10. 9. 79 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 227/13 
Opinion  on the  communication  from  the  Commission  to the  Council  on the  action 
programme  (1979  to 1985)  for the progressive  establishment  of balance  on the market  in wine 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 209  of 2 September  1978,  pages  3 to 13. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 21 September  1978  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  43 of the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 168th 
plenary  session  held  in Brussels  on 22 and  23 May  1979. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community,  and  in particular  Article  43 
thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  on 
21 September  1978  for an opinion, 
Having  regard  to the  decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
18 October  1978  instructing  the Section  for Agriculture 
to prepare  the Committee's  work  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to earlier  work  on the  matter  and  in 
particular  the opinion  of 30 November  1978  (*), 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  submitted  by the 
rapporteur,  Mr Guillaume, 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 168th  plenary 
session  held  on 22 and  23 May  1979  (meeting  of 22 May 
1979), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 48 votes  to two  with  one  abstention: 
1. Preliminary  remarks 
On 30  November  1978  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  delivered  an opinion  on a certain  number  of 
points  in the Commission's  action  programme  (1979  to 
H OJ  No C 105,  26. 4. 1979,  p. 46. 1985)  for the progressive  establishment  of balance  on the 
market  in wine. 
The present  opinion  deals  with  points  not  discussed  in 
this earlier  opinion.  It is therefore  a follow-up  to this 
opinion. 
2. The  Economic  and  Social  Committee's  comments 
2.1. On  the  basis  of information  received  regarding 
the stage  reached  in the Council's  work,  the Committee 
notes  that  no agreement  has  been  reached  between 
Member  States  on criteria  for determining  categories  of 
wine-growing  areas. 
Commission  proposals  on the  implementation  of the 
action  programme  (1979  to 1985)  have  consequently 
been  delayed  in view  of the  fact  that  conversion, 
grubbing-up  and  retirement  measures,  on the one  hand, 
and replanting  and  restructuring  operations,  on the 
other,  are closely  linked  to a classification  of the various 
categories  of wine-growing  areas. 
2.2. As  far as the general  production  potential  of the 
wine-growing  industry  is concerned,  the  Committee 
considers  that  the  medium-term  policy  of  the 
Community  should  be directed  towards  stabilization  of 
production  potential  - and  not a systematic  reduction  of 
wine-growing  potential  — bearing  in mind  the  often 
considerable  fluctuations  that  have  taken  place  from  year 
to year  and  the balance  over  the last  three  wine-growing 
years. 
2.3. The  Committee  would  reiterate  remarks  it has 
made  earlier  on the question  of market  balance,  namely 
that success  depends  not  only  on reducing  production 
No C 227/14 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 10. 9. 79 
but also  on securing  ample  outlets.  Unfortunately,  in 
several  Member  States  levels  of excise  duties  and  taxes 
on wine,  as well  as levels  of taxes  on competing 
beverages,  are such  that  outlets  are considerably  reduced 
within  the Community  itself. 
The Committee  therefore  attaches  particular  importance 
to finding  a solution  to this  problem,  on -which  depends 
the balance  of the market. 
2.4. Given  the  present  situation,  the  Committee 
would  like  to see  a stabilization  of market  balance. 
Nevertheless  it is also  aware  of the  need  to secure 
improvements  in the location  of vineyards  in order  to 
obtain  good-quality  and  sufficiently  profitable  yields. 
The Committee  shares  the view  of the Commission  that 
this should  be done  by means  of variable  inducements 
related  to the  classification  of vineyards  in categories 
which  are,  to a lesser  or greater  extent,  suitable  for the 
production  of good-quality  table  wines. 
2.5. Before  expressing  its views  on the criteria  used  in 
the three-way  classification,  the Committee  would  like  to 
put on record  that  it supports  the general  approach  of the 
Commission  though  it would  suggest  one  or two  slight 
changes.  The  Commission  measures  should  be applied  as 
follows: 
(a) For  Category  I vineyards: 
— Freedom  to replant  with  specific  varieties. 
