ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEEDES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM(77)22
Vol.1977/0008

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE,Euratom) n°354/83duConseildu1erfévrier1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublicdesarchiveshistoriques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergieatomique(JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifiéparlerèglement (CE,Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossierestouvertaupublic.Lecaséchéant,lesdocuments
classifiésprésentsdanscedossierontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance withCouncilRegulation (EEC,Euratom) No354/83of1February 1983
concerning theopeningtothepublicofthehistoricalarchivesoftheEuropean Economic
Community andtheEuropean AtomicEnergyCommunity (OJL43,15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC,Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003(OJL243,
27.9.2003, p.1),thisfileisopentothepublic.Wherenecessary, classifieddocuments inthis
filehavebeendeclassified inconformity withArticle5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG,Euratom) Nr.354/83desRatesvom1.
Februar 1983überdieFreigabe derhistorischen Archive derEuropäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI.L43vom15.2.1983,
S.1),geändertdurchdieVerordnung (EG,Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom22.September 2003
(ABI.L243vom27.9.2003, S.1),istdieseDateiderÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurdendieVerschlusssachen indieserDateiinÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(77 )22final
Brussels ,15February 1977
n
■ti ^ ^
f ■V''1éq
1 ê"S]
COMMISSION REPORT TOTHE COUNCIL
ontheforeseeable developments mtheplanting and
replanting ofvineyards intheCommunity andonthe
ratio between production andutilization inthewine
sector
%
COM(77 )22final

INTRODUCTION
UnderArticle17(4)ofRegulation (EEC)N°816/70,theCommission
isrequiredtosubmitareporttotheCouncilwhich,inparticular ,recordsthe
ratiobetweenproduction andutilization inthewinesectorandestimates fore­
seeablechangesinthatratioonthebasis,inparticular ,oftheforecasts
provided forinparagraph 3ofthesameArticle.Seriousdifficulties haveari­
seninthewinesectorinrecentyears.Aconsiderable increaseinsupplies
aftertwoveryabundantharvestsin1973/74and1974/75causedpricestofall,
andthisledtheCounciltoadoptunprecedented exceptional intervention measures .
Exchange ratemovements havealsohadanadverseimpactontheequilibrium of
themarketbyaccentuating thedifference inpricesontheItalian andFrench
markets.Inresponse totheseeventstheCommission presented totheCouncil
proposals toextendandimprovetherangeofintervention instruments andto
achieveinthemedium-term alessprecarious balancebetweensupplyanddemand.
Itisknownwhatdifficulties theCouncilencountered inexamining theproposals ;
theregulations adoptedin1976aretheresultofacompromise byalltheMember
Statesandalthough theyconstitute asignificant stepforward ,asregardsprice
andmarketpolicyforbalancing production potential andmarketcapacity inthe
mediumterm,theyarenomorethanaholdingmeasure (freezeonnewplantings ,
conversion premiumandmeasurestoimprovevarieties).Framingafullsetofrules
hasbeenputofuntillater.
Inaccordance withtheforegoing ,thereport,whosepreparation was
delayedowingtotheseriousdifficulties onthewinemarketinrecentyears,is
dividedintotwochapters.Thefirstisananalysisof,thevariousfactors (area
undervines,production ,consumption ,trade),theseoonddealswiththedevelop­
mentofproduction andconsumption *
./.
OJN*L99,5.5.1970 ,p.1

CHAPTER ONE
I.PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Itisfirst necessary toconsider thegeneral point ofwhether this report
achieves the aims setfor it.Acomparison ofthe development inareas under
vines forecast intheprevious reports with that which actually took place
shows appreciable discrepancies (seeTable l)andthis leads onetosuppose
that there isasimilar discrepancy between estimated andactual wine pro­
duction .Thedifference between estimated andactual figures leads tothe
conclusion that thepresent system ofgrowers reporting their intentions does
not give results precise enough toserve asabasis for reliable conclusions .
Themost striking point isthat information from declarations ofintentions
areincertain cases distinctly lower than actual performance which probably
means that notitications arenotmade byalltheproducers concerned ,and
further that planting andreplanting maybefreely carried outwhen nonoti­
fication has been made .
11•DEVELOPMENTS INTHE AREA UNDER VINES INTHE COMMUNITY
Thedevelopment ofthearea producing wine grapes intheCommunity isshown
inTables 1,2,3and4»Only theareas under vines inthefour main produ­
cer Member States are included .The areas under vines inthe other Member
States arenotshown since ,inaccordance with thefirst subparagraph of
2Article 1ofRegulation No143 taslast amended bytheAct ofAccession
together withArticle 1ofRegulation (.EEC)No1135/70^,winegrowers in
Member States where the total area under vines inthe open air isnotmore
than 100haareexempt from theobligation toreport their plans forplan­
ting .replanting orgrubbing ofvines .
_. .. ,Wià
ft.InOctober /theUnited Kingdom sent theCommission information onitsarea
under vines in1975 *Thearea was 196ha,andthus above theceiling below
which producers inaMember State areexempt from presenting thedeclara­
tions provided for inRegulation No143forpreparation ofthevitiouliu –
ralland register .TheUnited Kingdom thus becomes afull member ofthe
group ofproducing countries .Table 4gives thefigures forwine–growing
intheUnited -Kingdom®
OJNoL127/2789 ,1812*1962 ,p.2789/62
30JNoL134,19.6.1970 ,pe2

3.
1.Foreseeable changes inthe area under vines inindividual Member States
a)GERMANY Jslightly smaller increase andonly forquality wines p'.s.r .
Anincrease of0.6$inthearea under vines inGermany isestimated for
1975/76over theprevious wine-growing year .This isslightly less than the
estimate for1974/75(0*7$) ismainly accounted forbyanincrease in
replanting ,while newplantings have slowed down .Asinprevious years ,chan­
gesconcern only quality wines p.s.r .About 60$oftheincrease inarea is
intheFreiburg region .
b)FRANCE :definite decline inplantings andslight overall decrease inarea
Thefigures show aslight overall reduction inthearea under vines (-0.3$)
although anincrease of0*4$wasestimated intheprevious year .This is
mainly duetoamarked reduction inestimated newplantings ofquality wines
p.s.r .,although thearea isinexpansion ,andthelack ofnewplantings for
table wine and cognao .
o)ITALY :almost unchanged rate ofexpansion inoverall area under vines
Thesalient facts in1975/76seem tobeasharp reduction innewplanting
andgrubbing ofvines fortable wine ,with amodest overall expansion ,and
anacceleration ofreplantings forquality wines p.s.r *which onthewhole
areincreasing ataconsiderable pace .Itisinteresting that this tendency
iswidespread inalltheregions forquality wines p.s.r .while insome
regions theestimated balanoe fortable wines in1975/76isnegative (Pied­
mont ,Marches ,Latium ).
d)LUXEMBOURG tincrease ,especially inquality wines p.s.r .
Theestimated increase for1975/76is1.4$overall .This isaresult of
asubstantial increase inquality wines p.s.r .andslight decline intable
wines (Table 2).Theinorease inthearea produoing quality wines p.s.r .is
largely duetoamarked slowdown ingrubbings .
•/

4
2.Foreseeable developments inthe areas under vines in -theCommunity asawhole
Compared with theincreases forecast forprevious years ,that for1975/76is
relatively low(+0.2$ ).Itislargely duetoanincrease inquality wines
p.s.r .andaslight reduotion intable wine .Itshould benoted that new
plantings fortable wine have declined sharply whereas estimated replantings
arenormal ;ontheother hand ,there isasharp reduction ingrubbings .
There isadefinite decline innewplantings forquality wines p.s.r .which
islargely offset byanincrease inreplantings (Table 2).Itisworth noting
that thearea under vines notyetinproduction issteadily increasing (Ta­
ble4)andthere isanestimated 2.8$ increase inthearea produoing table
grapes in1975/76compared with theprevious year (Table 5)«
III .TRENDS INQUANTITIES OFWINE PRODUCED INTHE COMMUNITY
1.Influence ofchanges inthe^timated wine–growing area in1975/76onfuture
production
Although thetrends inforecast output axerelated tothose inforecast areas ,
the two donotentirely coincide .Although adeoline inthearea producing
table wine isforecast for1975/76thecombined effects ofnewplantings ,
replantings andgrubbings will result inaproduction increase of0*4$
(Table 6).This discrepancy isparticularly noticeable inFrance ,where des­
pite anestimated reduotion inarea of5253hathere isa0.3$increase in
estimated production .
Anincrease inquality wines p.s.r .isforecast inalltheproducer Member
States ,particularly inItaly ,with thehighest figure of7*8 compared
with more modest estimates forFrance andGermany (1.6$and1.1%)anda
somewhat larger increase inLuxembourg (2.1%)»A3%increase intotal
production ofquality wines p.s.r .intheCommunity asawhole isforecast
for1975/76.Estimated produotion forother wines isalmost unchanged (–0.1$ ).
./•

5
2.Development ofproduction since1965/66
Wineproduction intheCommunity andineachMemberStatesince1965/66is
giveninTable7*i&I*dsince1962/63inGraphs1and2.Itstendencytoin­
creasewasparticularly accentuated bytheespecially plentiful harvestin
1973/74and1974/75hutwouldhaveexistedinanycase,althoughinattenua­
tedform.Aspointedoutinprevious reports,wineproduction isincreasing
morequicklyinGermanythaninPranceandItaly,whereinviewofthevolu­
meofproduction evenmoderateincreases inpercentage termsstillresult
insignificant increaseinabsolute terms.Itisworthnotingthatthe
production andutilization trendscalculated (asshowninGraphl)forthe
wine–growingyear1962/63to1975/76forthesixoriginal MemberStates
arebothupward,butforproduction onefigureis1.12$andforconsumption
0.34 However,fortheperiodfrom1969/70to1975/76,thedivergence is
stillgreaterdespitethefactthatconsumption isfortheCommunity ofNine:
thereisa2.25i°increaseinproduction andaO.89$increaseinconsumtion .
Furtheritisworthnotingthatdirecthumanconsumption ,whichrepresents
themajorcomponent ofconsumption ,istendingtostagnate.Although consump­
tionisgrowinginGermanyandthenon-producing countries ,itisprogressi­
velydeclininginItalyandPrance(Table18andGraph7)»Ifthistrend
confirniesttheincreasing gapbetweenproduction andconsumption islikely .
toperpetuate theuneasiness inthesector.Obviously ,thefundamental as­
pectsofoneortheotherorbothwillhavetobechangedif\long-term
equilibrium istobeachieved andthemarketistobemanagedwithoutcons­
tantexceptional interventional measures.
SeealsoTable19 ./,
xhefiguresarebasedoninternal consumption excluding exceptional distilla ^-
tionoperations since1970®Themethodusedisthatof"leastsquares".

6.
