmark,where58%offarmsplantoinvestinpighousing,itis
about2:1.
In.considering thetypesoffarminginvolved,accountshouldbetaken
oftheguidance premiumprovided forinArticle 10ofDirective 72/159/EEC.
InthethreeMemberStateswherebeefandsheepmeat production are
majoractivities ,thepercentage ofdevelopment plansconcerning this
typeofproduction declined from1975to1977:inFrancefrom52%in
1975to28%in1977,inIrelandfrom11%in1975to9%in1977andin
theUnitedKingdomfrom46%in1975to37%in1976.Theincrease inthe
numberofguidance premiums inFranceandtheUnitedKingdomin1977
(seeTable7)isthusduetoanincrease inthenumberofdevelopment
plans.
IntheotherMemberStatestheguidance premiumplayedonlyaveryminor
roleandwasgrantedin1977to0.42%ofplansintheFederalRepublic
ofGermany,0.94%intheNetherlands and2.8%inBelgium.

-19-
TABLE5~BREAKDOWN OFDEVELOPMENT PLANSACCORDING TOTYPEOFFARMING
(%OGTOTALNUMBER OFDEVELOPMENT PLANSIN1977)
MemberStateNoofde-
velopment
plansCattle PigsField
cropsHorti­
culture Mixed
Germany 6.015 45 8 15 8 20
France 2.597 58 4 4 1 22
Netherlands 2.860 520,7 4 35
Belgium 1.652 0,2 10,1 6 85
UnitedKingdom 7.145 47 0,1 5 1 45
Ireland 2.921 83 1 4 1 11
Denmark 1.313 44 6 13 4 11
EEC 24.5032) 49 3 7 7 29
1)Totalnoofdevelopment plans=6.514
2)Totalnoofdevelopment plans=25.002

-20-
TABLE 6-BREAKDOWN OFDEVELOPMENT PLANS ACCORDING TONATURE OFINVESTMENT
(%OFTOTAL NUMBER OFDEVELOPMENT PLANS IN1977 )
Member StateFarm buiIdingsLivestock Machinery Land im- Land Purchase
Total Catt le
housingPig
housingGlass­
housesprovement
Germany 67.4 35.3 7 4 58.8 55-7 2-2 13.5 1
France 96.4 90.8 2-5 90.2 97.5 19-6
Netherlands 98 66..7 0.6 23-9 62.6 67.5 6.2 2.8
Belgium 59.1 30.8 10.4 17.8 65.9 25.5 13.0
United Kingdom 98.7 60.3 4.6 4.6 66.2 82.7 47.0 1.5
Ireland 95 28.9 2.7 0.13 87.6 54.4 98.1 0.4
|Denmark96.5 77.2 37 3.8 53.1 52.7 1.15.1 |
EEC 82.5 43.8 9.9
I5.4 71.1 54.3 29.5 6.8
Including expansion ofherds bybreading
+Provisional figures

-21-
Table7;.Numberofguidance premiumsgranted
IYear Germany !France Netherlands Belgium II"United
I.Kinqdom ISIreland IIDenmark I
1975 94. 75 8 1. 248 621* 24
1976 •14 235 6 16 731 315 24
1977 28 735 27 47 269
•1974and1975

-22-
Where,intheNetherlands andDenmark,adevelopment planconcerns
meatproduction ,theproposed increase inheadageisatleast150%,
whereas onsimilarfarmsinIrelandthefigureisabout50,%andin
theUnitedKingdom andGermanyonly30Z.Similardifferences were
recorded in1975.
Investment incattlefarming hasincreased since1975notonlyas
regardsthevolumeperfarmbutespecially asregardsthevolumeper
MWU.Whereasin197553Zofplansinthissectorprovided forin­
vestment oflessthan20000u.a.perMWUand16Zforover4000u.a.
perMWU,thesefigures were29%and31Zin1977.Withtheexception
ofBelgium,thisincrease wasrecorded inallMemberStates,especially
inFranceandDenmark .
However,therearestillbigdifferences betweentheMemberStatesin
thisrespect (seeTable8).IntheNetherlands in197795%ofplans
provided foravolumeofinvestment ofover25000u.a.perfarm,
21Zforavolumeofinvestment perMWUofover40000u.a.and50Z
forbetween 20000and40000u,.a.perMWU.InIreland,attheother
extreme,63Zofplansprovided forinvestment oflessthan10000u.a.
inlivestock housing andlessthan20000u.a.perMWU.Itshouldbe
notedthatinBelgium,whileallplansprovidedforinvestment ofless
than10000u.a.perMWU,41Zprovided formorethan25000u.a.per
farm.
Theonlycountry wherespecialized pigfarmingplaysamajorroleis
Denmark,where26Zofallfarmswhichsubmitted adevelopment plan
in1977werepigfarmsandwheremorethanhalfthedevelopment plans
provided forinvestment inpighousing.InalltheotherMemberStates
thepercentage ofspecialized pigfarmsislessthan10Zalthough the
proportion offarmsplanning toinvestinpigfarmingexceedsthat
figureinGermany (27Z),France(14Z)andBelgium (13Z).

TABLEAU 8:VOLUME OFINVESTMENT INCATTLE FARMING
(AS%OFTHENUMBER OFFARMSCONCERNED )
IjVolumeofinvestment in/.-n :
fVolumeofinvestment per
■ _' , „..•Icattlehousingperfarm 7" IVMWUoncattlefarms
K10.000 UCI10-25.00C1JC 025.000 UC<20.000 "UC20-.:o.ooo"cn-s.o.ooouc
1975 16rr» 63 !49 I23 irs r
Germany i1976 11 18 71 37 30 33
•1977 9 16 75 30 31 39
1975 9 36".55 12..I69 i19
France 1976 12 25 63 12 59 30
11977 6 20 74 4 45 51
•1975 0 4- 96 6 54 .40
Netherlands i1976 •Ο ι5 95 .5. 50 45 ■
1977 0 5 95 5 46 49
1975 10 49 41 80 18 2
Belgium 1976 18 49 33 81 16 3
1977 10 49 41 .100 0 0
1975 •42.29 29 67 20 13
UnitedKingdom 1976 31 32 37 ■39 39 22
1977 26 33 41
*..29 50 21
•1975 ••76 .17 7 78 20 2
Ireland i1976 72 21 7 71 26 3.
.1977 65 25 10 65 30 5
1975128 29 42 24 49 27
Denmark 1976 29 25 46 12 41 47
3-977197 18 <I45" 6 33, 61
1975I27 21 52"53Π31 16
EEC, 1976 23 22 55 40 34. 26 .
1977 20 24 56 29 40 31
k IJ
1)Forthevolumeofinvestment inothertypesoffarming seeAnnex-Table4(a).

-24-
Inrecentyearstherehasbeenastrongtendency inDenmarkfor
thepercentage ofpigfarmstoincrease,together withthepercentage
offarmsinvesting inpighousing.Nostrongtendency isapparent in
thissectorintheotherMemberStates.
Ofallhorticultural holdings whichsubmitted adevelopment planin
1977almost60%areintheNetherlands andnearly28%inGermany
(therearenousabledataforBelgium).Compared withprevious years
thepercentage ofDutchholdings hasthusdoubled whereasthatof
Germanholdings hasdropped.
From1975to1977thepercentage ofhorticultural holdings inthetotal
numberofdevelopment planssubmitted rosefrom6%to8%inGermany
andfrom29%to35%intheNetherlands .Withtheexception ofBelgium
(27%in1975and29%in1976)thepercentage inotherMemberStates
waslessthan5%.
Theconsiderable differences betweentypesoffarmingarelargely
determined bythediversity ofnaturalconditions andagricultural
structures .Thisisparticularly apparentifweconsider theextremely
highproportion ofcattlefarmsinIreland,theconcentration of
horticultural holdings incertainpartsoftheNetherlands (South
Holland,NorthHolland)andBelgium (Antwerp,EastFlanders )andthe
exceptionally highpercentage ofmixedfarmsintheUnitedKingdom
(25%),thisbeingthelogicalresultofthelargenumberoffarmsof
over100hectares inthatMemberState.

Asregardsthenatureoftheinvestments (Table6),inallthe
MemberStateswiththeexception ofBelgium andGermanyover95%
ofdevelopment plansprovideforinvestment infarmbuildings ;in
thetwoMemberStatesmentioned theproportion is73%and66%
respectively .Inthesetwocountries aconsiderable percentage of
development plansconcerns investment inlivestock only.Landim­
provement playspractically noroleandlandpurchase isasub­
stantial factoronlyinGermany (11'/.ofplans).Ontheotherhand/
landimprovement isveryimportant inIrelandespecially butalso
intheUnitedKingdom,whereitfiguresin,respectively ,82%and
58%ofdevelopment plans.Thisproportion is19%inFranceand7%
intheNetherlands ;intheotherMemberStatesitislessthan3%.
Thepercentage offarmsinvesting inmachinery isfairlylowin
Belgium (14Z)andinDenmark (30%);inFranceandtheUnitedKind-
dom,ontheotherhand,over90%ofalldevelopment plansprovide
forinvestment ofthistype.
Therearefewsignificant changes compared with1975:theproportion
ofdevelopment plansproviding forinvestment inpighousingin­
creasedsharplyinallMemberStates,withtheexception ofthe
UnitedKingdom andIreland;ontheotherhand,onlyinGermany and
theNetherlands werelandpurchasesstillplannedin1977whereasin
197513%ofdevelopment plansinBelgium and5Zofplanssubmitted
inDenmarkprovided forsuchinvestment .

-26-
Theamountinvested perMWUvanesgreatly fromoneMemberStateto
another.Fewplansprovideforinvestment oflessthan20000u.a.
perMWUinFrance(7%)orDenmark (5%)whereasinBelgium andIre­
landover60%ofplansprovideforinvestment ofthatorder.
Germany andtheUnitedKingdom occupyanintermediate position with
32%and30%respectively .InBelgium andIrelandveryfewdevelop­
mentplansprovideforinvestment inexcessof40000u.a.perMWU;
however,thepercentage is68%inDenmark,47%inFrance,38%
intheNetherlands and20%intheUnitedKingdom.
Acomparison with1975reveals somechanges.InallMemberStates,
withtheexception oftheNetherlands ,thepercentage ofdevetopment
plansproviding forinvestment inexcessof40000u.a.perMWU
hasincreased sharplyorevendoubled.Theproportion offarms
proposing investment oflessthan20000u.a.has,however,fallen
backconsiderably inallMemberStateswiththeexception of
Belgium,theNetherlands andIreland.
Overthisperiod,however,therewerechangesintheMemberStates *
relative positions .In1975theNetherlands hadthehighestper­
centageofinvestments inexcessof40000u.a.perMWU(30%)where­
asin1977Denmark wasinfirstplacewith68Z,followed byFrance
(47%)andtheNetherlands (38%).