— Authorization  to make  new  plantings  of specific 
varieties;  this  authorization  is to be suspended, 
however,  while  the  wine  action  programme  is 
getting  under  way  and  until  there  is evidence  of a 
retirement  from  wine-growing  in other  categories 
of area,  particularly  Category  HI,  so as to 
guarantee  a reduction  of table  wine  production 
potential. 
— The  granting  of Community  aid  in connection 
with  the  development  plans  provided  for  in 
Article  8 of Directive  159/72/EEC,  or the 
national  aid which  the Member  States  may  grant 
- pursuant  to Article  14 (2) of the same  Directive 
- towards  investments  in  planting  and 
replanting.  The  Committee  nevertheless 
considers  that  the minimum  acreages  fixed  by the 
Commission  are unacceptable  since  they  fail  to 
take into  account  structural  realities. 
(b) For  Category  II vineyards: 
— Freedom  to replant  with  specific  varieties. 
— Ban  on new  planting. 
— The  granting  of Community  aid  in connection 
with  the  development  plans  provided  for  in 
Article  8 of Directive  159/72/EEC,  or the national  aid which  the Member  States  may  grant 
— pursuant  to Article  14 (2) of the same  Directive 
- towards  investments  in  replanting.  The 
Committee  reiterates  what  it said  at the end  of 
paragraph  (a) above. 
— An  incentive  in the  form  of a temporary 
conversion  (grubbing)  premium  of  between 
1 500  and  3 000  u.a./ha  (units  of account  per 
hectare)  for  certain  wine  varieties,  and  an 
incentive  to retire  from  wine-growing  in the form 
of a single  premium  of 2 000  u.a./ha;  these  two 
premiums  may  be cumulative.  (The  figures  given 
in this  opinion  are expressed  in units  of account 
since  units  of account  were  still  in use when  the 
Commission  drew  up its proposals.  The  figures 
should  therefore  be converted  into  European 
units  of account.) 
(c) For  Category  III vineyards: 
— Freedom  to replant  with  specific  varieties. 
— Ban  on national  aid for investment  in replanting 
and modernization. 
— Granting  of a temporary  conversion  (grubbing) 
premium  of between  1 500  and  3 000  u.a./ha, 
and an incentive  to retire  from  wine-growing  in 
the form  of a single  premium  of 2 000  u.a./ha; 
these  two  premiums  may  be cumulative. 
— Ban  on new  planting. 
2.6. The  Committee  is particularly  keen  on  the 
temporary  conversion  premium  and  feels  that  this 
commitment  to refrain  from  replanting  for eight  years 
should  be encouraged  in all areas  (including  Category  I) 
provided  that  producers  in Category  I areas  are  not 
granted  the permanent  grubbing  premium. 
This  would  ensure  that  there  would  be no long-term 
decline  in the production  potential  of vineyards  suitable 
for producing  good-quality  table  wines,  yet at the same 
time  it would  be possible  to encourage  a rotation  of 
crops  - something  considered  desirable  by all wine 
experts. 
The second  point  the Committee  would  like  to make  is 
that the  measures  designed  to encourage  permanent 
grubbing-up  and  retirement  from  wine-growing  might 
very well  disturb  the  socio-economic  fabric  of certain 
wine-growing  regions  — partly  on  account  of the 
abundance  of labour  traditionally  employed  in the 
industry,  and  partly  because  of the difficulties  involved  in 
profitably  turning  the  land  over  to the  production  of 
other  crops. 
The Committee  therefore  hopes  that  careful  attention 
will be paid  to the question  of permanent  switching  to 
other  crops. 