IV.COMMUNITY ACTION TOIMPROVE WINEPRODUCTION ANDPROCESSING STRUCTURES
Forsometime "thevariousproducer MemberStateshave "beenengagedinratio­
nalizing wineproduction structures andexpanding andmodernizing processing
andmarketing structures .Asregardsthecultivation ofvines,inPrance
effortsaremainlydirected toimproving therangeofvinevarieties andes­
pecially inFranceandinGermanytoreparcelling andthecreation ofhomo­
geneousareasasregardsvarietyandtechniques .InItaly,inadditiontothe
striking phenomenon oftheconversion frommixedvinestospecialized vine
cultivation ,thereisthewidespread introduction ofmoremoderncultivation
methodswhichfacilitate mechanization .InallMemberStatesagreateffortis
"beingmadetouseselectedreproductive material ,asregardbothqualityand
planthealth.Asregardwine-making andmarketing structures ,muchoftheaid
inthevarious MemberStatesisgrantedtocooperative organizations ,espe­
ciallyinItaly.
Forsomeoftheprojects toimprovewine-growing ,andinparticular withinthe
framework oftransformation andmarketing ,structures applications have
beensubmitted forfinancing "bytheEAGGFinaddition toaidobtained from
theMemberStates.Thewinesectoronthewholehasbenefited appreciably
fromaidgrantedbytheGuidance SectionofEAGGF.Table10showsthataid
tothewinesectorrepresented 12.3$oftotalaidgrantedfrom1964to
1975tin^helastfewyearsthispercentage hastendedtoincrease (17*3-%
in1975).
Distribution ofaidgranted amongthevarious MemberStates,althoughitis
nottotallyinproportion tosizeofthewinesectorinthevariousregions,
seemsmorebalanced thaninthepast.Thenumberandscaleofprojects pre­
sentedbyFranoe,whichuntil1972weresmallinrelationtotheareaithad
undervines,havedrawnmuchclosertotheCommunity average.
/

7.
Anexamination ofwine sector projects submitted totheEAGGF shows that in
somes cases there isinadequate coordination atregional level ,which could
weaken themarket position ofproducers .More attention should "bepaid by
therelevant organizations intheMember States concerned tothese problems
iffinancing measures aretobemore effective .
V.THE MARKET SITUATION
1,Demand for wine inthe Community
Itcanbeseen from Table 9*that normal internal consumption ofwine inthe
Community has notchanged significantly .Thecomments made intheprevious
reports remain valid ;they areborne outfully bythefigures for1975/76.
Asregards theheading inTable 9forquantities processed for1975/76»
should bepointed outthat these quantities should beincreased byabout 2.2
million hicorresponding tothe special distillation measures carried out
during themarketing year ,which could notbetaken into account when prepa­
ring theforward estimate .
2oDevelopment ofprices and Community intervention measures
Market prices foralltypes oftable wine in1974/75were generally lower
than theactivating prices .Thedecrease duetothelarge harvest of1973 j
which hadwide repercussions in1973/74thasthus continued .Thedifference
between themarket prices andtherespective intervention activating prices
wasconsiderable !especially fortable wine oftypes AIItAIIIandRIII.
Prices ofthese wines were about 60$oftheaotivating price most ofthe
time .Thelowest market prioes fortable wines oftypes RI,HIIandRIII
sometimes fell aslowas75$of "theaotivating price .
xSee also Table 20

8
In1974/75compared with 1973/74 "theprice variation went from +12.4$to
–36$according tothedifferent marketing centres *
Theunfavourable market situation andtheneed torelieve thepressure caused
byab-normally high stocks ledtheCouncil and theCommission tohave recourse
toalltheintervention measures provided for intheCommunity regulations .
Thus in1974/75storage contracts were concluded foranunprecedented monthly
average of16.8 million hi.Inthesame period thequantity ofwine distilled
under thespecial measures with Community aidwas20200000hi,equal to
ifcalmost one sixth ofthetable wine production •
•/.
In1975/76theaverage prices recorded atthedifferent marketing centres ,
with theexception oftwocentres fortable wine oftype RIandtwocentres
fortable wine RIIwhich showed adrop ranging from 0.5$to5 were hi­
gher than theprices for theprevious marketing year .The increase were not
uniform ,ranging from 0.1$to21.3
Except atthebeginning ofthemarketing year prices inFrance were higher
than theintervention activating price ,while inItaly market prices were
generally lower than therespective activating prices .Theaverage negative
difference wasbetween 7,1 foand14*5%depending onthetype ofwine butin
extreme cases itwas40$>•Asintheprevious marketing year thedifference
between themarket prices andtheintervention activating prices was consi­
derable especially fortable wines oftypes RIII ,AIIandAIII.Theindi­
vidual differences were 17 35$and21$respectively .
Theunsatisfactory market price situation inthe last marketing year was not
dueto .thevolume ofproduction ,which hardly covered normal consumption but
tothe level ofinitial stocks whioh,although slightly lower than thepre­
vious year ,were nonetheless very high .
In1975/76,asintheprevious marketing year ,alltheintervention measures
provided for intheCommunity regulations were applied ,although thequanti­
ties distilled with public subsidies were less than in1974/75*About
2.2 .million hiwere distilled .Ontheother hand ,private storage con­
tracts were concluded foramonthly average of17million hi,ahigher avera *-
gethan for theprevious marketing year .
Theconsiderable amount ofintervention aidgranted in1974/75and1975/76
hasobviously ledtoasignificant increase inEAGGP expenditure .
Thef.igures forEAGGF expenditure ,both incurred andcommitted ,aregiven
inTable 11.

9.
3»Trade
Bypreparing tables relating tointra -andexrtrar-Community Jrade ,with all
thedata referring tothewine-growing year ,andnotthecalendar year ,itis
possible toexamine themain trends which have emerged since theorganizat­
ion ofthemarket inthis sector .Themost striking feature istheclear
preponderance ofintrar-Community trade inthetotal .In1969/7°this was
31.1$andincreased to81.4%in1974/75(seeTable 14).Theimpressive de­
velopment ofintra /-Community trade istobeattributed firstly toItaly ,which
hasconsiderably increased itsexports totheother Member States (Table 13)»
inparticular toFrance .Theparallel decline inimports from non-member
countries wasfelt inparticular byAlgeria .Except in1972/73and1973/74?
when the B'ffects ofthevery poor harvest of1972 were felt ,Algerian wine
hasbeen replaced onCommunity markets ,especially theFrench market ,by
Italian wine (Table 16).Exports from other non-member countries have been
less affected andinsome oases they have remained atthe1968/69levels
forexample ,Spain andPortugal )andinother cases have actually increased
(Yugoslavia ).There hasbeen aconsiderable andprogressive drop inimports
from Greece .
a)Intrar-Community trade
Thetotal volume ofintrar-Community trade (Tables 12and13)increased
considerably in1974/75compared with theprevious year .Italy wasthe
country mainly responsible forthisj thaving almost doubled itsexports .
This wine wassent mostly toFrance (increase of130%)andGermany (in­
crease of51i°)% "butinfact Italy improved itsposition onthemarkets of
alltheMember States .Thelevel ofFrench export toother Member States ,
except toItaly where there hasbeen adrop ;increased considerably .It
should bepointed outthat thepercentage ofFrench exports inintra -
Community trade hasfallen lately (from 36.4%to26.4$ofthetotal )
unlike French imports ,which have increased from 30.8%to45*1 "1°°f "the
total .This wasdespite thefact that there were sufficient quantities of
French wine available ontheFrench market .Itisdueboth toconsidera­
tions ofquality ,with theneed forcoupage ftffwines with alowalcoholio
content ,andtothecompetitiveness ofItalian wines with price levels
generally lower than those oftheFrench wines ,asaresult also ofthe
monetary situation during themarketing year .
•/.

10.
b)Importsfromnon-mem "bercountries
Importsroseappreciably in1972/73and1973/74duetopricesintheCommunity
beinghigherthanthereference priceasaresultofthepoorharvestin1972
buttheyhavenowrevertedto1970/71levelsandarefarbelowthequantities
importedintheyearsbeforetheorganization ofthemarket(Table15).In
1974/75»importsfromAlgeria,MoroccoandTunisiadeclinedsharplycompared
withthetwoprevious years.Thesameapplies,althoughlessso,toimports
fromPortugal ,SpainandGreece.OntheotherhandimportsfromHungaryand
SouthAfricawentup.(Frenchimportsdeclinedthemost,by60$;importsby
alltheotherMemberStatesdeclined moderately ,withtheexception ofGermany
wheretheyincreased byabout30%),
c)Exportstonon-^nember countries
Tables17and17acontaininformation onMemberStatesexportstothemain
importing non-member countries .
Exports onthewholechangedveryslightly inthetwoyearsinquestion ;the
totalof3974832hiin1973increased to4040295klin1974,a1.6^
increase.Italianexportsroseby10.7%andthoseoftheUnitedKingdomby
20.2$,whileFrenchandGermanexportsdipped(-3$and-5f°)»whilethose
oftheNetherlands felltoalmostnothing (from32617hito317hi).
Amongimporting non-member countries ,Switzerland (-3f°)andtheUnitedStates
(-19i°)tooklessbutremainedbyfartheCommunity'smaincustomers.In1974
thesetwocountries accounted for26.5$and24$respectively ofCommunity
exports.ImportsbyCanadaandSweden,whicharethenextlargestimporters ,
stoodat5*9%and5Therewasaninteresting increase ,although modest
inabsolute terms,inexportstoAustria,theGermanDemocratic Republic and
SouthAfrica.
./.

Thefigures show that exports from theFederal Republio ofGermany andthe
United Kingdom arelargely taken "bytheUnited States ,whereas exports from
Franoe andItaly axemore uniformly distributed among different recipients .
––– + •
Attheendofthis chapter itseems appropriate torevert tothepoint
made atthebeginning ofthereport onthediscrepancy "between theestimated
area under vines andactual area *Inview ofthevital importance forthepur­
poses ofthis report ofaccurate data onthearea under vines ,itwould seem
"better nottouse estimated figures asatpresent "butactual figures .Thereport
could "be "based not somuch onMember States' estimates calculated oninformar -
tions reoeived from those concerned regarding planting ,replanting orgrubbing ,
inaccordance with Article 17(l )ofRegulation (EEC)NO8l6/70,"but rather onthe
results oftheupdating ofviticultural land register provided for "byCommission
Regulation No26/64.This would have thedrawback ofeliminating theforecast
aspect ofthereport ,asreference would bemade tooperations already carried
out.But -this would seem tobemerely aformal objection asthe effects onpro­
duction (arleast asregards planting andreplanting )arenotimmediate .Regai *-
ding grubbing ,asthis isperformed asarule immediately after theharvest ,a
fairly early date could befixed forthecommunication ofinformation ,ascompar -
redwith planting andreplanting .Such amodification would have theadvantage
ofproviding asound basis fordrawing reliable conclusions .