-27-
TABLE9:BREAKDOWN OFDEVELOPMENT PLANSACCORDING TOTHE
VOLUME OFINVESTMENT PERMWU(%)
1:ι– Investment perMWU
IMemberState IYear^20*000 u.a.20.000-40.000 >40.000 u,a
«i η
Germany1975
1976
197752
m'42..
•}32•31
33
35*17
25
33*.
France1975
1976
197723
18
760
57
46/17
•25
47
Netherlands1975
1976
197718
18
1652>
'47.
.4630
35
38
BeLgiurn1975
1976
197786
87
10012
,11
0*'2
2
0·
UnitedKingdom1975
1976
197766
43.
3024
39
5010
.18
20
Ireland '•1975
1976
197777
•70
6421
26
302
4•
6
Denmark1975
1976
197721
10
*5,53
38
2726
52
68
EEC\
1975
1976
197755
42
34••32
'34
38•13
24
28•
Provisional figures

-28-
'Table10!Breakdownofsieveloomentplans.accordingtoVolumeofinvestment
.'perfarm(cf0) •■
MemberStateIYear -»*Investment perfarm
s25.000^u.a.|25.000-
j<50.000u.a50.000-^75*000Uad75.000-
£100.000u.a^100»(Xa)u,a
π
IGermany1975 33nrβ
1976 25 25 27 13 10
1977 18 23 27 18 14
1975 4 44 32 11 9
IFrance 1976 4 30 38 18 10
1977 2 21 36 25 16
INetherlands1975 2 22 35 20 21
1976 4 21 32 19 24
1977 3,18 30 19 30
J.Belgium '"1975.1
48i .29.13.7 3
1976:66 20 9 4 1
1977t26I10•5
I4
IUnitedKingdom1975'40 21 6 7 24
1976 23 •25 14'10 28
1977 10 21 17 13 39
IIreland ''I1975 64 30 4. 1 1
1976 60 33 5 1 1
1977 ,58 35.5. 1 1
i 1975I18' 46 22 3
IDenmark' |1976 9 43 29 15 4
1977 6 31I37 I206
EEC1975 8ΓΠ7
1976 30 28 22 11 9_J1977 » 2215I20

-29-
Ifweconsider thevolumeofinvestment perfarm,thepicturechanges
somewhat .Although thepercentage offarmsplanning thesmallest volume
ofinvestment islowestinFranceandDenmark,farmsplanning investments
ofover100000u.a.aremostnumerous intheUnitedKingdom andthe
Netherlands (39%and30%respectively ).
However,heretoo,exceptinBelgium,thepercentage offarmsplanning
investments oflessthan25000u.a.perfarmhasfalleninallMember
Stateswhereasinvestments intheover75000u.a.perfarmcategory have
increased greatlysince1975.
Thefollowing emerges fromanexamination ofTables9and10:
-Thevolumeofinvestment perMWUandperfarmislowinBelgium and
Ireland,whichreflects accurately thesizestructure offarmsin
thoseMemberStatesandthepreponderance ofsmallfarms;
-Thevolumeofinvestment perMWUandperfarmishighintheNether­
lands;
-InFranceandDenmarkthevolumeofinvestment perMWUishighbutthe
volumeofinvestment perfarmisaverage;
-Thevolumeofinvestment perMWUisrelatively lowintheUnitedKing­
domwhilethevolumeofinvestment perfarmishigh.
Thereissomeconnection betweenthelevelofinvestment perMWUandthe
typeoffarmingpractised .InallMemberStatesthepercentage of
horticultural holdings planning toinvestlessthan20000u.a.perMWU
ishigherthanforothertypesofholding.Thisisparticularly truein
MemberStateswherehorticulture isrelatively important .

-30-
Forcattlefarmingthesituation istheopposite :thepercentage
ofinvestments ofLessthan20000u.a*.perMWUiseitherbelowthe
national average (Germany,Netherlands ,Belgiun,UnitedKingdom)or
roughlyequaltoit(France,Ireland,Denmark).Thepictureissimilar
inthecaseofpigfarming,wherethepercentage ofdevelopment plans
providing forinvestment oflessthan20000u.a.perMWUisalsobelow
thenational average,especially inFranceandDenmark.
Asregardsfieldcorps,thepercentage ofdevelopment plansproviding
forthelowestinvestment perMWUisclosetothenational averagein
allMemberStateswiththeexception ofDenmark,whereitiswell
belowthenational average .
Thereisnocleartrendinrelation toprevious years.
According totheinformation available,noadditional national aid
pursuant toArticle 14(1)wasgrantedintheNetherlands ,Belgiumor
Denmarkin1977.InGermany andFrancethisadditional national aid
relatedmainlytoinvestment inbuildings whereasintheUnitedKing­
domandIrelanditrelatedmainlytolandimprovement .

TABLE11-PERCENTAGE OFFARMDEVELOPMENT PLANSWHICHRECEIVED
ADDITIONAL AIDUNDERARTICLE 14(1)ACCORDING TOTYPE
OFFARMING-1977
MemberState/.ofthetotal
nooffarms
withadevit
planCattLe
%Pigs
%Horti-
culture
%Field
crops
%Mixed
Germany 45 52 7 4 12 20
France 100 58 4 1 4 22
Netherlands 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belgium 0 0 0 0 0 0
UnitedKingdom 100 47 0,1 1 5 45
Ireland 82 80 1 1 5 12
Denmark 0 0 0 0 0 0
EEC 60 55 2 2 6 31
Noadditional national aidwasgrantedintheNetherlands in1977,while
inFrancedevelopment plans,andhencetheadditional aid,havebeen
financed onlyfrom1976.Otherwise,thereisnosignificant changecom­
paredwith1975.
Thefiguresregarding farmers' owncontributions tothefinancing ofthe
proposed investments showsharpdifferences fromoneMemberStateto
another.Attention shouldbedrawninparticular tothehighpercentage
(nearly90%)ofdevelopment planstowhichthefarmercontributes less
than20%intheNetherlands andDenmark andthehighpercentage to
whichthefarmercontributes over30%inGermany andFrance.Because
ofthedifferent financing systeminIreland,thefiguresforthat
MemberStatearenotfullycomparable .

-32-
IntheNetherlands andinDenmarkthesituation isnotverydifferent
compared withprevious years.ThefiguresforBelgium mustbechecked,
foritisunlikely thatin1977allbeneficiaries madeapersonal
contribution ofover30%,insharpcontrast withthedataforprevious
years.InGermanythefarmer'sowncontribution increased sharplyin
1976and1977compared withtheprevious year.InFrancetherewasan
increase inthepercentage ofcontributions oflessthan20%anda
reduction inthepercentage ofcontributions ofover30%.
Although themannerofassessing thefarmer'scontribution mayaccount
forsomeofthedifferences between MemberStates,itdoesnotexplain
thewidegapbetween Germany andFranceontheonehandandtheNether­
landsandDenmark ontheother.ItwouldseemthatinFranceandGermany
beneficiaries arerequired tofindmoreoftheirownmoneythaninDen­
markandtheNetherlands .
1.4Investment aidforfarmswithout adevelopment plan
Directive 72/159/EECempowers theMemberStates:
-underthefirstsubparagraph ofArticle 14(2),togranttofarmsnot
implementing adevelopment plananamountofinvestment aidlessthan
thatgrantedtothoseimplementing adevelopment plan,provided that
theinterest remaining payable bythebeneficiary isatleast5%.
-underArticle 14(2)(a),foratransitional periodoffiveyears,on
certainconditions ,togranttofarmsnotinaposition to-implement
adevelopment planthesameaidastothoseimplementing adevelopment
plan.

-33-
TABLE12"PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION OFBENEFTPTflPTFC (%)
MemberState Year<20% '20-<30%I>30%
GERMANYI
197$ I
1976I
I
12
1140
1748
*72
1977 '7 21 72
IFRANCE ;1975 .28 33 39
1976 26 291 45
1977 44 29 27
INETHERLANDS 1975
197683
88.10'
77
5
1977 89 5. 6
IBELGIUM1975 76 0 24
1976 79 -4 17
1977 0 0 100
IUNITEDKINGDOM 1975
1976
1977 («) (:) (0
IIRELAND 1975
197610
116
784
•82
1977 6
IDENMARK1975 89 7 4
1976 88 8 4
I1977 88
ι9 3
»

-34-
ThedatawhichtheMemberStatessentinfor1977arenotcomplete
enoughtoallowofpreventation inthisreport.Accordingly ,thecomments
belowandTable13referto1976.
TABLE13-NUMBER OFFARMSWHICHHAVERECEIVED INVESTMENT AIDAND
AVERAGE VOLUME OFINVESTMENT PERFARM(inu.a.)
MemberStateFarmswithdevelopment
planFarmswithout <development plan
NumberVolumeof
investmentNumberVolumeof
investmentNumberVolumeof
investment
GERMANY 6.237 60.530 68 32.730 1.045 33.735
NETHERLANDS 2.204 74.917 3.047 12.450
BELGIUM 1.477 15.116 3.537 16.649 0 0
UNITED-KINGDOM 1.952 50.000 3.913 4.851 0 0
IRELAND 2.994 8.268 1.622 3.093 11.807 2.778
IDENMARK2.326 50.000 2.463 10.599
11Estimate .
AlltheMemberStatesavailedthemselves ,thoughtowidelyvarying
degrees,ofthefacility provided bythefirstsubparagraph of
Article 14(2).IntheNetherlands aridDenmark,thesewereexceptional
short-term measures,adoptedtoencourage construction ordrainage
work;intheFederalRepublic ofGermany,themeasures mainly
concerned theencouragement ofsubsidiary-income farmsandpro­
ducergroups (onlyBaden-Wurttemberg hasageneralaidschemefor
less-favoured areas).Ontheotherhand,France,Belgium,theUnited
Kingdom andIreland haveintroduced generalinvestment incentive
schemesforfarmsnotoperating development plans.

-35-
Investment intheUnitedKingdom andinIrelandisLowincomparison
withthatintheotherMemberStates,andintheUnitedKingdom lowin
comparison withthevolumeofinvestment provided forunderthedevelop­
mentplans.ExceptinGermany andinIreland-where,however,the
facilities provided byArticle 14(2)(a)arenotneglected -thenumber
offarmsassisted underfirstsubparagraph ofArticle 14(2)exceedsthe
numberofdevelopment plansapproved .TheUnitedKingdom,wherethereare
about2000aidedfarmswithdevelopment plansand64000without,isin
aspecialposition .Inviewofthelowvolumeofinvestment ,itmustbe
inferred thatinthiscasetheaidsystemhastakentheformofaninvest­
mentsubsidy whichhastoberenewedatregularintervals .
Anexamination oftheregional breakdown (Table3,annexed )showsthat
thedistribution betweenthevariousregionsisrelatively uniform,which
isnotthecaseforthedevelopment plans.Ontheotherhand,inBelgium,
incertainregions wherethepercentage ofdevelopment plansisverylow,
theproportion ofcasesaidedunderArticle 14(2)iswellaboveaverage.
Forexample,theprovinces ofHainaut,Li&geandNamuraccountforbarely
20%ofthedevelopment planspresented inBelgium,butatthesametime
covermorethan60%ofthecaseswhichhavebeenaidedunderthefirst
subparagraph ofArticle 14(2).WithregardtoGermany,thefiguresgiven
showthatin1976thefacility provided bythisArticle wasusedonlyin
Baden-Wurttemberg .InIreland,theaidedfarmsaredistributed evenlyover
less-favoured areasandotherareas,buttheaverage volumeofinvestment
inthelessfavoured areasisathirdofthatelsewhere .

-36
ExceptinGermany andDenmark-nofiguresareavailable forFrance-
thenumberoffarmsaidedincreased over1975,although theratio
betweenthenumberofdevelopment plansaidedandthenumberoffarms
aidedwhichdidnotpresent aplanremainedvirtually unchanged orim­
proved,exceptinIreland.
By1977,transitional aidunderArticle 14(2)(a)wasbeinggranted
onlyinGermany andinIreland.Astheaverage volumeofinvestment in
thetwoMemberStatesshows,thisisverylimitedinvestment aid,especially
inIreland.Incomparison withthepreceding year,theaverage volumeof
investment morethandoubledinGermany,butincreased onlyslightly in
Ireland.Ontheotherhand,thenumberofcasesfellbynearlyhalfin
Germany andpractically tripledinIreland.
InIreland,abouttwothirdsofthetransitional aidwasforless-favoured
areas,andinGermany anequivalent sharewenttoBavaria;oftheother
Lander,onlyHesse(12%)andLowerSaxony(13%)werestillimplementing
thismeasure onanyappreciable scale.
2.Implementation ofTitleIIofDirective 75/268/EEC
Germany,France,Belgium,Luxembourg ,theUnitedKingdom andIreland
granted compensatory allowances in1977underDirective 75/268/EEC.

-37-
In1976and1977compensatory allowances weregrantedasfollows :
ICountryNumberoffarms
1976 1977
Germany 89.805 88.532
France 97.467 95.589
Belgium 11.674 11.696
Luxembourg 7.273
UnitedKingdom 46.246 45.719
|Ireland89.860 97.434
ExceptinIreland,wherethenumberoffarmsreceiving compensatory
allowances increased in1977,nomajorchangeinthenumberof
beneficiary farmsisnotedincomparison with1976.
CountryTotalcompensatory
allowancesAverage amount
perfarm
Germany 32.257.142 UC 364UC
France 64.879.293 UC 679UC
Belgium 6.828.147 UC 584UC
Luxembourg 4.284.540 UC 589UC
UnitedKingdom 90.031.540 UC 1.969 UC
Ireland 25.528.972 UC262UC|
Thedifferences betweentheaverageallowances perfarminthevarious
membercountries -alreadynotedinprevious years-aremainlyamatter
offarmsize,although theamountofcompensatory allowance perLSU
isalsorelevant .

I
-38-
Acomparison betweentheUnitedKingdom ontheonehandandBelgium
andFranceontheotherbringsthisoutclearly.Theaverage amountper
farmintheUnitedKingdom waspractically threetimestheamountreceived
byfarmsinthetwootherMemberStates,although thecompensatory
allowance perLSUgrantedintheUnitedKingdom wasonlyabout35%
morethanthatfixedforFranceandBelgium.ThenumberofLSU,for
whichacompensatory allowance wasgranted andtheaverage compensatory
allowance perLSUwereasfollowsin1977:
Country NumberofLSUu.a./LSU
1975 1977
Germany 1.257.252 30 25,7
France 1.875.174 35,5 34,6
Belgium 199.619 28,6 34,2
Luxembourg 190.014 22,5
UnitedKingdom 2.035.083 37,2 44,2
Ireland 1.325.894 20,88 19,3
Inanyanalysis oftheaverageallowance perLSU,theeffectsofthe
limiting conditions forthecompensatory allowance applicable to
dairycowsmustbeborneinmind,asthiswasaneffectwhichhadno
impactintheUnitedKingdomforinstance butwhichaffected toan
appreciable extenttheaverageallowance,especially inBelgium.The
surprisingly lowamountrecordedforIrelandis,however,probably not
accounted forbythiscircumstance ,butmustbemainlytheresultof
theleveloftheallowances perLSU,whichismuchlowerthaninthe
otherMemberStates.

-39-
3.Implementation ofDirective 72/160/EEC
3.1Numberandbreakdown ofcessation annuities andpremiums
3.1.1Asin1975,Directive 72/160/EECwasimplemented inonlyseven
MemberStatesin1976and1977.Although thelegislation needed
hadgonethroughinmostregionsofItaly,noapplications were
received inthiscountry,andDenmark hadstillnotadoptedthe
necessary implementing measures .
Inthesevencountries,34269annuities and2815premiums were
granted,from1975to1977,tofarmers whoreleased about532000
hectares ofagricultural landthenusedtoincrease thesizeof
80123farms,11563(14,4Z)ofwhichhadadevelopment planwithin
themeaningofDirective 72/159/EEC.
TABLE14(a):NUMBER OFRECIPIENTS OFTHEANNUITY ORPREMIUM
Country1975 1976 1977
Number NumberChange
1975/76NumberChange
1976/77
Germany 7.723 4.374 -43%3.368 -23Z
France 6.713 6.461 -4Z4.869 -25%
Netherlands 262 345 +32Ζ 231 -33Ζ
Belgium 387 320 -17Ζ 192 -40Ζ
Luxembourg 119 40 -66Z 25-37Ζ
UnitedKingdom 376 371 -1Ζ 312 -16Ζ
Ireland 113 140 +24Ζ 118 -16Z
EEC 15.693 12.051 -22Ζ9.115 -24Ζ

-40-
TABLE15:APPLICATION OFDIRECTIVE 72/160/EEC-1975-77
Π Recipients•ΛFarmstakingoverarea .
releasedAreareleased Area
Country Numberofwhich
eligible Numberofwhichwith
development plan.
Totalhaofwhich
Article 5used
(1)(à)Released per
Number % Number % ha %•0002ha
Pannuitypremium
pannuity
.premium
JJannuity
premium
2annuitypremium
^annuitypremium
yjçannuitypremium
_annuity
premium13.723
1.742
17.982
286
345
493
717
182
150
34
988
71
364
7939
98
82
.12
34
646(8
0,5
23,8
1,7
'3*4
17,644.380
30.971
1.105
1.824
585
1.138
12011.269
89
17
42
70
7625,4
0,3
1,5
2,3
6,2
63,3181.953
292.050
3.916
7.113
2.127
38.531
6.26462.920
2.150
,91
405
4.066
70434,6
0,7
2,3
5,7
10,6
11,213,7
9.0
1,9
4,6
16,1
2.1
1,1
EECannuitypremium34.269
2.8151.229 3,680.123 11.563 14,4 531.954 70.336 13,2 7,2

TABLE 14 (b): AREA RELEASED
1975
Countryh h Change . Cna 1975 /76 ha 1976 /77
GERMANY 7792561403 21% 42625 -31%
FRANCE 112 949100 897 11% 78204 -22%
NETHERLANDS 1183 1653 +40% 1080 -35Ζ
BELGIUM 2892 2471 15% 1750 -29%
LUXEMBOURG 1,126 628 44% 373 -41Ζ
UNITED KINGDOM 11145 14171 +277. 13215 -7%
IRELAND 1775 2342 +32%2147 -8%
EEC 208 995 183 565 -12%139 394 -24Z
Tables 14 (a)and 14 (b)show that the Directive was implemented a
good deal more slowly in1976 and 1977 than in1975 .
Although thenumber ofcases approved infact increased in1976 inthe
Netherlands ,theUnited Kingdom andIreland ,thetotal number of
annuities andpremiums granted intheCommunity fell by22%and land
released by12%.
The fall inthenumber ofapplications approved gathered momentum in
1977 and inthat year none ofthe countries applying Directive 72/160/EEC
escaped this general trend .
Incomparison with 1975 ,thedecline wassharpest inLuxembourg (-79%),
the Federal Republic ofGermany (-54%)andBelgium (-51%).

-42-
Itwasmainlythenumberofpremiums granted whichdeclined duringthe
1976-77period.In1976,thefigure,ascompared with1975,was
-74%,asagainst adeclineof17%forannuities .While,in1975,the
shareofpremiums inthetotalnumberofannuities andpremiums granted
wasstill12.8%,theproportion wasonly3%by1977.However,two
countries werenotaffected bythischangeintherelationship between
thenumberofannuities andthenumberofpremiums :intheNetherlands
thenumberofapprovedapplications frompersonsunder55consistently
exceeded thenumberofannuities grantedtopersonsagedfrom55to65
years,andinBelgiumthenumberofpremiums granted wasrelatively
constant atsomewhere between 20and25%peryear.Theexampleof
thesetwocountries showsthatgeneral economic circumstances arenot
theonlyreasonforthevirtually complete disappearance ofthe
premiumintheothercountries,especially theFederalRepublic of
Germany.
3.1.2Duringtheperiod1975-77,about90%ofallannuities andpremiums
weregrantedeachyearinFranceandtheFederalRepublic ofGermany;
70%oftheareareleased wasinthesecountries .

-43-
Table14(c):Areareleased per'000haofUAA
Country 1975 1976 1977
GERMANY 5,8 4,6 3,2
FRANCE 3,5 3,1 2,4
NETHERLANDS 0,6 0,8 0,5
BELGIUM 1,9 1,6 1,1
LUXEMBOURG 8,5 4,8 2,8
UNITED KINGDOM 0,6 0,8 0,7
IRELAND 0,3 0,4 0,4
However,theeffectofDirective 72/160/EEConlandmobility
wasstrongest inLuxembourg :asTable14(c)shows,duringthe
period1975-77,16.1haper1000haofU1Awerereleased in
Luxembourg ,compared with13.7hainGermany and9hainFrance.
Thesametablealsoshowsthatinthefourothercountries the
1effectoftheDirective wasminimal .
Acomparison ofthenumberofapplications approved underthe
Directive andofthenumberofhectares released withthegeneral
annualrateoflandmobility forcertain MemberStatesthrows
furtherlightontheeffectsofDirective 72/160/EECandthe
differences between theMemberStates.
1
Withregardtothespecial caseoftheNetherlands ,seepoints
3.1.3.and3.2.

-44-
1Takingasbasisageneralmobility rateof4.45AintheFederal
Republic ofGermany,5.3%inFranceand5.17%inIreland,itis
seenthattheshareoftheareabecoming available forwhichan
annuityorpremium wasgrantedinthetotalareabecoming avail­
ablewas:
-1975:13%inFRG,6.5%inFranceand0.6%inIreland;
-1976:10%inFRG,6%inFranceand0.8%inIreland;
-1977:8%inFRG,4.5%inFranceand0.7%inIreland.
However,themobility ratesgivenabovealsoincludes succession .
Itmaybeestimated thatthemobility rateforlandfromabandoned
farmsis2.0%inFRG,2.5%inFranceand2.5%inIreland.Onthe
basisofthisestimate,thefollowing resultsareobtained :
Oftheareabecoming available apartfromfarmsuccession ,anan­
nuityorpremium wasgrantedin
-1975,for29%inFRG,14%inFranceand1.3%inIreland;
-1976,for23%inFRG,12.5%inFranceand1.6%inIreland;
-1977,for16%inFRG,10%inFranceand1.5%inIreland.
Thissameestimate,madeonthebasisofthenumberof"main
occupation "farmersleavingfarmingwithout asuccessor shows
that:
1Ratesgivenfor1975fortherelevant MemberStatesintheSCAS
reportonlandmobility .However,itisreasonable topresume
thattheydeclined in1976and1977sothattheratiobetween
totalareas(farms)becoming available andtheshareofthese
areas(farms)forwhichanannuityorpremium wasgrantedchanged
less,asshowninthecalculation below.

-45-
In1975:morethan50%inFRG,about30%inFranceandabout
2.5%inIreland;
in1976:about40%inFRG,about28%inFranceandabout3%in
Ireland;
in1977:morethan30%inFRG,morethan20%inFranceandabout
3%inIreland,
of"mainoccumation "farmershavinggivenupfarmingwithout a
successor received anannuity underArticle 2(1)(a)ofDirective
72/160/EEC.
Although thisestimate cangiveonlyroughguidance astotheimpact
oftheDirective onlandmobility,itdoesshowthatduringthe
1975-77periodtheDirective did,inthreecountries (FRG,France
andLuxembourg )coveralargepartoftheareareleased andamajor
proportion ofthe"mainoccupation "farmers whohadlefttheland
without asuccessor .Despite thesharpdecrease inthenumberof
applications approved ascompared with1975,thisproportion remained
largein1976and1977.Ontheotherhand,intheothercountries,
increased landmobility,assoughtbytheDirective,hasconsistently
proved averydifficult objective toachieve.
3.1.3.Withregardtotheregional breakdown,onlydatafor1975and1976
areavailable foralltheMemberStatesconcerned .
Thesedatareflect movements whichinsomecasesvaryverywidely
fromMemberStatetoMemberStateandamongthevariousregions.
Forexample,intheFederalRepublic ofGermany,thedisparities
alreadynotedin1975betweenthevariousregionswidenedin1976:
therateofdeclineinthenumberofapplications approved varies
between-11.5%inSchleswig-Holstein and-75%inUpperBavaria.
Whereasin1975alltheBavarian regionstogether represented 25%
ofthenumberofcasesapproved withanareareleased per1000ha
ofUAAof4hectares,by1976thesefigures were16%andabout2ha
against 10.3%andabout10hainSchleswig-Holstein .

-46-
Infactthereissomeconcentration oftheimplementation of
theDirective inthenorthoftheFederalRepublic ofGermany
(Schleswig-Holstein ,LowerSaxony,Bremen),which,in1975,
accounted for29.6%ofapplications approved and35%ofthe
areareleased and,in1976,for34.5%oftheapplications ap­
provedandabout40%oftheareareleased .
AsforFrance,Strengthened implementation oftheDirective is
onceagainnotedin11oftheprogramme regions,especially in
1
regions 23and31intheNorth;intheother11regionsthere
is,however,areduction,varyinginextent.Incomparison with
1975,theratesofchangerangefrom+66%(Haute-Normandie )to
-45%(Alsace).
DespitetrendsincertainregionsoftheNorth,in1975,well
belowthenational average,theconcentration ofmeasures infive
regionsoftheWestandoftheSouth-West (regions 52,53,54and
73),whichaccounted in1976forabout47%oftheapplications
approved and43%oftheareareleased,continued .
IntheNetherlands ,theincrease inthenumberofapplications
mentioned wasduetoamajorincrease inapplications inthetwo
provinces ofNorthHolland andSouthHolland (+134%and+87%).
Thus,therewasaheavyconcentration oftheimplementation ofthe
Directive inthreeprovinces (NorthHolland,SouthHolland and
Limburg),whichaccounted,in1976,for64.3%ofthenumberof
applications approved (58%in1975)butonly33.6%ofareareleased
(24%in1975).Theheavyconcentration ofimplementation ofthe
Directive onthehorticultural sectorisarelated phenomenon .In
thethreeprovinces referred toabove,89.2%oftheapplications
approved comefromthissector,whileforthewholeoftheNether­
landstheproportion is69.5%.
1
SeeAnnex,TableNo6.