12
CHAPTER TOO
1.Theexamination oftheyeaj>-by-yeardevelopment oftheareasplantedwith
vinesshouldnotmakeuslosesightoftheunderlying trendsofproduction
andtherelationship "betweentheseandpresentandforeseeable consumption .
Inthelightoftheintroductory chapterandmoreespecially theCouncil's
undertaking (Article5(l)ofRegulation (EEC)NOII62/76ofYJMay1976)to
adopt,"by1October1978»themeasuresnecessary toensurethatwine–growing
potential isadaptedtomarketrequirements ,itwouldappearappropriate to
carryout,inadditiontothedetailed examination ofthedatafortheyear,
ageneralstudyofproduction andconsumption trends.
2.Itishardlynecessary torecallthatproduction develops onthe"basisoftwo
structural factors,theareaplantedwithvinesandthenormalyield,towhich
isaddedashorte3>-term factor,namelytheyieldinanyparticular year.The
production foreachyearisdetermined "bytheproduction potential (areaplan­
tedwithvinestimesnormalyield)andthe"behaviour oftheplants,which
depends ontheweather# Theverynatureofthislastfactorprecludes the
makingofprojections forfutureyearsonthe"basisofpastrecords,"butit
ispossible tomakeprojections ,evenifonlyapproximate ,forthefirsttwo
Withregardtotheassessment ofthefuturedevelopment of-production ,the
presentlackofsuitable instruments forthecorrectevaluation ofproduction
trendsshouldbepointedout.Thisislikelytomakeitextremely difficult ,
ifnotimpossible ,toadoptacoherent long-term policywhichisnotexposed
tochangesofdirection whenever oneyearnsoutputisabnormally highorlow.
Aninstrument formedium-and long-term economicforecasting isnowessential .
Inthisrespect,itshouldbepossibletoprofitfromthetotalrestructuring
oftheviticultural landregister,sbheduled for1979»inordertomakethe
necessary amendments totfcterelevant rulestoenabletheregister tobeup­
datedmoreefficiently andmoreregularly ;itshouldalsobepossible to
arrangeforaseriesofstatistical surveysinthemainwine–growingregions
inordertoobtainpreciseinformation onnormalyieldsandtheirdevelopment
trends.Thesesurveysshouldtakeintoaccountthedevelopments ofagricul–'
turaltechniques ,thegeneticimprovement ofvarieties ,theprogress madein
planthealthprotection ,thechoiceoftypesoflandtobeusedforgrowing
vines,etc.Bymeansofacombination ofthedataontheareasplantedwith
vinessupplied byamoreflexible andconstantly updatedregister andthe
dataonthedevelopment ofyields,itwillbepossibletodetermine witha
sufficient degreeofreliability themedium-andlon^-term development ofthe
wine–growingpotential andtherefore offoreeseable normalproduction .factors •
~~~ "

13.
Asshovm inTable 4"the -total area planted with vines forwine isincreasing
very slightly intheCommunity andreached 2555930hain1974/75.Therela­
tive stagnation ofthetotal area could give rise tooptimism when compared
with thestability ofnormal consumption ,"butthe second factor inthewine-
growing potentialj namely thenormal yield ,isless reassuring ,firstly "be­
cause thenormal yield ,asshown inTable 8,irrespective oftheannual variar -
tions duetotheweather ,isontheincrease andsecondly because itvaries
considerably from oneproducer country toanother .Theaverage yield forthe
five wine–growing years from 1970/71to1974/75was108.1hl/hainGermany ,
59.4 hl/hainFrance ,65*3 hl/hainItaly and147«5 hl/hainLuxembourg .Such
considerable differences areexplained bythelowyield imposed inFrance and
partly also inItaly ,upon areas given over toquality wines p.s.r .andalso
bytherelative delay intheapplication ofthemost modern agricultural teoh -
niques incertain regions ofFrance andparticularly incertains regions of
Italy andthetraditional cultivation ofvines inthose countries onhilly
land which tends tobeinfertile andunproductive .
Atpresent ,however ,newplantings andreplantings areeffected almost every­
where with aview torationalization asregards thepreparation ofsoil and
thechoice ofreproductive material ,andthere isanever-increasing tenden­
cytoplant vines onmore fertile land which permits higher yields ;further­
more there isaspread inmodern know-how concerning fertilizers ,irrigation
andplant health ,andthis will inevitably bring yields closer tothemaximum
levels which aretheoretically possible .Itisalso necessary totake into
account awidespread phenomenon which hasbeen observed for several years in
Southern Italy andwhich undoubtedly has aconsiderable effect upon the
raising ofaverage yields .This isthegradual disoontinuation oftheproduc­
tion ofwines with avery high alcoholic strength forthepurpose ofcoupage .
This hasalways reduced yields tovery lowlevels .Thetransition ,currently
taking place ,totheproduction ofwines with anaverage orlowalcoholic
strength fordirect consumption permits theuseofless arid ,more fertile 1
land andtheuseoflarger-scale cultivation methods ,which result inspecta­
cular increases intheunit yields ofreplanted andnewly planted vineyards .
Theconsequence isthat inregions where yields arenormally lower ,they are
tending tobelevelled up.Itispossible that theaverage yield throughout
theCommunity within afewyears maybethesame asthose atpresent found
only incertain wine–growing regions ,andthis would mean ,ifthearea under
vines remained stable ,that supply would bemuoh higher than thepresent le­
vel ofconsumption *

4.Theproblems which this apparently irreversible trend islikely topresent
must bedealt with bymeans ofageneral discipline inthe sector andmore
especially ontheplanting ofvines .Since forobvious reasons itisnecessar -
rytoreject apolicy ofnon-intervention which would give free competition
full play inamarket system andwould thereby enable long-term equilibrium
tobeestablished ,thesolution lies inguiding production soastotake into
account ,aslaid down inArticle 5OFCouncil Regulation (EEC)NOII62/76,
thesuitability forwine production ofthevarious regions oftheCommunity
and the existence ineach ofthese regions ofviable alternatives interms of
agricultural orops .This means that analternative must befound totheban on
newplantings ,anextremely rigid measure which isjustified isanemergency
butwhich inthecontext ofanormal market economy seems irrational and ii>-
sufficient tosolve theproblem ofproduction which ,inview oftheabove -
mentioned trends ofaverage yields ,shows atendency towards structural sur­
pluses .Italso involves theidentification ofparameters for thedefinition
of"suitability forwine production "taking into account thetechnical ,econo –and socio -
mic/structural problems ofthevarious wine–growing regions .Forthis purpose
itisnecessary toconsider thevery marked difference between unit production
costs (expressed in°/hl)incertain hill regions traditionally given over to
vines andthose onfertile lowland (seeFADN data)*Thelack ofa"discipline
governing planting "will have theeffect ,asithasdone hitherto ,ofcreating
acrisis forvineyards with high production costs whenever there isanincrear -
seinBupply asaresult ofsetting upvinyeards inareas which permit consi­
derably lower production costs .Since thevine ,byitsvery nature ,cannot
beabandoned suddenly even iftisproves unprofitable ,there will over along
period besuperimposition ofthenewproduction upon theold ,resulting ina
state ofcrisis which will become endemic andwill endonly when allthe trar-
ditional high-cost wine–growing areas have finally disappeared .Such adeve­
lopment appears tobeperfectly inline with thelogic ofmodern economics
and ofproductivity ,requiring cultivation totake place where thecosts are
lowest ,but itclashes with therequirements forhigh quality andtheabsolute
need toseek atCommunity level ,thebest possible useofresources ,which in
agriculture means the soil andavailable human resources .For agriculture as
awhole ,itisnotnecessarily helpful iftheplanting ofnewvineyards is
./•
EECFarm Accountancy Data Network
Documents :COM(75)335 final -COM (75)685 final -COM(76)432 final

15.
oriented towards land where thecost per °/hlisless .Thecalculations should
notbemade onthebasis ofindividual hectares ofvineyard ,"butonthetotal
acreage which canbecultivated ,andagriculturally itmaybeadvisable to
usevineyards land which would otherwise give very much lower yields ,andto
use notforvines butforother crops ,even though slightly less profitable
than thevine ,theland onwhich such alternative crops canbegrown .
Theargument maybeexpressed inthefollowing terms .Ifavineyard ona
hillside oronarid lowland yields 100andonbetter ground yields 150 »in
order todetermine the most appropriate solution for theagricultural econo­
myasawhole ,itisnecessary tocompare these yields with thepossible
yields from alternative crops .Ifthese are ,for example ,50forhill culti­
vation and130for thebetter ground ,themaximum additional yield which can
beobtained from thevine isabout 50in"thefirst case andonly 20inthe
second .Inthis case itisobvious that itwould beadvi sable ,foragriculture
asawhole ,toprevent thevineyard from being moved from thehillside tothe
better ground ;moreover ,this choice would beconfirmed bytheadvisability
ofkeeping thevine inareas where theunit yields arenecessarily limited and
therefore less worrying from thepoint ofview ofmarket equilibrium .There
arealso environmental arguments infavour ofthis choice since ,iftheyield
insome hill regions fell below certain limits ,this could accentuate their
depopulation ,with serious repercussions ontheenvironment .
However ,inpractice theproblem isundoubtedly less straightforward than in
the example quoted .Inaddition there areconsiderations ofasocial nature ,
andtheequilibrium between various agricultural production sectors andalso
between different regions .Vine–growing absorbs ,particularly under thetra­
ditional conditions ,alarge vdlume oflabour ,over 60-70 man-days perhecta­
re ;incertain .;regions where wine–growing isimportant andwhere there isa
surplus offarm labour ,thereplacement ofvines byother crops which require
less work could have very serious consequences onemployment .Asregard the
balance between thevarious crops itisobvious that anydecline inthearea
under vines ,unless theland thus released isnolonger cultivated ,entails
anincrease inthesupply ofother agricultural products ,andthis would re­
quire thecorrect identification ofthose sectors whose expansion would be
favourable oratleast notdangerous tomarket equilibrium .These considerar -
tions should obviously beseen inthecontext ofthesearch forasufficiently

16
andconstantly high quality ,which could result inaneed tostrengthen the
requirements laid down "bytheregulations inorder toprevent thetendency so­
metimes recorded forproduction tofall tominimum standaids from resulting in
anoverall decline inquality ,with negative effects onconsumption ,andina
parallel increase inquantity .
Inthecontext ofa"discipline "forthewine sector ,themeasures required to
ensure theadaptation ofwine–growing potential tomarket requirements must
therefore take into account :
(a)the "basic requirement forproduce with ahigh quality level ,with theleast
possible useofcorrective practices ,inorder tosafeguard wine-|s charac­
teristics asanatural product .
(b)theadvisability ,foragriculture asawhole ,ofadopting apolicy forgrub­
bing ,planting andreplanting which will place wine–growing inareas in
which thevine gives themaximum yield advantage over other possible crops .