-47-
InBelgium,thedeclineinthenumberofapplications approved
wasmostmarkedintheprovinces ofLimburg(-54%),Namur(-42%)
andLuxembourg (-33%).Onlytheprovince ofLi£gestillshowed
anincrease (40%).
Thus,theconcentration ofimplementation oftheDirective on
theprovinces ofWestFlanders,EastFlanders andHainaut,account­
ingfor53.4%oftheapplications approved,becameevenmoremarked
thanin1975.
FortheUnitedKingdom,theregional breakdown ofannuities or
premiums grantedin1976wasmuchthesameasin1975.Onlyin
Scotland wasthereadeclineinthenumberofcasesapproved(-33%),
offsetbyincreases intheotherregions.Thus,in1976,53.9%of
thecaseswerelocatedinEngland,25.6%inScotland,9.2%inWales
and11.3%inNorthern Ireland (in1975thecorresponding figures
were48.9%,-32%,-8.3%and10.4%).
InIreland,too,thebreakdown inthenumberofcasesshowsnochange.
Asin1975,about65%ofthecasesarelocatedintheless-favoured
areasoftheWestofthecountry.
3.1.4.Thedifferences intheimplementation oftheDirective inthevarious
MemberStates,already notedinthepreceding reportfor1975,became
moremarkedin1976.WhileinGermany,FranceandLuxembourg the
proportion ofapplications approved wasbetween 86.2%and96.8%of
theapplications examined,intheNetherlands about40%oftheappli­
cations wereturneddown,morethan20%becausetheincomelimitsset
inthatcountry wereexceeded .InBelgium,theproportion ofapplica­
tionsturneddownwas21.6%fortheannuity and25.8%forthepremium,
whileintheUnitedKingdomtheproportion ofapplications turned
downwas31.7%.InIreland,theproportion wasagooddeallowerin
1976thanin1975:in1976,16.6%oftheapplications fortheannuity
wereturneddown,compared with71.6%in1975.

-48-
Although theinformation sentinbytheMemberStatesonthe
implementation oftheDirective cannotaccountfullyforthe
discrepancies betweentheMemberStates,itseemsreasonable to
inferthatincertain MemberStates,wheretheDirective isnot
appliedvigorously ,neitherthearrangements madenortheactual
implementation oftheDirective matchtherequirements andthe
scopeforanincrease inthenumberofearlycessations .
3.2.Sizeoffarmsgivenup
InmostoftheMemberStatesconcerned ,neithertheaveragesize •
ofthefarmsgivenupnorthebreakdown offarmsgivenupshowed
anychangeascompared with1975.Thismeansthatthedifferences
between theMemberStatesonthispointpersisted .
Tables 5(a)and5(b)annexedgiveinformation ontheaverage
sizeoffarmsgivenup:in1976thisrangedfrom4.7hainthe
Netherlands to38.2intheUnitedKingdom,andin1977fromabout
4.7haintheNetherlands to42.4haintheUnitedKingdom.Ave­
ragesizeincreased alittleinIreland (15.7hain1975,rising
to18.2hain1977)andtherewasasharperincrease intheUnited
Kingdom (from29.6ha'in1975to42.4hain19/^7).

-49-
Table16:Breakdown ofrecipients ofannuities andpremiums
according tofarmsizecategory (%)
Country<10ha 10ha<20ha >20ha
1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 1976
GERMANY1
41,9 40,9 40,3138,8 17,8 20,3
FRANCE 42,7 41,9 30,0 32,2 26,9 25,9
NETHERLANDS 78,6 80,4 21,4 18,0
BELGIUM 73,6 75 24,6 24,4 1,6 0,6
LUXEMBOURG 31,4 25 48,8 40 19,7 35
UNITED KINGDOM 15 27,9 25,5 25,6 62,5 63,13
IRELAND 15 27,9 61 39,3 23,9 I39,8
Annuityonly.
Ofwhich:29%<1ha,28.7%:1to<2ha,15.6%:2to<3ha.
30fwhich13.2%>50ha.
Onceagainin1976,therewerewidedifferences between Member
States,accounted foronlypartlybydifferences infarmsize
structure .Inparticular ,intheNetherlands ,Belgium andalso
intheUnitedKingdom,farmsizestructure definitely cannotac­
countforthesedifferences .
Asalreadypointedout,thesituation intheNetherlands was
accounted for,asin1975,bythefactthatthemeasures were
largelyconfined tothehorticultural sector(about69.5%).
Thisreflects thelargenumberofdevelopment plansinthissec­
torandshowsthatinthiscountry aconcentrated policyfor
reorganizing anddeveloping thehorticultural sectorisbeing
pursued.Consequently ,thelownumberofapplications approved
intheotherproduction sectors doesnotmeanthattheDirective
assuchcannothaveamoresubstantial impactintheNetherlands .

-50-
WithregardtoBelgium,thesituation ismainlyaccounted for
bythefactthatthescopeoftheDirective wassharplyrestricted
in1975and1976;anotherfactoristheinadequacy oftheaid
offered,aresultofwhichwasthatthemeasures wereunattractive
forfarmslargerthanagivensize.
IntheUnitedKingdom,theannuityoffered,oneofthesmallest
intheentireCommunity,isnotreallyanincentive atall,i.e.
anothervalidsourceofincomeenabling farmersrunningrelative­
lysmallfarmstoleavethelandaltogether .Inthiscountry,
themeasures implementing theDirective havetendedtobecome
takenmeasures only,asis,incidentally ,alsothecasewiththe
premiuminGermany.Consequently ,itislikelythatthosefarmers
whichhaveretiredearlywouldinanycasehavestoppedfarming.
Asforregional differences ,whicharealsofoundinthisfield
withinMemberStates,thereaderisreferred toTable6annexed.
3.3.Usemadeofreleased land
3.3.1.Ashadalready beenthecasein1975,landreleased inallthe
MemberStatesexceptIreland andtheNetherlands in1976and1977
wasalmostalltransferred directly tootherfarms.Leaseorsale
ofreleased landtolandagencies withinthemeaningofArticle 5
(3)oftheDirective occurredpractically onlyinIreland (between
85%and90%)andtheNetherlands (between 22%and25%).InIreland,
almostallthelandtakenoverbytheLandCommission stillawaited
reallocation tofarmsattheendof1977.

TheuseofLandfornon-agricultural purposes /Article 5(1)(b)
oftheDirective_7wasalsopractically anegligible factorin
1976and1977-theproportions rangedfrom0to2.5%atmost.
Table17belowshowschangesintheuseoflandreleased for
farmersimplementing adevelopment planandinthenumberof
eligibleannuities .Although thenumberofeligible caseswas
3.5timesashighin1977asin1975,itwas,atCommunity level,
stillverylow(6.6%).However,thedifferences inthistrend
fromMemberStatetoMemberStatearesubstantial :thesharpest
increases intheshareofeligible annuities wereintheNether­
lands(from2.9%in1975to63.1%in1977),inIreland (from8.1%
to38.4%)andinBelgium (from0.3%to26.9%).
Table17:Percentage ofeligible annuities andpercentage ofthe
released areausedaccording toArticle 5(1)(a)
Country1975 1976 1977
Annuities
eligibleAreaused
Article 5
(1)(a)Annuities
eligibleAreaused
Article 5
(1)(a)Annuities
eligibleAreaused
Article 5
(1).(a)
GERMANY 3,5 27,4 8,7 40 10,6 40
FRANCE 0,1 0,38 0,2 1,5 2,3
NETHERLANDS 2,9 10,1 A,663,1 13,2
BELGIUM 0,3 0,6 1,9 7,3 26,9 11,7
LUXEMBOURG
UNITED KINGDOM 0,5 3,4 5,8 3,5 4,2 23,8
IRELAND 8,1 8,4 7,3 10,9 38,4 13,9
EEC 1,9 9,4 3,8 14 6,6 16,1
1
Oftheareareleased bythecessation annuity.
InFranceandintheUnitedKingdom,theeligible proportion
remained smallorevenactually declined .

-52-
Butin1976and1977aswell/theFederalRepublic ofGermany
wastheonlycountryinwhichalargeandincreased proportion
oftheareareleased wastransferred tofarmersoperating a
development plan.InthisMemberState,in1976and1977,40%of
thetotalareareleased wasusedasprovided inArticle 5(1)(a)
oftheDirective,compared with27.4%in1975,although in1977
and1976only10.6%and8.7%respectively ofthenumberofannuities
whichwereeligible .
Thediscrepancy betweentheproportion ofannuities eligible and
theproportion ofareausedaccording toArticle 5(1)(a)isob-
serveable inotherMemberStatesandatCommunity levelaswell
(seeTable17).
Ontheotherhand,intheNetherlands ,theproportion ofeligible
annuities ismuchhigherthantheproportion ofreleased areaused
fordevelopment plans(in1977:63.1%against 13.2%),whichshows
thattoallintents andpurposes Article 5(1)(a)isappliedin
thehorticultural sectoronly.Thisexplanation isnolongervalid
forthesamephenomenon notedin1977inBelgium and.inIreland.
However,intheotherMemberStates,theareatransferred tofarmers
submitting adevelopment planaccounts foronlyarelatively small
partoftotalareareleased;however,itwouldseemthatinallcases
thissituation improved ascompared with1975-in1977,thepropor­
tionis16.1%against 9.4%in1975.
3.3.2.InalltheMemberStatesconcerned,thetotalnumberoffarmers
receiving released landishigher,andsometimes muchhigherthan
thenumberofrecipients ofanannuityorapremium.

-53-
Table18:Ratiooffarmsgivenuptofarmswhichhavetaken
overLand
Country 1975 1976 1977
GERMANY 1:2,9 1:3,28 1:3,38
FRANCE 1:2,07 1:1,68 1:1,93
NETHERLANDS 1:1,8 1:1,38 1:1,24
BELGIUM 1:1,93 1:2,12 1:2,14
LUXEMBOURG 1:2,7 1:4,35 1:3,8
UNITED KINGDOM 1:1 1:1,13 1:1,13
Annuity.
AsTable18shows,inmostoftheMemberStatesconcerned,the
areasreleased werebrokenupandeven,sometimes,asinLuxembourg
andintheFederalRepublic ofGermany,brokenupintoalarge
numberofparcels.Thistendency increased inanumberofMember
States.OnlyinTheUnitedKingdom wasreleased landtransferred
enbloc.
Table19:Average areatransferred tofarmerswithdevelopment
plansandtootherfarmers (ha)
Country1976 1977
Farmers
with
planOther
farmersFarmers
with
planOther
farmers
GERMANY 6.02 3.43 5.9 3
FRANCE 9.64 8.7 30.4 8.1
NETHERLANDS 2.7 2.7 10 2.5
BELGIUM 9 3.44 10.7 3.9
UNITED KINGDOM 37.8 33.6 65.8 30.9

-54-
i
Itwouldseemthattheheavyfragmentation ofareasreleased
isoneofthereasonsforthelownumberoftransferee farmers
withadevelopment plan:inallthemembercountries theaverage
areaoflandtransferred tofarmerswithadevelopment planis
muchhigherthantheaverageareaoflandtransferred toother
farmers.
3.3.3.Thewidediscrepancies betweentheMemberStateswithregard
totheuseofreleased landarealsoobserved,atregional level,
withintheMemberStates.Thisappliesinparticular asregards
thevariousareascomingunderthefarmers' retirement banks(LAK)
theadministrative unitsresponsible fortheimplementation ofthe
Directive intheFederalRepublic ofGermany;inthiscountry,the
proportion oflandtransferred tofarmersoperating development
plansrangesfrom0%(LAKOber-undMittelfranken,LAKOberbayern )
to79%(LAKDarmstadt )and71%(LAKHanover),theproportion of
transferees ,withdevelopment plansbeingbetween 0%and77%.
Whileinsixoftheseareastheproportion oflandreleased trans­
ferredtofarmswithdevelopment plansliesbetween 0and15%,the
proportion ismorethan60%infouroftheareas.Thedifferences
inrespectofthefragmentation ofthelandreleased arealsowide:
intheLAKBaden,theratiois1:6.6,i.e.whileonaverage11.4ha
havebeentransferred bythebeneficiary oftheannuity,only1,7ha
onaveragehavebeenincorporated bythetransferee .Ontheother
hand,intheLAKRheinland,theratioisaslowas1:1.68.
Regional differences inBelgiumarecomparable :intheProvince of
Limburg,58%ofthetransferees wereoperating development plans
and35%ofthelandreleased wastransferred tothesefarmers,com­
paredwith1.7%and7.5%intheProvince ofHainaut.