(c)theneed toavoid creating oraggravating problems ofsurplus farm labour
insome regions byreplacing vines bycrops which take less labour .
(d)theneed tocoordinate vineyard investment policy with that inother sec­
tors ,sothat anyuseofland atpresent under vines forother crops does
not create disturbances onthe markets concerned .
These measures should beaimed atachieving equilibrium inparticular bymeans
ofplanned siting ofviner-growing ,including :
(a)theexclusion ofvines from zones where quality is(clearly )inadequate .
(b)theencouragement ofthesiting ofplantings inhill regions orarid low­
lands which aretraditionally given over tovines andhave alowproduction ,
even ifproduction costs axerelatively high ,particularly inregions where
thesurplus offarm labour would beaccentuated byconversion tocrops which
take asmall amount oflabour .

17.
(c)thepenalization ofplantings onfertile ,non-arid ,lowland where output could
reach very high levels ,even ifthecosts arelower ,inparticular inregions
where acurrent orforeseeable shortage offarm labour makes an"intensive "
crop such asthevine unadvisable ,andinregions where other crops could
produce good results .Thetwolatter measures should "beundertaken concomitant *
lyandtoasufficient extent toprevent thesearch forthelowest produc­
tion costs from encouraging the siting ofnew investments inareas which
are "convenient "but notsuited totherequirements regarding quantity and
quality .
Tocomplete thepicture ,thefollowing should also beundertaken :
(d)intensification ofthepolicy fortheselection ofvarieties inorder to
raise quality .
(e)theencouragement ofaproduction andmarketing policy which will personalize
wine production andwhich canbeadapted ,where conditions permit ,topossi­
bledemand fornewvine products (juices ,eto.)•
(f)theintensification ofcooperation between theMember States ,fraud depart­
ments ,andpossibly setting upaCommunity body forcoordination inthis
sphere .
Other measures which could ,also beproposed toencourage greater use ofwine
production are :
ι
1.theintroduction ofasystem tofacilitate theuse ofthegrape insectors
other than thetraditional ones .Itwould bepossible ,forexample ,togrant
aidformust covered bycontracts with grape juice producers .
2.theauthorization oftheuseof"grape sugar "along with that ofconcentrated
must andsucrose .Intheinitial stage itwould bepossible nottogrant aid ,
asthis could result intheuse of"grape sugar "asasubstitute forconcen –
/•

18.
trated must ;inorder "toreplace sucrose ,however ,itisnecessary togrant
direct orindirect aid ,ortopenalize sucrose .This point ,which hasconsi­
derable economic andpolitical implications ,should obviously "beexamined in
detail from allaspects before aproposal isputforward .
+
Theformulation ofastructured discipline tobeapplied toamultiplicity of
situations must surely commit the Commission and theproducer Member States to
close cooperation inorder toinitiate andconduct thenecessary advance inves­
tigation work ,andcommit allthose concerned with thesuocess oftheCommunity
undertaking inthewine sector toconstructive participation .

Table1tNewplantings ,replantingsandgrubbings ofwinegrapesplannedforthe1975/76
wine-growing yearcompared withforecasts forprevious wine-growing years
Changes
jExistingareaundervinesÏ
I
plantings IReplantinsa
I
iha ;haGrubbings
haForecast aotual
inproduotion
h&"notyetinI
production
j
Iha i
' Ihaas%ofthe
existing area
inthe
previous year
jhaas%
Germany
1972/73
;1973/74
11974/75
1975/76
177.551 I
:80.622 |
83.028 i1
|16.123
!15.381
i15.653I
776
2.367
672
5854.510
2.583
3.843
4.U4I
2.583
3.815
i4.156
II
+2.367
+700
+543!
;+2.5
+0,7
i+°,6+2.329
+2.678+2,5
+2,8
France
1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76| !
1.185.000 :
1.196.000 !
1.194.000 ji I
81.000 I
87.000 1
[93.000 I|11.900 !
13.490 :
10.428 I
1.651 i1 i !
!19.370 !
18.545 127.620
26.308 31.123
24.128 I30.079i !
I :
+4.415!+0,3
+5.613 i+0,4-4.300 j-0,3+17.000
+4.000+1»3
+0,3
iItaly
1972/73 I
;1973/74 i
1974/75 !
|1975/76 !!
I.O83.OOO '61.000 !
1.091.000 65.000 I
1.101.000 :68.000 I!5.660
6.206
10.808
2.429, '
;17.731 i
17.257 i16.827
16.829 !19.471
16.290 l9.059+6*636 !+0,6
I+8*166 j+0,7
+9.660|+0,8+12.000
+13.000+1,0
+1,1
ILuxembourg i
I1972/73 1.102 !
1973/74 I1.062
I1974/75 !1.057
i1975/76 !
1– !124
166
185I
8•!
10
15
2041
36
39
2241
45
24
_.__. J+5
+9
+18
[+0,4
+0,7
+1,4+2
+14+0,2
+1,1
EEC :
'1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76
•^-■–!■!
2.346.658 !
2.368.689
2.379.0911
;158.247
167.549
176.839
I18.344 41.652
22.073 ι38.421
21.923 Ι47.019
4.685 44.554i
i
i
47.071 j
54.454
43.318 |
1■■■■-
|
I
+13.423
+14.488
•+5.921+0,5
+0,6
+0,2+31.333
+19.692+1,3
+0,8
*Including Cognacreplanting 2025ha-grubbings 1210ha
Sources :Eurostat
Commission oftheECDGforAgriculture onthebasisofdataprovided bytheMemberStates.

Table2:Preakdown ofnewplantings andreplantings ofwinegrapesaccordingtowhetherthey
producequalitywinesp^s.r*,tablewinesorwinesintended fordistillation
11" "I-"..–– I |
tI
Newplantings' ""'1■'-Ί
Replantings Grubbins Changes (ha)1
Germany
1
a)Tablewine
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76
|b)Qualitywinep,-s,r«
1973/74 2.367 2-583 2.583 +2.367
1974/75 672 3-843 3.815 +700
[1975/76 5854.114 4.156 +543
France
a)Tablewine
1973/74 3.300 10.495 17.025 -3.230
1974/75 340 15.078 20.;161 -4.743
1975/76 13.921 19.174 -5.2S3
Ib)Qualitywinep.s.r*I
1973/74 8.690 5.950 8.815 +5.825
1974/75 4.318 10.225 8.982 +5.561
1975/76 1.651 8.997 8.880 +1.768
c)Cognac,etc. ]
1973/74 1.500 2.100 1.780 +1.820
1974/75 5.770 1.005 1.980 +4.795
1975/76 1.210 2.025 -815
Italyr ]
I
a.)Tablewine
1973/74 2.734 9.986 12.162 +558
1974/75 7.514 12.146 16.834 +2.826
1975/76 .760 8.379 6.157 +2.982
b)Qualitywine p«s«r »
1973/74 3.472 7.271 4.665 +6.078
1974/75 3.294 4.683 2.637 +5.340
1975/76 ,I1.669 Ll9U 2.902 +6.678 I
LuxembourgI
I
a)Tablewine
1973/74 2 2 :+4
1974/75 4 +4
1975/76 1 3 7 3
b)Qualitywinep«s.r«1
1973/74 8 34 41 + 1
1974/75 15 35 45 +)
I1975/761919 I17 +21
EEC
a)Tablewine
1973/74 6.036 20.483 29.187 I-2.668
1974/75 7.854 I27.228 36.995 !-1.913
1975/76 761 22.303 25.338 -2.27'"
*b)Quality wine p*8.r *
!1973/74 14.537 15.838 16.104 +14.271
i1974/75 8.299 18.786 15.479 +11.606
1975/76!3.924
I21.041 15.955 +9.010
Io)Cognac,etc. i
1973/74 1.500 2.100 !1.780 +1.820
!1974/75 15.700 1.005 !1.980 +4.795
1975/76
i1.210 2.025 815
Source :Commission oftheECDGforAgriculture onthebasis ofdata provided bythe
Member States *

Table3*Estimated kplanfornewplantings ,replantings andgrubbings forthe1975/76
winegrowingyearsetoutaccording toregioninhectares
Newplantings Replantings| – r
IGrubbinga I
I 1Changes
TablewineQuality
winep.a
PuSiTtTablewineQuality
wine
PiBtr.Tablewin*Quality .wine j^lewlne
P.s.r.!Quality
wine
D.s.r.Cermany
Rheinhessen -Pfalz 44 !
ι2.131i
2.175 l
Koblenz 5 284 289 ;
Trier 9
I■427 436
Stuttgart 90I I
375 325 +140
Karlsruhe 18 144 144 +18
Freiburg 312 I> 383 383 i +312
Tubingen 3!7 +3
Darmstadt 10I_ !
: i182 187 +5
Unterfranken 93i-!179 209 ;I
+63
Mittelfranken i i i!~ +i
Saarland i i +2
Nordrhein Westf«
Total 586 !!" Ij4.1144.156 +544
France
Centrei
I
90 jI
i
I180I
I300 650 400-470-10
PaysdelaLoire 44!70 330 930 870-860-496
P«itou-Charente 42I40 j 210 70-170-28
Aquitaine 2221.960 2.770 2.650 3.250-690-258
Midi-Pyrénées 301.550 902.940 40-1390 +80
Champagne 14 290 380Im-76
Alsace 147 220 20 315-20+52
Franche Comté 19
i45 50-45I-16I
Bourgogne 400 120 290 180 430-60+-260
Auvergne 10 40 120 30-110 +10
Rhones-Alpes 280 540 330 700 580-160 +30
Langedoc 1707.300 2.800 7.800 1.140-500 +1830
Provence-C .Azur 1812.050 1.400 2.800 1.200-750 +38I
Corse 10 100 110 120 110-20 +10
2|1
L12 9 15-7 3
Total 1.651 13.921 8.99719.174 8.880-5252 ♦1.766
*Cognao s1200hareplanted and2025hagrubbed
(*)Cognac:10hareplanted and5hagrubbed

Italy
Piemonte
Vald'Aosta
Lombardia
Trentino À.Àdige
veneto
FriuliVeGiulia
Ligwia
EmilioRomagna
Toscana
Umbria
Marche
Lazio
Âbbruzzo
Molise
Campania
Puglia
Basilicate
Calabria
Sicilia
Sardegna
Totalhr-*pj.an *mgs Replantings Grubbinge Changes
Tablewine[Quality
wine
LI
rablewinej
u I'Quality I
1wine i
T>-8.r.^blewinej
iQuality
wine^DlewineQuality
wine
30t
132 92657 !I I
l *
406ι457 284 +332
3;
lι I+3
47 22 64 95j70!53 +41+64
19 291 I6 6+310
200 I346 2.250 1.625 !11.349 1.195 +1101 +776
395 1!5 11 I41 6 33+100
10I
5 !40 10 ;59I6 9+9
34 35 239 140 108 ι2+165+173
9:85 423 I159 93 65+345
5 23 15 22 I24 4+45
!65860 240; 175 +860
10 12 361.069 ]]220.174 +1081
5 30 24 495 110 15 81+510
- 96 I! 1|+
181
3° j5 451 I202 57! I
~ I+424 +207
108 867 2.295 1.004 2.400 I1.075 +3+796
35 667
I+35I+667
1
14 4 104 179 7I
I +111+183
75 59 730 161 106 1I„
1699 +220
!180
I|1.750
I
I : ,I78° :
I
II
i
I
I+11S0
7601.669
i!8.379|
J7.9H
I6.157 2.902 +2982j+6678
I
I
Source 1Commission oftheECDGforAgriculture onthebasisofdataprovided bythe
MemberStates.