-55-
IntheNetherlands ,inonlyfouroftheelevenprovinces
wasapart-infactasmallproportion -ofthelandreleased
transferred tofarmersoperating development plans(between 9%
and22%intheProvinces ofNorthHolland,Limburg,Overijssel
andNorthBrabant).ForFrance,theUnitedKingdom andIreland,
thereaderisreferred totable6annexed.
3.4.Conclusions
InmostoftheMemberStatesimplementing Directive 72/160/EEC,
theDirective wasimplemented in1976and1977agooddealmore
slowlythanin1975.Thediminished impactoftheDirective-
fromthepointofviewofthepolicy-goal ofincreased land
mobility isdefinitely toaconsiderable extent aconsequence
ofchangesinthegeneral economic situation .However,demo­
graphic changesintheagricultural labourforceshowthatthe
general economic situation isnottheonlyreasonforthissharp
decline :incertain MemberStates,especially theFederalRepublic
ofGermany andFrance,thediminished impactoftheDirective
alsoreflects anappreciable decline,duringthereference period,
inthenumberoffarmersinthe60to65age-bracket .Inaddition,
changes havebeenbynomeansuniform asbetween MemberStatesand
asbetweenregions andthisshowsthatthegeneral economic trend,
i.e.changesoutsideagriculture ,isnottheonlyreasonwhythe
numberofbeneficiaries oftheDirective declined .
Despitethisdecline,theDirective continued tomakeanimportant
contribution inGermany andinFrancetotheattainment ofits
firstobjective,anincrease inlandmobility .

-56-
Ontheotherhand,inBelgium,theUnitedKingdom andIreland,
theDirective hadlittleimpactin1976and1977,asin1975.
IntheNetherlands ,thesituation remainsunclear:inthehorti­
cultural sectortheDirective hadamajorimpact,butitsinci­
denceintheotheragricultural sectors remained verylow.
*
Thisconfirms theobservation madeinthelastreport:thead­
vantages offered bythemeasures implementing theDirective
heavilyinfluence theireffectiveness .IntheMemberStates
whichsawthecessation annuity asarealalternative forfarmers
notattaining havinganyprospect ofattaining thecomparable
incomeandwhich,consequently ,fixedthethresholds lowenough
foragreater numberoffarmerstoqualify andwhichretainsome
advantage forfarmersleavingthelandbeyondthenormalretire­
mentage,theannuityattracted considerable interest duringthe
three-year reference period,largelyirrespective ofgeneral
economic trends.
Consequently ,itseemsfairtoconclude thatintheotherMember
Statestheadvantages offered bythemeasures areinsufficient
and/orthelimitsaretoorestrictive fortheDirective toplay
anyimportant role.
Asforthesecondobjective oftheDirective,i.e.therealloca­
tionofreleased landtofarmsunderdevelopment withinthemeaning
ofDirective 72/159/EEC,itisclearthatdespite aslightincrease
intheimpactoftheDirective in1976and1977compared with1975,
thisobjective hasnotyetbeenachieved .However,theregional
differences notedshowthat,atleastincertainregions,thecom­
bination ofthetwoobjectives oftheDirective hasbeenincreasing­
lyeffective .Itwouldseemthatadministrative practice hassome
impactontheachievement ofthissecondobjective .

-57-
Anotherpointisthattheinterdependence betweenDirectives
72/159/EECand72/160/EECbecamediscernible in1976and1977:
theproportion offarmersoperating adevelopment planin­
volvingnotonlyintensification ofproduction butalsoan
increase inUAAwasmuchhigherintheMemberStatesinwhich
Directive 72/159/EECisproperly implemented .
Alastpointisthattheproportion oflandreleased usedto
extendfarmsoperating development plansisinsomecasesmuch
higherthantheprpportion ofeligible casessuggests .Itwould
seemthatthestipulation inArticle 5C1)(a)oftheDirective
thatatleast85%oftheareareleased mustbetransferred toa
farmoperating adevelopment planifanannuitygrantedisto
beeligible created aseriousobstacle withregardtoeligibility .

-58-
4.Implementation ofDirective 72/161/EEC
4.1.TitleIofDirective 72/161/EECmadetheestablishment ofsocio­
economic information services anessential adjuncttotheachieve­
mentoftheobjectives ofthesocio-structural Directives :the
workoftheseservices consists inplacingatthedisposal ofa
largenumberoffarmersnotmeeting modernagricultural require­
mentsadetailed analysis oftheeconomic situation oftheirfarm
andofthesocialandeconomic position ofthefarmingfamilyand
thushelping themtotakedecisions astotheirownfutureandthat
oftheirfamilies.
Bytheendof1977,i.e.morethanfiveyearsaftertheentryinto
forceoftheDirective,asocio-economic information service had
stillnotbeensetopinfourMemberStatesandinotherMember
Statestheservices established werestillhavingdifficulty in
achieving aclearstatusandroleinthecontextofthegeneral
agricultural advisory service.
Table20:Implementation ofTitleIofDirective 72/161/EECin1976
and1977
CountryTotalnumber
ofcounsellors
in1977Counsellors recruited Counsellors having
undergone further
training
1976 1977
I1976 1977
GERMANY 484 78 18 215 290
FRANCE 32 14 22 10
ITALY
NETHERLANDS 219 t 15 9 192
BELGIUM
LUXEMBOURG
13 UNITED KINGDOM 9 2 12 11
IRELAND 39
4|DENMARK3 4 *
1)+71part-time counsellors .
2)+128part-time counsellors .

-59-
ι
Infact,TitleIoftheDirective wasseriously implemented
in1977onlyintheNetherlands andintheFederalRepublic
ofGermany:intheregions mostinneed,i.e.inIreland and
inItaly,nosocio-economic counsellor beganwork;thiswas
alsotrueinBelgium.
InFrance,workonsetting upasocio-economic information
service hadbeeninhandsince1975,butbytheendof1977
notagreatdealofprogress hadbeenmade.
WithregardtotheUnitedKingdom andDenmark,socio-economic
guidance ismainlyprovided byeconomic andtechnical counsel­
lors,whichriskshavingtheeffectthatthefarmersneeding
thiskindofadvice mostareinfactnotcovered .
Moreover,whatlittleinformation isavailable concerning the
geographical breakdown ofcounselling availability suggests
thatcounsellors havebeenappointed mainlyinregions andareas
comingunderDirective 75/268/EEC.
4.2.About50000farmers orfarmworkers-morethanhalfofthese
inFrance-attended training andfurthertraining coursesin
1975-77 underTitleIIofDirective 72/161/EEC.
Table21provides information onthenatureofthecourses
attended andonthenumbers andageofthosetakingpart.The
tablealsoshowsthatonceagaintheNetherlands hasfailedto
providefigures ontheimplementation ofthisTitleandthat
notraining orfurthertraining courses wereorganized during
thereference periodinLuxembourg orinItaly.

-60-
Thenatureofthecoursesorganized andtheagesofthose
attending varyfairlywidelyfromcountrytocountry :inFrance
andIreland,inparticular ,between 90%and100%ofthosecon­
cernedattended basiccourses,whilethecorresponding figures
rangedfrom0.4%intheFederalRepublic ofGermanyto16%in
theUnitedKingdom.IntheFederalRepublic ofGermany and
inDenmark,almostalltheparticipants wereunder30,whilst
intheotherMemberStatestheproportion ofparticipants over
30rangedbetween 50%inBelgium andabout28%inFrance.The
numberofparticipants over40wasnegligible exceptinBelgium
(30%in1976)andintheUnitedKingdom (13%in1976).
Ascompared with1976,thenumberofparticipants inthethree
typesofcourseincreased by6904or28.8%.,ForFrancealone,
thefigureincreased in1977by7133or46.8%over1976.The
totalnumberofparticipants inthevarious coursesincreased
in1977,ascompared with1976,by24.0%inDenmark and9.5%in
Ireland,whileintheFederalRepublic ofGermany,theUnited
Kingdom andBelgiumthecorresponding figuredeclined by17.4%,
21.1%and1.4%respectively .
Whiletheduration ofthevarioustypesofcoursevariesappre­
ciablyfromMeberStatetoMeberState,thisfactoringeneral
showedlittlechangein1977compared with1976ineachcountry
(seeTable22).
Theminimum averageduration rangedfrom80hoursinDenmarkto
1188hoursintheUnitedKingdomforthebasiccourses.For
furthertraining,theaverageduration rangedfromaminimumof
54hoursintheUnitedKingdomtoamaximumof575hoursinFrance.
Asforspecialization courses,theminimumduration was32hours
inBelgium andanaverageof1193hoursinFrance.

TABLE 21-BREAKDOWN OFPARTICIPANTS INTRAINING COURSES ACCORDING TOAGEANDTYPE OFCOURSE
Coun­
try ;/
Year
ΠTotal
noof .
parti - .
cipantsParticipants inbasic
traini ngcourses .Participants infurther
training courses ■„..Participants inspecialized
training ,courses ^
.NumberAgegroupNumberAgegroup
NumberAge group
<130 30<40 I<30 30<40p-40 <*° 30<40
1975 1763 24 4S.8 50 4.2 1708 84.5 10.7 4.8 31 80.6 9,7 9,7
D 1976 1979 1 100 .0 1978 91.1 6.2 2.7
[1977 1634I* I 1634 94.6 4.6 0.8
1973-75 10212 10036 77.6 18.2 124 83.9 9.7 6.4 52 96.2 1.9 1?9
F 1976 8099 5698 71.4 21.6 7:0 101 95.0 4.0 1.0 14 100.0
[1977 15232 11572 80.0 16.3 3.7 2569 80.2 13.3 6.5 1071 94.7 4.2 1.1
1975 2681 218 83.5 7-3 9.2 24 87.5 12.5 2439 71.3 17.4 11.3
Β 1976 5432 124 91.1 5-6 3.2 326 94.2 4.6 1,2 4982 45,4 22.0 "32.6
[1977 5356 218 97-2 2.3 0.5 164 98.8 1.2 4974 53-4 -23-0 23.6
1975 105 25 96.0 4.0 24 7a.8 20.8 8.Î 56 83.9 1^.3 1.8
0K 1976 128 18 94.4 5.6 17 82.3 5-9 11.8 93 57.0 27.0 16.1
[1977 101 13 69.2 23-1 7.7 59 66.1 11.9 22.0 29 93-2 3.4 3>
1975 44 100.0
IRL 1976 1082 629 58-1 18.1 23.8 M
[1977 1196 1196 60.2 21.7 18.1
1975
DK 1976 332 332 96.4 2-7 0-9LJ \1E1977 437 67 73-1 22.4L±U3701 76.5 1.5.4|8.!
1Inaddition ,6370participants attended specialization courses of20hours under theLawonadulfeducation .

TABLEAU 22-DURATION OFTRAINING COURSES INHOURS
(0-averageduration)
Çountry .Year Basiccourses Furth.ertraijnngcourses Specialized courses
GERMANY 1976 60 60-310
1977 Ρ127
FRANCE : 19761
1977 0187 ρ476 ρ1193
BELGIUM 1976 .86-464 75-80 21-43
1977 ρ127 φ81 032
UNITED KINGDOM 1976 1080-1100 8-100 120-1400
1977 01188 Ρ54 Φ530
IIRELAND 1976 100-300
1977 100(minimum)
DENMARK 1976 40-120
1977 80 80
1Nobreakdown hasbeenmade.Asaguide,itmaybenotedthat2571-326hoursweredevotedtothetraining
of8099persons,anaverageof317.5hperperson. -„ "

Table1-Numberandregional breakdown ofdevelopment plansaccording tomain "typeofproduction -1977
FRANCE
Region NumberDensity
per
1000haDensity
according to
national
averageBreakdown according tomainproduction (in%)
Cattle PigsHorticul­
tureand
FruitArable Nixed
Rsg.Pans 11 0,2 222 0 0 18 55 27
IChampagne 37 0,2 222 68 0 0 5 22
IPicardie 190 0,14 156 34 3 2 12 49
IHt.Norra.13 0,02 22 77 8 0 0 15
ICentre 61 0,02 22 31 2 3 13 46
IB.Nom.90 0,07 78 88 1 0 0 8
IBourgogne 149 0,08 89 64 3 0 6 24
INord 69 0,08 89 25 1 0 12 62
If
ILorraine 40 0,04 44 95 2 0 0 0
IAlsace 35 0,11 122 31 9 3 3 29
IFranc. 82 0,11 122 96 0 0 0 2
IPaysL. 192 0,08 89 73 3 2 4 17
IBretagne 381 0,20 222 54 15 1 2 27
IPoitou 69 0,04 44 49 3 0 7 32
IAquit. 76 0,05 56 25 5 4 9 51
MidiPyr.350 0,14 156 44 5 o 0 16
ILimousin 154 0,17 189 77 3 0 1 16
IRhône 176 0,10 111 75 2 1 1 14
IAuvergne 287 0,19 211 82 1 0 1 13
ILanguedoc 118 0,11 122 29 1 7 3 11
IProvence 15 0,02 22 13 0 27 13 7
ICorseM0,02 22 0 0 0 0 0
IFrance 2597 0,C9 100 58 4 1 4 22