Table4:Development oftheareaunderwine-grape vinesintheCommunity sinceI968/69
inHa
1968/69 1969/70 1970/71 1971/72 1972/73i373/7U1974/7?.j
Germany
total
inproduction
notyetinproduc­
tion84.442
70.214
14.228
I85.422
71.336
14.08688.587
73.700
14.83792.0?4
7S5H
i6.r:r93.C74
77.5s
16.12305.0?3
30.«2
15.38198.fol
83.028
1f.6r3
Belgium
total
inproduction
notyetinprodup-±jon..4
4
04
4
05
c
06
5
1Γ
C
0*7
5
27
6
1
France
total
inproduction
notyetinproduc–tion1.314.000
1.272.TO
82.0001.28'*.000
i.20<.n?o
r-.ooo1.281.000
1.209.00?
72.0001.257.000
1.191/"?
74.COO1.266.000
Ι.Ιβ'.ΟΤ
81.ΓΟΟ1.253.000
1.196.000
87.00*31.287.000
i.'ci.noo
2?.CC0
Italy(1)(2)
total
inproduction
notyetinproduc-i1/3C.W
1.4'ATO
33.0C01.441.000
1.403.000
35.0C01.110.000
995.CC0
11e.00?1.129.000
1.C7C.CC0
53.COO1.144.000
1.083.000
61.CX1.1=6.030
1.091.MO
55.0001.169.000
1.101.000
58.CC0
1 .
Luxembourg
total
inproduction
notyetinproduc-
- -fcinn1.227
1.164
531.223
1.153
701.204
1.135
681.218
1.133
851.225
1.132
12;1.223
0)2
1561.24?
1.057
185
Netherlands
total
inproduction
notyetinprodup-0
3
03
*υ
oo
0
00
0
00
r\
00
0
00
0
0
EUR6(1)(2)
total
inproduction
notyetinprodu£~n2.929.573
2.800.382
123.2912.807.649 '
2.683.433
124.1562.483.795
2.278.841
201.9*52.480.263
2.33D.5 C2
145.6352.504.iOc
2.34Ç.5'8
158.2472/36.238
2.3f-8.6ê9
167/4;2.ft,5.93C
2.173.091
176.839
UnitedKingdom
total
inproduction
notyetinprodyc-^I0
0
00
0
00
0
00
0
0
Ireland
total
inproduction
notyetinproductio 10
0
00
0
00
0
00
0π
00
0
0
Denmark
total
inproduction
notyetinproduct o10
0
00
0
0C
0
00
0
<}0
0
00
0
(1
EUR9(2)
total
inproduction
notyetinproduc-3)2.807.649
3)2.683.493
3)124.1560)2.480.796
3)2.278.841
b)201.955il2.489.288
2.339.652
149.6352.504.905
2.34ç.5r3
158.2472/35.238
2,358.-83
167/492.5e5.930
2.379.091
175.839
ree:Eurostat
^'Italy:untilthe1969/70winegrowingyear,takingintoaccounttheconversion coeffi-
/»cientof42601forvinesinmixedcultivation
Italy:changein"basisfromthe1970/71wine-growing yearfollowingtheestablishment
oftheItalianviticultural landregister
*'ExceptfortheUnitedKingdomforwhichthisitemisprobablynegligible

Table 4a
Area under vines intheUnited Kingdom
VarietiesTotal area under vines
Acres ha
Muller-Thurgau 270 109
ISuyve Villard 5-276 47 19
IReichensteiner 28 11
IPinot Noir 21 9
IOther varieties 109 44
Nurseries and stocks 110
Total 485 196
a)Including areas used asnurseries .
Source :Ministry ofAgriculture ,Fisheries andFood .LondonTime ofplanting
(November /April )Total area under vines
Acres ha
1970-71orearlier 53 21
1971-72 109 44
1972-73 136 55
1973-74 71 29
1975-75 82 33
unknown a) 34 14
. . ι
Total 485 196

'r®I3*air!::'"n£s<pubt)ingsofopei*-airtable-grape vinesplannedfor"the1975/76wine-growingyearandareaundervanesin74/75and73/74
Existingareaundervines(ha)|Plantings Replantings GruDbings Changes I
InproductionNotyetin
productionha ha ha ha
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76(estimated )40.053
39.672
:1.372
1.417
:820
795840
770-20
+25
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76(estimated )64.886
65.376
t5.114
5.297
:90
7601.230
8.3791
j
1.212
6.157+108
+2982
1973/74
1974/75
1975/76(estimated )104.939
105.048
:6.486
6.714 90
7602.050
9.1742.052
6.927+88
+3007
Sources :Eurostat
omroissionoftheECDGforAgriculture onthe"basisofdataprovidedbytheMemberStates.

Table6:Effectofnewplantings ,replantings andgrubbings plannedin1975/76cnfutureproduction
Member State
Type ofwineI
Estimated produc­
tionin1975/76
(D(2)
hlFutureannualproduction expected Foreseeable de­
creaseinannual
production asa
resultofgrub-
bingsin1975/76
(1)(3)
hlForeseeable changeinannualproduc­
tion
Newplantings
1975/76(3)
hlReplantings
(1)(3)
hlhl(3)in%ofproduc­
tionin1975/76
Germarvy
-Tabiewine
-Qualitywinep.s.r.358.000
18.314.000 49.059 387.459I
I343.549 +92.969 +1,1
France
-Tablewine
-Qualitywinep.s.r.
-Otherwines39.6OO.OOO
12.000.000 I
13.200.00032.000975.000
455.000
89.900842.000
340.000
106.000+133.000
+197.000
-16.100+0,3
+1,6
-0,1
-Tablewine
-Qualitywinep.s.r.
-Otherwines58.600.000
6.800.000
2.800.000I
78.844
128.158668.751
613.390510.008
208.327+237.587
+533.221+0,4
+7,8
Luxembourg
-Tablewine
-Qualitywinep.s.r.77.000
80.000120
1.500360
1.500840
1.360360
+1.640-0,5
+2,1
BEC
-Tablewine
-Qualitywinep.s.r.
-Otherwines98.640.000 (4)
27.194.000
16.000.00078.964
260.7171.644.111
1.457.349
89.9001.352.848
893.236
106.000+370.227
+824.830
-16.100+0,4
+3,0
-0,1
(1)Sturce:wineestimate1975/76
(2)Including mustsfortheproduction ofgrapejuice
(3^Source:Commission oftheEC–DGforAgriculture ,onthebasisofdataprovidedbytheMemberStates
(4)Including Belgium

Table7:Development ofwineproduction intheCommunitysince1965/66(l)(in1000hl)
Γ"
MemberStates1965/661966/671967/681968/691969/701970/711971/721972/731973/741974/751975/76(estimated)
Total ofwhich
table
wine !quality |
winepsrotlier
wimes
PRGermany 5.2005.235 6.3OO6.2896.14610.110 6.3567.93310.751 6.964I
8.672 358 8.314 0
France66.707 61.166 61.07265.44549.83174.470 !61.81659.04982.98776.271 64.800 39.600 12.000 13.200
Italy 68.20664.70674.72565.32371.658 I68.87064.21260.17476.71676.867 68.200 58.6OO 6.8002.800
INetherlands 10 9 11 10 10 12 12(2)2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Belgium 3 4 513 10 10 10 5 54 4 4 0 0
Luxembourg 112 129 123 116 122 242 104 140 186138 157 77 80 0
EUR-6 140.238131.249142.236137.196127.777153.714132.510127.303170.645160.244 141.833 98.639 27.194
115.000
UnitedKingdc m 1(313)1 11
1I1 0 0
Irelandl0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Denmark 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
EUR–9 127.777
4)153.714
4)132.511 127.304170.646
I160.245 141.834 98.640 27.194 16.000 .
^°^uc^^onexclusivelyforwinemakingandnotincludingmustsfortheproductionofgrapejuice
Wineofgrapesonly(until1971/72.alsowineofotherfruit)(3)Estimate
(4)WithouttheUnitedKingdom,whereproductionistoberegardedaspracticallynil.
Source:Until1974/75:EUROSTAT
1975/76:CommissionoftheEC–DGforAgriculture ,wineestimate.

Table8:Development ofyieldsoftheareaplantedwithwinegrapesintheCommunitysince1964/65inhiperhaofwine-grape
vinesinproduction
MemberStates 19^/651965/661966/67 I1967/68
I1968/691969/701970/711971/721972/731973/74I1974/75
1PRGermany 104,7 75,5 75,7 90,7I
89,7 !86,3137,384,2 102.4 132,8 84,0
5Belgium : :
1• 1 : :I « »
2France 48,5 53,8 49,3 49,5 53,3 41,5 61.751,9 49,9 69,4 63,9
3Italy 42,5(1)I43,8(1)I42.^1)49,3(1)I43,8 51,269,5(2)60,355,9 70,6 70,1
6Luxembourg 141,6 97,0 111,4 106.3 100,5 105,8 213,0 91,8 127,0 175,1 130,6
4Netherlands : : : : χ : :
7EUR–6I46,6 49,0 46,2 50,4 49,2 47,8 !67,1(2);56,8 54,4 72,2 67,5
8UnitedKingdom : : 0 I0 0 0
9Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 !0
10 1Denmark 00 0 0I0 0
11EUR-9I47,867,12)56.8 54,4 72,2 67,5
Source :EUROSTAT
(1)Calculated accordingtothe"production intendedforwinemaking"
(2)Changeofbasisfromthe1970/71marketingyearfollowingtheestablishment oftheItalianviticultural landregister

Table 98Development ofinternal uses ofwine since I969/70 (in1000hi)
1969/701970/711971/721972/731973/741974/751975/76
J estimate
FRGermany
1
Total indigenous use .inclu .II.65 612.286 13.441 14.623 13-448 15.262 15.184
*direct human consumption 9.792 10.650 11.965 13.388 12.363 14.360 14.214
–processing 1.864 1.636 I1.476 1.235 I.O85 t902 970
■comprising distillation 1.646 I.5I2 1.366 I.II4 953 797 850
France
Total indigenous use ,inclu .61.92266.833 66.763 65.934 .73.797 79.743 67.800
–direct human consumption 54.582 54.820 55.211 155.834 V54.475 154.226 54.300
–processing 6.493 11.281 IO.763 9-371 I18.642 24.887 12.800
I"including distillation 6.213 11.021 10.488 9.08718.342 24.612 12.000
I*taly
ITotal indigenous uso,inclu .63.804 66.34657.515 57-013 56.164 67.350 60.500
–direct human consumption 59.547 59.596 55.305 55.099 52.279 57.373 57.080
–processing 3.082 5.750 1.750 1.474 3.450 9.527 3.000
Iaincluding distillation 2.582 5.300 1.400 1.124 3.100 9.127 1.000
INetherlands
Total indigenous use .inclu . 700 762 867I.I87 I.2I3 1.328 1.384
I–direct human consumption 690 752 853 1.175 1.200 1.314 1.370
–processing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
«including distillation 0 0 0 0 0 0I 0
1
IBelgium r
Total indigenous use ,inclu .1.167 1.288 1.286 I.4I7 ■1.343 I.5I4 1.550
–direct human consumption T.155 1.262 1.275 1.4011.329 1.500 1.405
I–processing 2 14 I 2 2 2132
I=including distillation0 12 0 0 0 0 0
Luxembourg1
!
Total indigenous use ,inclu .127 142 144 142 174 146 162
I–direct human consumption 125 139 142 139 171 144 1160
I–processing 0+ 0+ 0+ I I 0+ 0
■including distillation 0 0 0 0 0 0I 0
1

1969/701970/711971/721972/731973/741974/751975/76
EUR 6 j
Total indigenous use ,inclv .
–direct human consumption
–processing
eincluding distillation.139-376
125.891
II.441
10.441
I147.657
127.219
18.681
17.845
I :140.01 6
124.751
13.990
13.254140.316
127.036
12.083
11.325
I146.139
121.817
23-180
22.395
I165 -343
126.917
35.318
34.536146.580
128.529
16.902
13.850
United Kingdom
Total indigenous use tinclu
–direct human consumption
–processing
»including distillation
11.479
1.479
11.700
1.7002.142
2.142
0
02.837
2.837
0
02.257
2.257
0
0
I3.266
3.266
0
03.000
3.000
0
0
I
Ireland
Total indigenous use tinclu
–direct human consumption
–processing
=including distillation j45
45
0
j 052
52
0
051
51
0
065
65
0
067
67
0
069
69
0
070
70
0
0
Denraark
Total indigenous use fmcl \
–direct human consumption
–processing
«=including distillation240
240
0
0267
267
0
0295
295
0
0483
483
0
0469
469
0
0537
537
0
0457
457
0
0
EUR 9
Total indigenous usej incli
–direct human consumption
–processing
»including distillation^141 .140
127.655
2)11.441
2)10.441149.676
129.238
2)18.681
2)17.845142.504
127.239
13.990
13.254!143.701
130.421
12.083
H.325 1148.932
124.610
23-180
22.395169 .215
132.789
35.318
34.536150.107
132.056
16.902
13.850
Source :Prom I969/7O "to1974/75tEUROSTAT –Wine-growing year 1975/76 »Commission oftheEC-
EGforAgriculture –wine estimate .
(1)including "concentrated musts "
(2)without theUnited Kingdom forwhich this item isprobably negligible
N.B.iForthewine-growing years below ,thefigures for "total indigenous use"and "including
distillation "include exceptional distillations asfollows t
Wine-growingPrance Italy Germany EUR 6
1970/71 500 2.900 3.400
1971/72 3,000 500 3.500
1973/74 2.895 2.998 5.893
1974/75 14.261 6.000 16 20.277 I

Table 10 :EAGGF aidforprojects inthewine sec-tor compared with other sectors
PenodNumber ofprojects
financedAidgranted (u.a .)
wine
sectorTotal * Wine sector Total £
1964-1975 590 5-456 10,8 182.293.000 1.476.265.000 12,3
1973 57 637 9,0 24.142.000 170.000.000 14,2
1974 108 766 14,1 34.541.000 235.000.000 14,7
1975 86 692 12,4 36.150.000 212.000.000 17,1
Source :Commission oftheECDGforAgriculture

Taole 11iEAGGF (Guarantee Section )expenditure inthewinesector according totypeofexpenditure andyear
Community inmillion u.a .
Type ofexpenditureI Expenditure' Τ.-
Budget
1973 * 1974 1975 1976. ?
1977 ί*)Ί
690 refunds
| monetary amounts 0,6 0,1 0,3 4,0 2,0
691 Intervention measures
I
19,0 I41,3
1138,6 139,1 110,8
69IO private storage aid
I
rehousing ,transport aid -6,6 25,9 36,4 i 52,9 62.0
6911 Other intervention measures1
i i
(distillation ofwines )2,4 15,4 102,2 86,2 j 48,8
692 Other expenditureI
!
i
6920 compulsory distillation ofI
by-products2,6 0,6 0,2 8,0 11,2
TOTAL12,2 42,0 139,1 151,1 124,0
* 12months
Source :Commission oftheECDGforAgriculture
(i)excluding dual conversion rates

Table12:Intracommunity tradeinwineonthebasisofimportsduringthe1974/75marketing year
Heading No22.05Brussels Nomenclature :wineoffreshgrapes
!
i
ExportingImporting MemberStateEUR9
MemberStatePrance BLEU1
iNetherlandsFR
GermanyItalyUnited
KingdomIreland Denmark hl
Prance 924.929 4H.495 I.98I.I53 I43.55& 598.531 19.461 119.537 4.198.662 26.4
BLEU 3.203 73.945 I.2I2 156 1.628 5 121 80.270 0,5
JNetherlands 4.607 3.426 12.613 264.950 9 313 25.944 0.2
PRGermany 3.470 28.690 66.665 3.073 191.508 5.575 43.901 342.882 2,2
Italy 7.142.904 112.237 198.883 3.413.580 299.507 6.341 38.443II.211.895 70,6
IUnitedKingdom 276 61018.879 12 0 963 020.740 0,1
Ireland 0 0 0 0 0 633 0 6330,0
Denmark 108 2 152I !
! 2 0 78 3 3450,0
hl
EUR97.154.568 L069.894 770.019 5.408.572 146.811 1.096.835 32.357 202.315 15.881.371100,0
% 45,1 6,7 4,8 34,1 0,9 6,90,2 1,3 100,0
Source:EUROSTAT-print-outs
Reportsfromtheimporting MemberStates

EC–DGVI-IV-2Development ofintracominunity tradeinwine,onthe"basisofimports
accordingtocountries oforiginanddestination during
Table13 1968/69to1974/75
Headingn°22.05Brussels Nomenclature :wineoffreshgrapes
unitshl
["countryoforiginor1SUR6 i EUR9
destination 1969/701970/711571/721972/731973/741974/751970/711971/721972/731P73/74|
I1974/75
accoridng toorigin
3.970.596 4.19e.8544.198.662JPrance 2.241.161 2.213.7*1 2.466.170 3.280.047 4.044.03?3.308.413 3.461.133 3.026.341 5.065.799
Be1giurn-Luxembourg72.565 224.031 191.684 71.386 90.349 99.314 78.516 193.105 73.318 93.061 101.974 80.270
jNetherlands 423.214 388.338 369.742 104.758 39.753 29.611 20.672 370.604 106.487 42.387 33.297 25.944
FRGermany50.921 87.224 1C5.223 89.7)5 79.333 105.832 10"..899 217.110 225.025 230.082 333.701 342.882
Italy 1.656.574 3.025.993 6.995.043 10.484.565 11.192.298 e.660.'451C.8C7.604 7.0^7.755 10.580.532 11.368.008 6.950.942 11.211.895
UnitedKingdom '.248 7.554 17.763 19.501 20.740
Ireland 1.502 1.572 1.111 2.843 633
DenmarkI
I
I139 193 473 890 345
Community 4.444.535 5.940.337 10.127.862 14.030.471 15.445.70"10.203.915 14/29.823 10.871.804 14.965.277 16.875.684 11.639.012 15.881.371
(-:according todestination
IFrance 113.799 842.666 4.109.6456.500.189 6.383.4fir3.0=3.461 7.1c4.1o4 4.109.5816.ctl.335 6.369.517 3.05"».4947.1Γ4.568
Belgiura-Luxembourh 587.132 568.982 7u5.946876.699 980.434 992.078 1.0-9.292 705.098 877.450 980.848 992.221 1.059.894
Netherlands 283.320 375.017 373.171433.795 •79.898645.593 7e0.983 373.457434.399 592.299 662.770 770.019
FRGermany3.369.323 4.032.494 4.8W.1016.037.519 6.763.4625.138,228 5.408/r84.658.1036.037.528 6.763.481 5.138.2r-25.403/72
Italy 90.961 121.178 270.998 182.269 732.507374.555 146.811 271.066 182.309 733.418 374.5^5 146.811
UnitedKingdom 0eF.182831.311 1.239.747 1.235.6781/.335
Ireland21.941 25.198 35.233 36.374 32.357
Denmark6C.26676.747 145.141 14b.6C8 202.31«i
ICommunity 4.4445;^5.Ç'0.337 10.127.862 14.030.471 15.445.7*10.203.915 14.520.823 110.871.50414.905.277 16.879.684 11.639.012 15.851.371
Sources :Print–outsfromEUROSTA–Reportsfromtheimporting IfemherStates#

P.C-DGVI-D-2 Community
Table14: Development oflntrar-Comraunity tradeinwineascompared
withtotalimports
1968/69to1974/75
%
Importing MemberStateWVUV•
EUR6nj.11^V/J. – ■»:
EUR9
1968/691969/701970/711971/721972/731973/741974/751970/711971/721972/731973/741974/75
France 2.27,882.792.267.O50,085,2 82,792,267,050.0 85,2
Belgium-Luxembourg53,943,260,168,768,675,177,9 60,168,768,775,1 78,0
Netherlands 29,434,236,441,547,054,059,1 36,441,548,055,4 60,6
PRGermany 63,870,680,285,484,586,382,3 80,285,484,586.3 82.3
Italy 47,266,784,276,671,762,363,3 84,276,671,762,3 63,3
UnitedKingdom 34,239,541,740,5 41,3
IrelandI
i43,848,048,052,4 57,7
Denmark 25,627,231,832,6 45,5
EUR6
EUR935,231,176,184,172,867,281,4
70,078,368,362,175,6
Source:ECDGVI–1>-2onthe"basisofprint-outs fromEUROSTATandreportsfromtheimportin MemberStates.