Table1-Numberandregional breakdown ofdevelopment plansaccording tomaintypeofproduction -1977
NEDERLAND
Region NumberDensity­
per
1000haDensity
according to
national
averageBreakdownaccoriiingtomainproduction (info)
Cattle PigsHorticul­
tureand
Fruit|Arable
iMixed
Groningen
Priesland
Drenthe
Overijssel
Ijsselmeerpolders
Geiderland
Utrecht
Noord-Holland
Zuid-Holland
Zeeland
Noord-Brabant
Limburg100
347
120
373
27
294
98
354
643
9
313
1820,57
1.51
0,69
1,84
0,29
1,21
1,45
2,50
4,26
0,07
1,16
1,6939
104
48
127
20
83
100
172
294
5
80
11769
91
69
81
41
71
81
19
17
0
66
252
0
1
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
26
1
I
68
80
II
20
6015
6
14
1
30
0
0
7
2
33
1
38
2
12
15
19
14
5
4
0
33
11
9
IHederland-total 2.360 1,45 100 52 1 35 4 7

Table1-Numberandregional breakdown ofdevelopment plansaccording tomaintypeofproduction -1977
BELGIQUE/BELGIE
Region NumberDensityDensity
according toBreakdown according tomainproduction (in#)
p«r
1000hanational
average Cattle PigsHorticul­
tureand
FruitArable Mixed
IAntuerpen 312 4,0 333 0 0 5 0 89
IBrabant 166 1.1 92 1 2 7 0 82
IW-Vlaanderen 247 1,2 100 0 1 2 0 89
IO-Vlaanderen 353 2,4 200 0 1 6 0 87
IHainaut 740,3 25 0 4 5 3 80 I
ILiège 146 0.3 67 0 0 8 0 80
ILinburg 141 1,8 150 0 2 9 0 79
INaraur 68 0.4 33 0 3 7 0 78
jLuxembourg145 1,0 83 0 0 6 0
Belgique/Belgiê 1.652 1,2 100 0 1 6 0 85

Table1-Numberandregional "breakdown ofdevelopment plansaccording tomaintypeofproduction -1977
UNITED KINGDOM
Region NumberDensity
per
1000haDensity
according to
national
averageBreak:downaccordingtomainproduction(in%)I
Cattle PigsHorticul­
tureand
FruitArableMixedI
England
Hales
Scotland
NorthIreland3.226
854
2.127
9380,38
P.82
1,29
1.1563
137
215
19233
31
57
880
0
0
02
0
0
05
0
8
159
66
29
11
IUnitedKingdoa7.145 0.60 100 47 0 15 45
DANMARK
Region
Sjaelland
Storstron
Bomholm
ïVn
Jylland
DanmarkNumber
107
70
33
100
1.003
1.313Density
per
1000ha
0,31
0,28
0,89
0,39
0,49
0,45Density
according to
national
average
69
62
198
87
109
100Breakdown according tomainproduction (in
Cattle
19
17
12
30
51
44Pigs
37
39
58
31
24
27Horticul­
tureand
Fruit
14
4
0
17
2Arable
23
33
24
13
10
-LLMixed
7
7
6
9
12
.IL.

Table1-Numberandregional "breakdown ofdevelopment plansaccording tomain "typeofproduction -1977
IRELAND
Region NumberDensity
per
1000haDensity
according to
national
averageBreakdown according tomainproduction (in%)
Cattle PigsHorticul­
tureand
TVmtArable Mixed
1
EAST 234 0,43 72 75 1 2 9 12
SOUTHEAST 650 0.82 137 68 0 1 6 24
SOUTHNEST 930 1,20 200 93 1 0 2* 3»
MIDVEST 478 0,74 123 93 1 0 2 4
WEST 114 0,19 31? 89 1 3 0 6
NORTHWEST 48 0,20 33 94* 4 0 2 0
DOIIEGAL 72 4,17 695 32 7 0 14 46
KIDLANDS 232 0,32 53 75 1 0 9 14
NORTHEAST 163 *0,47 78 89 3 0 0 6
IRELAND 2.921 0,60 100 83 1 1 4 11>
*
Uncertain data.

Table2-Breakdown ofdevelopment plansaccording tofarmsizecategory andpercentage ofdevelopment
plansproviding foranexpansion ofagricultural area(1976-jo)
PRANCE
RegionNumber of
approved develop­
mentplans<10ha 10-^20ha20-<50ha50-<100ha ever100ha
Number•with
expansion%with
expansion%with
expansion%with
expansion#with
expansion#with
expansion !
France 2597 29 2 H7181 31 55 30m 26m 19
Reg.Paris 11 k 18 0 0 0 73 38 9100 0 0
Champagne 37 20 3 100 0 0 27 90 65 38 5 50
Picardie 190 36 2 50 2 058 23 37 13 1 0
Ht.Nora. 13 1 0 0 8 0 85 9 8 0 0 0
Centre 61 lk 3 50 3 50 36 23 kk 19 13 25
B.Norm* 90 23 0 0 8lk 56 32 3k 19 2 0
Bourgogne 1H9 56 l100 1 100 30 ko 48 39 20 27
Nord-Pas de
Calais69 22 1100 16 18 77 3* 6 25 0
Lorraine 4o 13 0 0 3 100 ko 38 53 29 50R-J
Alsace 35 .17 lk 40 lk 60 60 48 11 50 0 0 >i
Franche-C . 82 28 0 0 0 0 5* 43 kk 25 2 0
PaysdeL. 192 ko 2 67 8 25 76 21 lk 15 1 0
Bretagne 381 9k 2 50 20 35 75 22 3 9 0 0
Poitou Ch. 69 22 0 0 6 50 k5 26 k?38 7 20
Aquitaine 76 29 k 0 8 50 58 kl 26 35 k 33
MidiPyr. 350 60 1 50 5 0 53 17 31 20 10 15
Limousin 15* 72 1100 1 100 ko 60 kb 36 10 38
RhôneAlp. 176 66 2 67 lk 33 61 40 21 30 2 50
Auvergne 287 87 0 0 2 43 49 38 38 25 10 11
Languedoc 118 37 8 60 lk kk 34 38 2k 25 20 8
Provence 15 k 20 0 33 20 33 ko 7 100 7 0
Corsé 2I0 1150]0|m0m|0LU|0 I1501 0l

le2~Breakdownofdevelopment plansaccordingtofarmsizecategoryandpercentage ofdevelopment
plansproviding foranexpansion ofagricultural area(1976-<(,)
NEEEKLAND
1NumberofII
approved develop­
mentplans<10ha10-<20ha20-<50ha50-<100haIover100haI
â
I Region
Numberwithex– withex­*withex-J*withex­ (withex-Iwithex-1
pansion pansion fpansion7»Jpansion>pansion *jpansionj
IOroningen 100 5 7 oU o 63ΓΤΊΠΓ"13 2
IFriesland 347 20 0100 6 0 81 20 13 28 0100
IDrenthe 120 11 5 017 o 7215 5 0 1 0
IOverijseel 373 5 6 051 4 42 8 2 0 0 0
IXjsselmeerpolders 27 44 4 0750 7435 15 100 0 0
I-Celderland294 13 14 10 41 6 44 22 1 0 O 0
IUtrecht98 "4 13 031 7 56 4 0 0 0 0N-Holland354 41 35 42 3150 3132 3 2*5 0100I
Z-Holland643 7 78 6514 1616 1 o n
IZeeland9 11 022 0 45 25 22 0 O
IH-Brabant313 16 13 750 11 37 25 0 o o a
jLimburg 182 1259 1412 9 I2724 3 60 0 0
INederland I2.860 icrzii 25I–––
L_ !I13411181
1* !23243

Table2–Breakdown ofdevelopment plansaccording tofarmsizecategory andpercentage ofdevelopment
planaproviding foranexpansion ofagricultural area(1976-
BELGIQUE/BELGIE
INumber of
approved develop­
mentplans<10ha 10-<20ha20-<.50ha50-<100ha over100ha
Region
Numberwith
expansion**ithex­
pansion*withex­
pansion*withe>
pansian%withex­
pansion*withex­
pansion
Antwerpen I31?
ι2!79 23 91wj 0"0 υ
Brabant I166 748 3 21 3 23 5 650 2.25
W-Vlaanderen I247 449 2 30 3 21 10 00 0 0
O-Vlaanderen I353 858 7 29 5 12 23 133 1 0
Hainaut 74 35 41 0 350 43 56 1188 3-0
Liège 146 23 36 6 2017 3245 550 7 0
Limburg 141 11 28 5 3413 33 15 30 1 0
Namur
Luxembourg68
14519
-1629
170
123
40
1733
5227
1}25
1729
294
1033
14
Belgique/3elgi8 1.652 49 10 20 7 24 22 538 2"I
UNITED KINGDOM»
IBigland 3.226 9 123 19 17 9 31 :I10 50 9
Wales 854 2 0 0 10 25 0 40 234 3
IScotland 2.127 4 0 0 00 7 30 360 4
INorthIreland !938 ■» ■1!L°l 5 10 56L_l_».1|9 |1
UnitedKingdom 7.145 * 119 14 21 4 >1_J5-M £

Table2–Breakdownofdevelopment plansaccording tofarmsizecategory andpercentage ofdevelopment
plansproviding foranexpansion ofagricultural area(1977-<&)
IRELAND
RegionNumbe
approved i
ment •rof
dévelop­
pions<10ha 10-<20ha20-<50ha50-<100ha^over100ha
Numberwithex­
pansion*withex-jpansion*withex­
pansion*withe*
pansion *withex­
pansion *withex­
pansion
EAST 234.74-1 0 12 52 53 76 28 77 692.
SOUTHEAST 650 75 171 570 66 70 25 86 394
SOUTHWEST 930 76 1 20 21 69 66 77 1183 1 80
KIDWEST 478 77 167 147869 76 14 82 2100
WEST 114 63 2100 14 4463 61 16 72 5100
NORTHWEST 43 98 0 0 15 86 70 100 15100 0 0
DONEGAL 72 72 1 0 11 7567 67 19 93 2100
MIDLANDS 232 69 167 35063 64 28 78 5 92
INORTHEAST163 83 267_JI21 7769 !!83 8100 I0 ■0
IIRELAND2.921 I75 I
I153 14 09 t>5 74 lo o3 2
DANMARK
SJÆLLAND 107 0 0 21 046 016 00
STORSTROM 70 0 6 0 21 066 0 7 00 0
BORNHOLM 33 0 3 0 27 046 024 00 0
FTN ICO 322 0 29 340 59 00 0
IJYLLAND1.003 1 0 20L1_«ij2"J2 2 0
|DA:;MARK1.313 1 b 0 21 153 213 2 1 0

– -
Table3-Regional "breakdown ofpromoted investment forfarmsnot
effecting adevelopment planaccording totheaverage
promoted volumeofinvestment perfarm
HEGICN/
Member
StateNtimberof
developmentArticle14§2
firstsubparagraphArticle14§2a)
Iplans<25000 25000-[>50000 <5000I5000-10000-I*20000
uc<50000uc ucuc<10000uc<20000UC uc
DEUTSCULAND 6.514 366I207ΠΓ 146 125
RN 4.832 25 2 16 213 24 17
RD[1.682114 4LU10 22 108
FRANCE 2.597 (Ol(«) («) I(«)(0(0 <«>
RN 1.502
RD
[1.095
ΝΚηΚΗΙ,ΛΝΙ ) ?.οΓ)0 illω :)01ω (:) Cl)
NuIiD 1.053 οΊ 0 0ΓΟΊ 0
SUD 433 24 2 1 1 1
BRABANT 166 00 0 0 0
HELGIQUE 1.652 24 2 1 10 1 0
RN I.4I3 22 1 1 1 0
RD 2392|1 0 0l
ENCLAND I3.226 124.567 956 232
WALES I854 3.918 132 0
SCOTLAND 2.127 5.729 131 27
N.IRELAND ]938 8.245 64 2
U.K. 7.145 42.4591.283 261(t(«(O 0
RN 4.861 33.0591.213 261
RD I2.284 9-400 70°J
WESTERN I
REGION I887I
AUTRES
REGIONS2.034I
IRELAND 2.921 «) «(0(«)o00
RN 1.899
RD I1.022
r>.TAKI.I.AND I107 150 25*ΓΊ1
1
5>TOIU;THOM 70 160 17» 5
HOHNHOLM 33 33 1» 0
FYN 100 233 34» 2
JYLLAND 1.003 2.164 340» 26
DANMARK I1.313 2.740 436»
lJLJ(O_MJ«
CORKexol.
2Valuation over9months