EC-SGVI-D-2Community
Table15JDevelopment ofimportsofwinefromnon-member countries
byimporting MemberStateduring1968/69"to1974/75
Heading n°22.05Brussels Nomenclature :wineoffreshgrapes
unit:hl
EUR6EUR9
19:8/6915*9/70 1c70/7'i'071/721972/721973/74197V7Î )1570/71 1971/72.1572/711973/7'-
I1974/75
France Km727 9.95':.257 8C2.163 c*8.988 3.145.367 3.058.533 1.240.057 85,9.128 548.842ί»... ■..^
3.145.315J
3.C58.500i
■.231.673
Belgium-Luxemb ourgεΡ2\1748.825 468.885 Ό0.272 4^8.040 328.879 303.249 4C8.733 399.521 447.626 328.735 3S.R37
Netherlands 579.635 722.202 651.769 612.368 655.061 549.886 519.883 651.473 611.764 042.660 532,709 5Œ.852
FRGermany 1.907.717 1.583.520 1.152.320 1.032.026 1.240.718 817.655 1.166.3981.152.318 1.032.017 1.240.699 817.631 1.16U94
Italy 101.S10 60.548 50.926 55.721 289.769 226.809 85.109 50.658 5e.681 288.858 226.809 §5.109
UnitedKingdom 1.263.329 1.272.549 1.733.248 1.815.787 VJS.173
Ireland 28.150 27.318 38.150 33.090 ZUI2
Denmark 189.203 204.953 311.777 301.239 242.219
Outside EUR68.182.161 13.1*6.35?3.183.063 2.Ρ49.37Γ5.778.95 e'4.981.7623.314.606
Outside EUR9
4.663.192 4.152.645 7.848.333 7.114.501 5,W.659
Source:Print-outs fromEUROSTAT –Reportsfromtheimporting MemberStates.

,
fable16:Developmeiit ofimportsofwinefromnon–membercountries
bymaincountryoforigin,during1968/69to1974/75
Heading No22.05Brussels Nomenclature :wineoffreshgrapes
unit:hl
Countryof
originEUR6 EUR9
1968/6919cS/701570/711971/721972/731973/741974/751970/711971/721972/731973/741974/5
Outside-EUR68.192.151 11.166.3^2 3.183.053 2.649.375 5.771L955 *.981.752 3.314.60R
Outside-EUR9 4.663.192 4.1C2.645 7.848.333 7.114.501 5.120.6*9
Austria 104.135 151.217 157.532 159.443 •88.477 119.511 157.413 194.173 227.931 27MG2 171.482 173.1*
Portugal 355.105 340.433 325.231 332.815 393.P36 T4.272 313.057 594.558 5C0.548 770.102 691.125 52Î.26»
Spain 634.749 797.547 711.257 740.884 944.484 789.944 792.4;?1.465.971 1.515.7652.052.697 1.972.307 1.848.78?
Yugoslavia 144.435 149.658 1ς8.233 211.554 29e.28?219.657 320.836 194.353 V.0.499 342.879 297.7Γ7 395.174
Greece 778.555 1.124.911 8n8„999 683.7^8 6rS.184 335.364 302,100 812.009 686.211 653.304 341.890 307.Π72
IHungary 78.411 85.212 70.774 51.893 r-9.415 55.717 119.395 84.994 56.787 88.738 106.57fi1GC.S1
Romania88.120 65.306 58.696 55.625 58.090 52.498 65.748 50.934 57.225 c8.243 69.213 79.0W
Bulgaria 82.412 70.846 50.531 55.041 63.512 69.668 76.383 52.924 58.755 72.447 81.028 en/î
Morocco402.060 790.384 55.287 32.679 C(î0.320 625.229 278.728 59.448 40.429 572.290 .637.616 284.K6
Algeria 4.684.Γ1Ρ 8.695.345 523.2*1 186.948 1.70P.387 1.689.480 456.479 524.524 188.202 1.712.277 1.592.305 458.736
Tunisia591.950 724.646 168.531 91.912 74Π.599 C94.C9C373.814 159.2e392.232 741.001 594.857 374.Ï4
SouthAfrica9.184 7.442 2.510 1.970 2.5A7 2.697 1.992 65.533 75.S13 84.321 83.599 114.«0
Cyprus 10.343 6.813 370 173 921 3.514 1.39e,235.451 210.903 285.940 289.9M9 236.SI
Othercountries 136.923 132.£93 45.554 23.310 93,395 56.637 49.888 77.480 58.297 107.274 73.838 68.272
Notspecified 77.753 51.69° 45.367 21.340 11.3Jc10,789 3.8*9 45.357 21.346 11.458 73.838 3.S5
Source:Print–outsfromEUROSTAT–Reportsfromtheimporting MemberStates#

CE-DGVI-D-21 External tradeinwine
Table17 EffP?T.s. 1973
TariffheadingNo22.05-Wineoffreshgrapes;freshgrapemustswithfermentation arrested "bytheadditionof
alcohol(includingmistelles )
Outside-EUR9 Quantities inhectolitres
)ode
n° iDestination EUR9 EUR6Exporting MemberStates
France BLEUNether-
landsFR
GermanyItalyUnited
Kingdom Ireland Denmark
Outside-EUR9 3.974.032 3.900.654 1.817.90956032.617 363.6251.685.943 68.999 2!
I
5.177 I
30Sweden 141.277 140.019 105.649 1 1420.425 13.930 1.032 0226j
36Switzerland 1.105.665 1.105.130 494.216 31
I2I5.889 ]
1594.952 143 0 392 ι
38Austria 110.635 110.442 30.609 0 011.201 68.632I
123 j0 70,
58GermanDemocratic Rep. 57.172 57.158 48.599 0 0 08.559 0I
0i14;
390Republic ofSouthAfrica 3.723 3.436 2.657 19 0 376 384 287 0 0
400UnitedStates 1.153.562 1.110.858 493.262 159 28223.989 393.420 42.483I
2 219
404
VCanada 236.879 227.996 138.637 4 035.775 53.580 8.873I
0 10
458Guadeloupe 74.731 74.731 74.697 0 0 0 34 0 0 0
732Japan 90.114 89.553 64.670 0 0
I18.072 6.811 530 0 31riFreeports
i486.307 486.307 0 0 0 0486.307 0 0 0
Othercountries 514.767 495.024 364.913 34632.573
137.898 59.294 15.528 04.215
sECexternaltradeanalytical tables(NIKSXE)

CE-DGVI-D-2 External tradeinwine
EXPORTS 1974
Table17a
Tariffheading No22.05Wineoffreshgrapes ;freshgrapemustswithfermentation arrested "bytheadditionofalcohol
(includingmistelles )
Outside-EUR 9 Quantities inhectolitres
,ode
n°Destination EUR9EUR6Exporting MemberStates
France BLEUTether-!
landsFR
GermanyItalyUnited
KingdomIreland Densarfc
Outside-EUR9 4.040.295 3.949.642ι
|1.764.642, i
|974j317346.048 1.837.661 82.912 547.687
i
Sweden 224.505 222.131 180.230 0 025.550 16.351 2.027 0 347
I
!Switzerland 1.069.6171.069.098469.948 286 1814.159 584.687 268 0 251
Austria 140.469 140.343 50.421 10 01.563 88.349 86 0 40
GermanDemocratic Rep. 164.892 164.876148.112 0 0 016.764 1 0 15
Republic ofSouthAfrica 70.408 69.895 67.673 1 01.003 1.218 513 0 0
UnitedStates 971.214 918.235 286.476 186 23211.690 419.860 52.841 0138
Canada
t238/495230.612 126.085 7 3035.361 69.129 7.883 0 0
I
Guadeloupe 75.802 75.766 75.715 0 0 0 51 36 0 0
Japan 67.018 66.085 45.692 1 013.429 6.963 894 0I39
1
Freeports 565.123 565.123 0 0 0 0565.123 0 0 0
5JOthercountries 452.752 427.478 314.290 483 24643.293 69.166 18.363 546.857
Source:ECexternaltradeanalytical tábles (NIMEXE)

Table18;Development ofwineconsumption perheadperyearintheCommunity
EUR9 EUR6
1962/6.3 68
1963/64 69
1964/65 68
1965/66 69
1966/67 68
1967/68 68
I1968/69 68
1969/70 51 67
!1970/71 51 67
1971/72 50 65
1972/73 51 66
1973/74 48 63
1974/75 51 66
1975/762) 51 66
(l)Wineofgrapesonly(until1971/72
(2)Estimatedfigures
Source:1962/63-1974/75îEurostat
1975/76:CommissiPR
Germany France ItalyNether­
lands Belgium
13 121 108 3 8
12 125 107 3 8
15 118 109 3 9
16 118 109 3 8
15 116 109 4 10
15 112 I111 4 10
16 112 111 5 11
16 108 112 5 12
18 108 111!6 13
20 107 102I
6 13
22 108 101 1)9 14
20 104 95 9 14
23 103 103 10 15
23 102 102 10 14
alsowineofotherfruit)
oftheEG-DGforAgriculture ,wineestimate.Luxem-United ] ,
5bourg Kingdom Ireland Densnark
»
26j.
I
I
23
38
31
34
36
33
I1
I
37 31
2!5
41 3 2i5!
41 4 2 6
40 5 2 10
48 4 2 9
40 6 2 11
44 5 2 9

Tabel19:Production ofwineintheCommunityin1975/76and1976/77(l)
(in1000hl)
1976/77(estimate)
1975/76ofwhich I
I Memberstates(estimate)Total Table QualitywineOther I
Jwine p.s.r.I
.
JGermany 9.105 8.570 450 8.120 0
IPrance 66.273 75.500 46.950 15.200 13.350
IItaly 69.814 61.800 52.400 6.500 2.900
INetherlands 0 0 0 0 0
IBelgium 4 4 4 0 0
ILuxembourg157 128 55 73 0
IEUR6145-353 146.002 99.859 29-893 16.250
IUnitedKingdom 2 2 2 0 0
IIreland0. 0 0 0 0
jDenmark0 0 0 0 0
EUR9 145-355 146.004 99.861 29.893 16.250
(l)Production intendedonlyforvinification excluding amountsofmustsformakinggrapejuice.
Sources s1975/76îEUROSTAT
1976/77*Commission oftheEEC–DGforAgriculture –Forwardestimateofwineproduction
Sincethisreportwasdrafted,theprovisional estimateforthe1974/75wine-growing yearhasbeenprepared.