Table 4a)-Breakdown ofdevelopment plane according tomain type ofproduction andvolume of
investment perMWU (in%)-1977
Total
numberCattlePigsHorticulture
Member State
%<20000
UA20000
<40000
UA40000
UA*<20000
UA20000
<40000
UA>/40000
UA%<20000
UA20000
<40000
UA40000
UA
DEUTSCHLAND
PRANCE
NEDERLAND
BELGIQUE /BELGIË
UNITED KINGDOM
IRELAND
BENMARK6.514
2.597
2.860
1.652
7.145
2.921
1.31341
58
52
0*
47
82
4430
4
5
100»
29
65
631
45
46
0»
50
30
3339
51
49
0»
21
5
617
4
1
1*
0
1
2722
46
5
100»
37
66
240
51
70
0»
63
33
2038
3
25
0»
0
0
787
1
35
6*
1
1
477
24
34
100»
44
55
2420
49
43
0»
34
28
463
27
23
0»
22
17
30
EUR 25.002 48 29 40 31 4 20 34 46 7 49 34 17
Member StateTotalArable Mixed
number<20000 UA 20000 n.
<40000y.40000 UA * <20000 UA 20000 UA<4000040000 UA
DEUTSCHLAND
PRANCE
NEDERLAND
BELGIQUE /BELGIE
UNITED KINGDOM
IRELAND
EENMARK6.514
2-597
2.860
1.652
7.145
2.921
1.31314
4
4
0*
5
4
1334
6
15
100*
17
54
033
49
43
0*
51
31
933
45
42
0*
32
15
9119
22
7
85»
45
11
1121
6
10
100»
32
59
545
50
57
0»
51
31
3334
44-
33
0»
17
10
62
EUR 25.002 7 26 36 38 28 41 39 20

Table4b)-Breakdown ofthedevelopment plansaccording tovolumeofinvestment perMVftJandthemain
typeofproduction ofthedevelopment plansin1977(in%)
Total
nuaber■ i<20.000UA/MWU 20.000-<40.000UA/MWU Χ40.000ϋΑ/ΗΜυ
TotalCattlePigs!Horti-
IcultureIrable Mixed TotalCattliPigsHorti­
culture ArableMixed iTotalJattle PigsHorti­
culture ArableMixed
D6.514
RN4.832
RD1.682
r2.597
RN1.502
RD1.095
Ν2.860
Β1.652
RN1.413
RD 239
υ*7.145
RN4.861
Ri)2.284
IRL2.921
RNI.899
RD1.022
DIC1.31332»
34»
26»
7
10
4
16
100»
100»
100»
30
31
28
64
64
63
541
33
74
34
31
45
16
0
0
0
45
46
43
84
82
88
565
6
3
27
26
28
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
1118
20
10
4
5
0
75
6
5
8
1
2
0
1
1
0
2215
19
4
3
3
5
4
0
0
0
013
14
9
18
20
10
4
85
86
79
48
48
47
10
12
6
1135»
36»
32»
46
54
35
46
0»
50
50
49
30
29
34
2740
33
66
58
54
66
53
0
47
45
51
82
79
87
559
10
4
5
5
6
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
204
5
2
1
2
1
33
0
1*
1
0
1
1
1
74
0
5
7
1
4
5
3
427
28
22
24
29
16
9
0
46
47
43
11
13
8
1333»
30»
42»
47
36
61
38
0»
20
19
23
6
7
3
6852
46
67
63
57
68
67
0
51
45
61
70
67
81
409
10
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
311
1
0
1
1
0
21
0
1
2
0
2
2
0
2I
1-
4
0
8
II
0
10
9
12
1721
21
20
21
31
13"
6
0
38
41
32
19
22
6
10
ajR25.002
RN18.680
RD6.32234»
34»
32*42
37
592
3
210
12
35
7
135
37
2938»
39»
38*51
48
624
4
26
8
17
8
229
29
2928»
27»
30*55
51
667
9
24
6
010
12
321
21
21
I

Table5a)-Implementation ofDirective 72/160/EEC-1976
Γ Recipients Released area Receiving holdings Useofreleasedarea
Member
StateNumberof
which
eligi-
bleTotal
haper
réci­
pient
haRelea­
sedarea
per
1000ha
UAANumberof
which
with
develop -;
ment
planIArea
per
farm
|haArt.5
par.1
(a)
haArt.5
par.1
(b)
haArt.5
par.2
haArt.5
par.3
ha
ΓAnnuity -
Premium(1)h.155
21936255-434
5-96913,35,013.632
1.0643.092
9774,1
5,618.909
5.5976336.083
372379
FAnnuity
Premium36.461 25100.897 15,63,4 10.886 228,7 212 632 95.033 5.020
NLAnnuity
Premium138
2071*+ 652
1.0014,7)0,76183
2932,730
?13
?467
?142
228
BAnnuity
Premium254
6652.471 7,71,7 678 213,6 182 14 2.275
LAnnuity
Premium39
162815,74,6 174 3,5 13 615
UKAnnuity
Premium344
2720314.171 38,20,9 419 1433,8 530 2213.619
IaAnnuity !
Premium 1136
4102.34216,70,5 2317I15,0 I255 2.087
(l)Thedetailsforthepremiumareincomplete.Particularly forNiedersachsen ,Nordrhein-Westfal'en andRheinland
Pfalzwhereneitherthenumberofrecipients northetotalareareleasedareavailable.

Table5b)-Implementation ofDirective 72/i60/EEC-1977
Γ Recipiente Released area Keceiving holdings Useorreleased area
Member
State Numberof
which
eligi-
bleTotal
haper
réci­
pient
haRelea­
sedarea
per
1000ha
UAANumberof
which
with
develop­
inent
planArea
per
farm
haArt.5
par*1
(a)
haArt«
par.
(b)
ha5
1Art.5
par»2
haArt.5
par.3
ha
FAnnuity -
Premium3.36835»42.625 12,7 3,411.384 2.976 3,717.055 5825.275 237
FAnnuity -
Premium4.808i
617378.204 16.12,79.395 598,3 1.794 548 75.839 23
NLAnnuity
Premium103
12865
?463
617j4,670,5113
1746
?4,1 61
?21
?268 113
151
rAnnuity
Premium141
5136 1.750 9,10,9 411 194,3 205 1.545
LAnnuity -
Premium18
737314,92,8 95 3,8 11 362
UKAnxmuity
Premium282
3012
UAnnuity
Premium»ï 45 2.147 18.2 2,7 85 4,79,4 299 1.848

Table 6
DEUTSCHLANDNumber andregional breakdown ofannuities andpremiums forthecessation offarming anduse
ofreleased areas in1976
Récipient 8or Released area Rtceiving holdings Use ofreleased area
REGION
annuity premiumTotal
haψρβΓ
Γβοίρίβηΐ
1ι&Numberofwhich
with de-
velopment
planArt .5
§la)
haArt •5
§lb)
haArt •5 i
§2 j
ha !Art# 5
§3
ha
SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEINISCHE LAK
LAK OLDENBURG-BREMEN
HANNOVERSCHE LAK
BRAUNSCHWEIGISCHE LAK
LIPPISCHE UK
LAKDERRHEIN ,LANDWIRTSCHAFT
WESTFÄLISCHE LAK
LAK HESSEN-NASSAU
LAK DARMSTADT
LAK RHEINESSEN-PFALZ
LAK FUR DAS SAARLAND
LAK OBERFR .UND MITTELFR .
LAK NIEDERBAYERN-OBERPFALZ
LAK UNTERFRANKEN
LAK SCHWABEN
LAK OBERBAYERN
UK BADEN
LAKWÜRTTEMBERG
LAKFÜR DENGARTENBAU*♦12
213
766
43
20
539
331
203
91
296
12
180
142
97
198
72
147
333
6032
48
1
1389565
3484
il86o
67^
292
6342
4851
2628
1125
2682
243
2123
1292
1125
1900
662
1680
4611
11521,5
16.4
15.5
15.7
14.6
11.8
14.7
10.5
12,4
9,1
18.7
11.8
9.1
11.6
9,6
9.2
11,4
9.8
1.91320
713
1847
200
39
900
1040
1105
311
1696
29
582
228
212
812
119
973
1813
103331
70
1274
139
24
17
152
409
240
103
4
40
41
70
17
456
283203
521
8470
483
208
259
1377
1647
089
378
47
300
303
353
16
1862
419
34
16
3
16151
2946
3288
182
84
6083
3442
941
235
2301
196
2122
973
821
1547
662
1664
2746
71210
8
67
10
15
38
2
3
20
2
.2
2
DEUTSCHLAND 4255 219 57254 13,1 14042 3415 20357 63 36455379

Table6
PRANCE1976 Numberandregional breakdown ofannuities andpremiumsforthecessation offarminganduse
ofreleased areasin1976
REGIONRecipients
ofannuity
andpremium
Total
numberReleased area Receiving holdings Useofreleased area
Total
happer
réci­
pienthadumberof
reci­
pientsNumberofwhich
withde-
velopinentclanArticle
5§la)
haArticle
5§it)
haArticle
5§2
haArticle
5§3
ha
Parisienne 11Γ49 1128 23,0 49 67 6 25 117» 8
Champagne 21 167 4501 27,0 167 356 1 6 4687 138
Picardie 22 129 2700 20,9 129 281 2722 3
Haute-Normandie 23 93 167418,0 93 137 1 5 1665 38
Centre 24 363 829022,8 363 624 9 7351 615
Basse-Normandi• 25 330 3928 11.9 330 545 93877 79
Bourgogne 26 321 6573 20,5 321 559 1 42 11 6027 337
Nord 31 287 362412,6 287 779 63 3696 33
Lorraine ~41 114 3099 27,2 114 254 2 19 15 3349 90
Alsace 42 73 77610,6 73 123 4 806
yvaache–Comté 43 150 2622 17,5 150 382 2 19 9 2519 62
PaysdelaLoire 52 807 11625 14,4 807 1743 2 9 6711369 672<
âretagne 53 782 8559 10,9 782 1397 1 4 75 8015 367«r-
Poitou-Charente 54 521 9309 17,9 521 883 1 7 33 8903 591
Aquitaine 72 446 5745 12,9 446 466 1 15 101 4738 428
Midi-Pyrénées 73 487 8464 17,4 487 558 4 29 34 7384 340
Limousin 74 217 3344 15,4 217 297 3021 249
Rhône-Alpes 82 351 4380 12,5 351 518 3 11 80 4018 115
Auvergne 83 268 5237 19,5 268 385 1 38 54672 177
Languedoc 91 303 3028 10,0 303 328 1 1 36 2989 138
Provence-Cote d'Azur 93 197 2172 11,0 197 198 1 7 56 1928 40
Corse 946|119!9,8 6 6 6 119
PRANCE 6461 100897 15,6 6461 10886 22 212 632 95033 5020

Table 6
NEDERLANDNumber andregional breakdown ofannuities andpremiums forthecessation offarming anduse
ofreleased areas in1976
I Recipients ofJReleased area IReceiving holdings Use ofreleased area
REGIONannuity and
premium
Total
numberTotal
haψρβΓ
Γβοΐρΐ βηΐ Number
Iofwhich
with de–
velopment
planArt .5
§la)
haArt .5
§lb)
haArt .5
§2
haArt .5
§3
ha
Groningen
Frieseland
Drente
Overi jssel
Gelderland
Utrecht
Noord Holland
Zuid Holland
Zeeland
Noord Brabant
Limburg4
7
12
10
9
mm
21
45
6
8
1634
87
118
111
31
54
74
75
31
378,5
12,4
9,8
11,1
3Λ
2,6
1,6
12,6
3,9
2,37
14
31
16
7
11
46
18
5
281
1
1
3
1
4i
1
12
1
5 .
7'
42
2
5
4
i28 .
39
107
72
16
26
63
75
20
21.6
46
10
27
13
18
7
3
12
NEDERLAND 138 652 %7 183 11 3° 467 142

Table6
BELGIQUE/BELGIENumberandregional breakdown ofannuities andpremiums forthecessation of
-LUXEMBOURG farming anduseofreleased areasin1976
REGIONRecipient βo Released area Receiving holdings Useofreleased area
annuity premiumTotal
happerre­
cipient
haNumberofwhicfa
withde-
ve.r>lanArt.5
§la)Art.5
§lt)Art.5
§2-Art.5§3
ANTWERFEN
BRABANT
WEST–VLAANDEREN
OOST-VLAANDEREN
HADJAUT
LIEGE
LIMBURG
LUXEMBOURG
NAMUR12
33
36
61
38
27
7
26
142
7
19
10
10
1
13
490
207
247
493
435
279
43
495
1827,0
5.6
5,4
5.7
8.8
7,4
5,0
12,3
9.922
76
78
184
119
53
12
72
413
1
2
1
7
4
314
9
33
6
15
80
234
1
2
1
3
384
183
221
492
420
267
25
155
BELGIQUE 254 662.471 7,7 678 21 180 14 2.275
LUXEMBOURG 39 1 628 15,7 174 0 13 615
»
Columnart.5,§2:obtainedbydeduction,anapproximation whichincludesinaddition140haoflandreturnto
thelessor.