Thisestimatehasbeenpublished ,ashastheforwardestimateforthe197^/77wine-growing yearadoptedbythe
Commission . . 1
(OJN°C304,24.12.1976 )
Thistableamendsandsupplements Table7®

+able20:Internaluseofwinein1975/76and.1976/77
(in1000hl)
.[Ï975/76
Iestimate
4–1976/77
forw.est1975/76
estimaten
1976/77jforw.est
Germany
Totalhomeuse:ofwhioh
-directcons.tion byhumans
-processing-ofwhichdistillation15.661
14=653
1.008
896
68.333
54.318
13.575
13.21515.810
14.810
1.0-00
890SUR6
Totalhomeuse:ofwhich
-directcons*tion byhumans
–processing-ofwhichdistillation145.623
126.669
18.095
17.221, ..I
143.754
124.228
18.729
15.690
■1
France
Totalhomeuse:ofwhich
–directconSotion byhumans
-processing
–ofwhich,distillation
–•/ 1 ,,m...168.940
53.500
14.970
13.900UnitedKingdom
Totalhomeusesofwhich
directcons.tionbyhuinans
–processing "
-ofwhich,distillation2.632
2.632
0
02<,764
2.764
0
0
Italy
Totalhomeuse:ofwhich
~directcons.tion by*humans
–processing-ofwhich,distillation58.518
54,618
3.510
3.11055.819
52.919
2.600
900Ireland
Totalhomeuse:ofwhich
directcons.tion byhumans
-processing
~ofwhich,distillation75
75
0
080
80
0
0
Netherlands
Totalhomeuseîofwhich
–airectcons.tion byhumane
–processing
–ofwhich,distillation
"" ^'ΐιι«»·<·.ν··· 1·I
I
1.375
1.361
0
01.441
1.427
0
0Denmark
Totalhomeusesofwhich
-direct^cons«tion byhumans
-proceesing-ofwhich,distillation608
608
0
0659
659
0
0
I
Belgium
Totalhomeuse:ofwhich
–directcons.tion byhumant
–processing
-ofwhich,distillation1.569
1.554
2
01.584
1•>A12
159
0EUR99
Totalhomeuse:ofwhich
-directcons*tionbyhumans
-processing
-ofwhich,distillation148.938
129.984
18.095
17.221147.257
127.731
18.729
15.690
Luxembourg
Totalhomeuse:ofwhich
–directcons®tion byhumans
–processing
–ofwhich,distillation
ιι ιι ,1167
165
0
0160
160
0
0L
Sources :1975/76:EUROSTAT -
1976/77sCommission oftheEEC–DGforAgriculture ,Forwardestimateofwine
production
Sincethisreportwasdrafted,theprovisional estimateforthe1974/75wine-growing yearhas
beenprepared.Thisestimatehasbeenpublished ,ashastheForwardestimatefortheI976/77wine-growing yearadoptedbytheCommission .
(OJN®C304,24.12e1976)
Thistableamendsandsupplements Table9©

I ■!
development ofproduction andinternal consumption ofwine
intheCommunity
175
170
I65
160
155
150
;145
1
!140
!
i
I135
i
:130
I
125
120
:115
110
0(inmillionhectolitres )
-.4.-... !–-i •.–.–i–.–Production
I-..i.! ! ! !
:■ : ••1 •:■■
: t ! : '175
–170
_165
_J160
J1»
I
L–:150
\
.1\–:145
■-V
\»_!140
135
130
-125
_J120
J115
' .Internal consump– ;110
tion
, 0
62/6363/6*64/6565/6666/6?67/6868/6969/7070/7171/7272/7373/74:>V7f>75/76
9* CE–D(S.VI-3>-2
'Thefiguresforinternal consumption donotincludeexceptional distillations
inrespectofGermany(1974/75)»FranceandItaly(1970/711974/75)
Graph1

LeveIcpinen+ofwineproduction inEECcountries .
(inmillionhectolitres )
i " 1aC°°
!11»000_PECJTSCKLAin )BH _11.000
!9®000– . </\ 9"000
7·οοο– ..–"-τ"" Τ·οοο
I5.000_-^7 _ :■ –15.000
3-000 - – -.i 3.000
:90-ooo]_ _ ; ___ 90.000
i
!80.000–FRANCS /\ •80.000
70.000–\ i'i ./\__j70.000
60.000 V'jV^7 , I60.000
50.000 V 50.000
40,000 _ 1 _40.000
] : ; i
i ; ; ■
I ' .
i ' !"'~" i
'■ ' <
i '. : : ■:' j
;90.000 ITAkIA ! ; !90.000
;80.000 ....... . .i .'!, .....: i80.000
70.000^ ^^ i70.000
:60.000 "î^ . I60.000
:50.000 • 1 : L–. I50.000
300 i i– – – 300
250 LUXSMBOURQ i'. .i j250
200 ! 'f\!.i.... !200
– ■150
_100
*0150_
100_
o"bLUXSMBOUROI-.^··–Μ»!>■■■■»Π»Ι1»Τ!■■■■■■..ΙιΙ·.»Ι■■I>11II■»III■■^■1111I«Ι>I *■■■"·'·ΜIIΙ·Β«ΜΙ
;ί:/\ΐ^Χ·
^–
t
; i
62/5353/6464/5566/5666/675?/6858/6969/7070/7171/7272/7373/7474/75H/7t
Graph .2
!CE-LG»VI-D-i

|17.000
!
|15.000
I13.000
!
I
!n.ooo
i
j9.000
I7.000
I
1
5.000
:80.000
|70.000
60.000
50.000
i40.000Development ofinternal consumption ofwine inEEC countries
(inmillion hectolitres )
17.000
N.B.–Thefigures forinternal consumption for1974 /75donotinclude
exceptional distillations (seeTable 9)
40FRANCE
1
i
?– -
; 1
N.B.–Thefigures forinternal consumption from 1970/71to1974/75do
notinclude exceptional distillation (seeTable 9)!
_15.000 i
1 1
;13.000 ¡
i11.000
!9.000
I
-j7-000
j5.000
_80.000
i
70.000
i
-i60.000
I
_50.000
-40.000
80.000
70.000
60.000
50.000
40.000ITALIE
^ . -:;80.000
_J70.000
60.000
i
50.000
I40.000
N.B.–Thefigures forinternal consumption from 1970/71 "to1974/75do
notinclude exceptional distillations (seeTable 9)
200
150
100
50LUXEMBOURG
r#
S
62/6363/646A/656V6666/6767/6868/6969/7070/7171/7272/73Z3/747V?575/75
Graph 3200
150
100
50
0
rCB-DO .VÏ-D-2"

ι
I
levelopment ofinternalconsumption ofwine±nEECcountries
(inmillionhectolitres )
I ;
! •
j1.400 | ––_ _–_ , : 1.400
1.200 :NEDERLAND
.– ■' , ..– -:J-®^w
1.000– |1#000
; 800– ; ' . j800
I600~ ' -J600
i4°o_ _400
200 ! 200
: • • • • 1 ;
I ::; ! i • '
! . ... : . ' i ' 1 :
! • ''
1.600 ... ,
i______ , 1.600
1.400 BBLQIQUE /BELOIB i»400
1.200_ : : 1.200
loOOO– 1.000
600– . i : |600
:oi •; ■ :'>o
62/6363/6*64/6565/6666/6767/6868/6969/7070/7171/7272/7373/74W?57f/76
'•yi'\»
i :
I j ;
Graph4[CÊ-DG.VI-D-2

Development ofinternal consumption ofwineinEECcountries
(inmillionhectolitres )
3.500 , __ 3.500
3.000–UNITEDKINGDOM . /'-j3.000
2.500– // j2'500
2.000 i . _J2.000
1.500 ! ;– !1.500
i 1 ■i
i ! I »' :
190,;_J ! ::',: ,90:
!
80 IRELAND I: ;■•!•- –I80
70 i......! j...J ;.. 7°
60 .' j...' '_60
50–.' ;.. i.i;. .;...:_50
40 1 • ■ : : :: ;::;■ 40
!j i ;'•! ■ •
■. '. j \
... » . . ι ι 1
i i !!" :.•:.1':j.: !■';
; jj ::ji''':;:
600 : ·:ί'! '·ί'■;;■ :: : 600
; • : 'I!!
500 DANMARK i..ji . 500
400– : .:....1...-j .j...i/ •,–J400
I '.' :iMl •: ! i
300 ..I'.. L:„: ■■■■ :_300
200 rI•!::. : ::_200
0 >'' ' _ 1ο
62/6363/6464/6565/6666/6767/6868/6969/7070/η71/7272/7373/747Λ/7575/76 62/6363/6464/656V6666/6767/6868/6969/7070/7171/7272/7373/747V7575/76
Graph5 JCE-DG.VI-D-2

Graph6
CS-DCVI-û-2
Development ofaverageproducerpricesoftalkiewinesintheCommunity (l)
TypeRI-Redwines10à12°
u.a.A/hfc' – _ .I –-t...... J
| Verona • , !
?,}00jL_ jBéziers J/~"~k < i !
I Community ! ,'A\ jJ•\200i> 1 ijf\. r
g- . ,; , i.
jj Aotivating price • i 'l\\\ '
•Voo'L – ' //\\\ i!
g 1 If•\» 11
S Referencepnoo I J£\\ 'i 1
2,°°o|.._. ZZ J F/TIY\ ;; •- ■;;
î,9oo|_ i/\j!u 1J-i ;.y \\jxi /:
i,8col jr/i\\ \ i• f-–'
!I!,* \V>\/\\ .M /I.£:1.700L -i/iVN'M i: -Wl–^ rl j ';~Jr-y \\/^ i ,!/>/
MOOL I Î// VAV^ X//–X/R-
^ 1 :// CT .-J/^h ! 'v./'
; ■t> i•/
i,4ooï ;> r\–
5 ir<r–– M
'' I
1,200i!"""" ^ f\ .
\ " :«.Ht-1_ . ;
-ï ■ :
1 ! ■ :
;1I.TAS"OTTTFKAKJJASONDJFMA NJÀSOÓJPKAMJJASONDJFKAKJJASONPJFMAM JJASONDJFMAM
l•'A•->\f4»vw1■»'«t\v.WvnW **-r■w•..««-- - ,4 IAH- » lUVh
;;1970 I 1971 ! 1972; i 1973 , 1974 1,127? ,ly'-
5}Arithmetic averageuntilAugust1972-WeightedaveragefromSeptember 1972»

Development ofwineconsumption perheadperyear
intheCommunity
I : :
! :I ; .
I–.•••••!-::j.(inlitres),s
! 1 • ■i.. •
I ' -•1 1
! ' 5 '> •■. ! ' i
■ . ij . .
130,λ
120– :xj ^ | .
–- France
100 . " »T7""" Itall#
90 :!...;. .;::.. .....
80–,...:....:;.i.;.-...:;,...:. ■;. .
• I •■•';! !• ;:•; ; ' ;; i :
;70\––- :^:": :E-JR6:
: .60I "i'..! :!...! 1.i.i
! 1' :: :; :
50 ;....;;:;::.h:j–>r~-t;"9
. i-I.: !.•.| ; ^__Loxeebourg
! Féd.d1
1A! -1 _ Kj/$.&S
V - , *"–-^~••––V'/ay°c-Uf»inP –" "r ––Irlande
1 62/5363/646*/6565/6666/6767/6868/6969/7070/7171/7272/73Ti/lCÏÏfiï'7-775
I
I . ;
1 :■: ■I;'I r~C5-î)G«~VI-i)-2
•. Graph7 .i