Table6 Nlimberandregional breakdown ofannuities andpremiums forthecessation offarming anduse
ofreleased areasin1976UNITEDKINGDOM i 71
I IRecipients of Releasedarea Receiving holdings Useofreleased area
REGIONfflrv+al éper ofwhich Iart.5 ^art.5art.5art•5
annuity premium4VVCfcJL
ha recipient Number withde­§la)§lb) §2 §3uaha velopment
clan(ha) (ha) ha (ha)
NORTHERN 23 2 677 27,1 24 677
YORKS/LANCS 17 0 54432,0 30 1 16 526
EASTMIDLAND 30 2 109534,2 47 4 122 973
WESTMIDLAND 24 1 62024,8 24 620
EASTERN 35 2 62116,8 57 621
SOUTHEASTERN 11 3 40228,7L19 402
SOUTH WESTERN 48 2 1276 25,5 55 - 1276 -
TOTAL ENGLAND 188 12 523526,2 256 5 140 5095
WALES 32 2 858 25,2 34 1 59 799
SCOTLAND 92 3 724576,3 89 6 307 6938
NORTHERN IRELAND 32 10 S3319,8 4° 2 24 22 7&7 J
TOTAL 344 27 1417138,2 419 14 530 22 136194

Table6
IRELANDNumberandregional breakdown ofannuities andpremium8forthecessation offanninganduBe
ofreleased areasin1976
Π Recipients of Released area Receiving holdings Useofreleased area
r i ofwhich I
REGION 0per wi+.hriA–art.5art.5art•5art.5I
iannuity premiumharecipient Numbervelopment§la)§lb)§2 §3
jna plan |haha Iha
ICarlov
ICavan 9 125 13,9 125
IClare 10 197 19,7 1 1 19 17»
ICork 14 250 17,9 2 2 27 223
Donegal 9 9710,8 2 97
Dublin
IGalway 9 2 209 19,0 3 1 4 205
IKerry 7 146 20,9 1 146
Kildare
Kilkenny 3 64 21,3 1 1 8 56
ILaois 5 1 110 18,3 1 1 21 89
ILeitriia 3 53 17,7 53
Limerick 10 183 16,3 2 2 23 160
Longford 2 21 10,5 21
Louth
IKayo ik 204 14,6 20k
Meath
IMonaghan 7 10k 14,7 2 2 30 7k
Offaly 1 13 13,0 13
Roscommon 10 177 17,7 2 1 19 158
Sligo 7 1 120 15,0 1 1 20 100
Tipperary 8 123 15,4 3 3 kk 79
IWaterford 1 k7 k7 k7
Westmeath 2 17 8,50 17
wexford k 5814,5 2 2 40 18
jWicklow1Lj24 24 *_J
136 4 2342 16,7 23 17 255 2087
TheLandCommission hasreallotted 120hadividedasfollowsjart.5(l)(a)s71hato6assigneeholders,art.5(l)(b)s2ha,
art.5(2)t47hato8assigneeholders.

Table 7 Breakdown offarms given updue "to "benefit ofcessation according tofarm size category (1976 )
DEUTSCHLAND
REGIONNumber and
χ. –χ»percen-I Farm size category (ha)
bage 01rcuipj.cuvB »– 1
10-<20 ofannuities I <10 >20
ILAKSCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN (including premium ) I 444 10,3 14,0 33,5 52,5
LAK OLDENBURG-BREMEN 213 4,9 24,4 43,7 31,9
HANNOVER LAK 766 17,7 32,8 40,2 27,0
BRAUNSCHWEIGISCHE LAK 43 1,0 27,9 46,5 25.b
LIPPISCHE LAK | 20 0,5 45,0 35,0 20,0
AKder RHEIN LANDWIRTSCH ». 539 12,5 48,6 39,3 12,1
WESTFÄLISCHE LAK 331 7,5 33,2 36,9 29,9
LAK HESSEN-NASSAU 203 4,7 41,4 44,8 13,8
LAK DARMSTADT 91 2,1 28,6 56,0
LAK RHEINHESSEN PFALZ 296 6,8 63,5 25,7 10,ô
ILAKFURDASSAARLAND (including premium ) 13 0,3 53,8 46,2 „
LAK OBERFRANKEN UND MITTELFRANKEN 180 4,2 35,6 45,0 19,Η
LAK NIEDERBAYERN-OBERPFALZ 142 3,3 63,4 28,9 7,7
LAK UNTERFRANKEN i 97 2,2 39,2 53,6 j 7,2
LAK SCHWABEN 198 4,6 50,5 42,9 6,6
LAK OBERBAYERN 72 1,7 48,6 40,3 11,1
LAK BADEN 147 •3,4 39,5 i 47,6 12,9
LAK WÜRTTEMBERG 333 7,7 45,6 50,2 4,2
BADEN WURTTEMBERG (premium ) 138 3,2 84,8 13,0 2,2
AKFUR BEN GARTENBAU 60 1.4 100,0
DEUTSCHLAND (including premium for3Länder ) 4326 100,0 40,9 38,8 20,3

Table 7
FRANCEBreakdown offarms given upduetobenefit ofcessation according tofarm size category (1976 )
REGIONNumber andpercen­
tage ofrecipients
ofannuitiesVFarm size category (ha)
<10 10-<2020-<50 ^.50
REGION PARISIENNE 49 0,8 34,7 16,t 36,7 10,2
CHAMPAGNE 167 2,6 28,1 19,£ 37,1 15,0
PICARDIE 129 2,0 36,4 27,1 25,6 10,9
HAUTE NORMANDIE 93 1Λ 3M 35,5 24,7 5,4
CENTRE 363 5,6 33,9 24,0 29,2 12,9
BASSE NORMANDIE 330 5,1 53,6 27,9 17,3 1,1
BOURGOGNE 321 5,0 34,6 28,7 27,4 9,3
NORD 287 4,4 46,3 36,2 15,7 1.7
LORRAINE 114 1,8 22,8 28,9 33,3 14,9
ALSACE 73 1,1 58,9 30,1 11,0
FRANCHE COMTE 150 2,3 22,0 44,0 31,3 2,7
PAYS DELALOIRE 807 12,5 35,8 38,5 24,9 0,7
BRETAGNE 782 12,2 53,1 34,0 12,4 0,5
POITOU CHARENTE 521 8,2 31,1 33,6 31,7 3,6
AQUITAINE 446 6,9 *3,3 39,7 16,6 0,4
MIDI PYRENEES 487 7,5 30,6 35,3 31,6 2,5
LIMOUSIN 217 3,3 38,2 34,6 25,8 1,4
RHONE ALPES 351 5,4 47,0 38,7 12,8 1,4
AUVERGNE 268 4,1 36,2 29,5 25,0 9,3
LANGUEDOC 303 4,7 73,6 17,2 7,3 2,0
PROVENCE /COTE D'AZUR 197 3,0 69,5 16,2 10,7 3,6
|CORSE6 0,1 33,3 33,3 16,7 16,7
FRANCE 6461 100,0 41,9 32,2 22,1 3,8c«»

Table7
NederlandBreakdown offarmsgivenupdueto"benefitofcessation accordingtofarmsizecategory(1976)
REGIONNumberandpercen­
tageofrecipients
ofannuitiesFarmsizecategory (ha)
<10 10-<2020-<50>,50
GR0NINGEN 4 2,9 75,0 25,0
FRIESLAND 7 5,1 28.6 71,4
DRLNTHE 12 8,7 33,3 66,7
0VZRIJSSEL 10 7,2 50,0 50,0
GELDERLAND 9 6,5 88,9 11,1
UTRECHTi v
K.H0LLAND 21 15,2 100,0V*
Z.H0LLAND 45 32,6 95,6 4,4
ZEELAND 6 4,4 50,0 33,3 16,7
N.BRABANT 8 5,8 87,5 12,5
LIMBURG 16 11,6 93,8 6,3
IEIJERjl.AND 138 100,0 80,4 18,8 0,8

Table 7
BELGIQUE /BELGIEBreakdown offarms given upduetobenefit ofcessation according tofarm size category (1976 J
REGIONNumber andpercen­
tage ofrecipients
ofannuitiesFarm size category (ha)
<10 10-<20 20-<50 >/50
ANTWERPEN 12 3,8 75,0 25,0Ί
BRABANT 35 10,9 91,4 8.6
WEST VLAANDEREN 43 13,4 90,7 9,3
OOST VLAANDEREN 80 25,0 88,8 11.3
HÀ3NAUT 48 15,0 60,4 39,6
LIEGE 37 11.6 78,4 18,9 2,7r-»
_ -c
LIMBURG 8 2,5 100,0
LUXEMBOURG 39 12,2 35,9 61,5 2,6
NAMUR 18 5,6 50,0 50,0
belgique /belgie 320 100,0 75,0 24,6 0,6

Table7
UNITED KINGDOMBreakdown offarmsgivenupdueto'benefitofcessation according tofarmsizecategory (1976}
REGIONNumberandpercen­
tageofrecipients
ofannuitiesFarmsizecategory (ha)
<10 10-<2020-<50>/50
NORTHERN 25 6,7 16.0 8.0 64,0 12,0
T0RKS/LANCS 17 4,6 11.8 47,1 35,3 5,9
EASTMIDLAND 32 8.6 3,1 15,6 71,9 9,4
WESTMIDLAND 25 6,7 28,0 24,0 24,0 24.<>l
EASTERN 37 10,0 18,9 45,9 29,7 5,4 •
SCUTHEASTERN 14 3,8 7,1 35,7 42,9 14,3
SOUTHWESTERN 50 13,5 2,0 30,0 66,0 2,0
TOTALENGLAND 200 53,9 11,5 29,0 50,5 9,0
WALES 34 9,2 8,8 29,4 52,9 8,8
SCOTLAND 95 25,6 7,4 11,6 53.7 27,4
N.IRELAND 42 11,3 21,4 38,1 35,7 4,8
UNITED KINGDOM 371 100,0 11.3 25,6 49,9 13,2

Table 7
Breakdown offarms given upduetobenefit ofcessation according tofarm size category (1976 )
Number and percen - Farm size category (ha)
HEGICH tage ofrecipients
ofannuities <10 10-<20 20-<50 >,50
CARLCM
CAVAN 9 6,4 33.3 33,3 33,3
CLAHE 10 7.2 10,0 50,0 40,0
C0RK 14 10,0 35,7 28,6 28,6 7,1
DCNEGAL 9 6,4 66,7 22,2 11,1
DUBLIN
CALWAY 11 7s9 27,3 18,2 54,5
KERHT 7 5,0 28,6 14,3 57,1
KILDARE
KILKHiNY 3 2,1 33,3 66,7
LA0IS 6 4,3 66,7 33,3
LEITRIM 3 2,1 66,7 33,3
LIME RICK 10 7,2 10,0 60,0 30,0
LCNGFORD 2 1,4 50,0 50,0
LOUTH \
KAYO 14 10,0 35,7 42,9 21,4:fMEATH
KCNAGHAN 7 5,0 42,9 42,9 14,3
OFFALY 1 0,7 100,0
ROSCOMMCN 10 7,2 70,0 30,0
SLIGO 8 5,7 37,5 25,0 37,5
TIPPERARY 8 5,7 25,0 50,0 25,0
VATERFORD 1 0,7 100,0
MESTMEATH 2 1,4 100,0
WEXFORD 4 2,9 25,0 50,0 25,0
WICKLCW
| 1°,7 100,0
IRELAND 140 100,0 27,9 39,3 32,1 0,7
Western Region 90 64,3 30.0 37,8 32,2
Rest ofIreland 50 35,7 24,0 42,0| 32,0 L !