10. 9. 79 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 227/15 
2.7. With  regard  to the  'establishment  of natural 
criteria  (soil,  climate,  relief)  whereby  the areas  producing 
table  wines  in the  Community  can  be  objectively 
classified  according  to their  natural  suitability  for 
wine-growing',  the Committee  does  not think  that  such 
criteria  enable  one  a priori  to make  a general  division  of 
Europe  into  three  categories  within  a reasonably  short 
space  of time. 
To avoid  undue  delay  in implementing  a well-balanced 
planting  policy,  the  Committee  therefore  feels  that 
during  a limited  transitional  period,  relatively  simple, 
objective  criteria  are  needed  if there  is to be  a 
classification  of individual  holdings  or vine  plots  eligible 
for authorization  or aid in connection  with  the carrying 
out of grubbing-up,  conversion  or retirement  operations, 
etc. 
As most  areas  producing  quality  wines  psr  are  in 
Category  I, the  Committee  would  like  to see  the 
three-way  classification  of vineyards  based  on  the 
following  principles: 
Category  I 
Areas  under  vine  in Zones  C II and  C III - with  the 
exception  of valley  bottoms  and  certain  plains  unsuitable 
for the production  of wines  of sufficient  natural  alcoholic 
strength,  which  drop  down  to Category  II or even 
Category  III if there  are  possibilities  of permanent 
conversion.  (The  concept  of sufficient  natural  alcoholic 
strength  is derived  from  the scale  set out in Article  18 of 
Regulation  (EEC)  No 816/70.  Areas  in Category  I must 
be suitable  for producing  wine  of a considerably  higher 
alcoholic  strength  (1° higher  for example).  Thanks  to the 
records  of private  wine  cellars,  cooperative  cellars  and 
oenological  centres,  it is possible  to obtain  statistics  on 
the alcoholic  strength  of wines  from  Category  I areas.) 
Category  II 
Areas  under  vine  in Zones  B and  C I (since  the 
Commission  is concerned  here  with  French  and  Italian 
table-wine  producing  vineyards,  it stands  to reason  that 
Zone  A is not  included;  Zone  A embraces  solely 
Luxembourg,  the  Federal  Republic  of  Germany, 
Belgium,  the Netherlands  and  Great  Britain;  the Baden 
wine-growing  region  of West  Germany,  however,  comes 
under  Zone  B) — with  the exception  of (a),  well-situated 
hillsides  suitable  for the production  of wines  of sufficient 
natural  alcoholic  strength,  or wines  with  a 'geographical 
ascription'  falling  under  the  category  defined  in 
Article  30 of Regulation  (EEC)  No 816/70,  and  which 
therefore  come  under  Category  I, and  (b),  zones  where 
there  are  possibilities  of growing  other  crops  on a 
profitable  basis,  in which  case  they  come  under 
Category  III. Sufficient  natural  alcoholic  strengths  should  be 
considerably  higher  than  those  laid  down  for  these 
particular  zones  in Article  18 of Regulation  (EEC) 
No 816/70. 
Category  III 
Other  areas  where  it is not possible  to obtain  wines  of a 
sufficient  natural  alcoholic  strength  and  where  there  are 
ample  possibilities  of permanent  conversion. 
The Committee  considers  that  the  criteria  adopted 
should  include  the quality  and  uniqueness  of the wines 
produced. 
2.8. As  regards  the  possibility  of granting  new 
planting  authorizations  in Category  I areas,  as well  as in 
specified  regions  where  quality  wines  psr are produced, 
the Committee  thinks  that  the  'new  plantings'  policy 
should  be harmonized  without  excessive  discrimination 
between  table  wines  and  quality  wines  psr.  The 
Committee  notes  that  in certain  cases  the granting  of 
planting  rights  in a specified  'quality  wine'  region  means 
a considerable  appreciation  in land  value  for  the 
beneficiary  of the right. 
2.9. The  Committee  also  examined  the  extent  to 
which  wine-growers  with  planting  rights  could  transfer 
these  rights  to other  wine-growers.  It was  recognized  that 
the practice  was  common  in certain  countries  where 
planting  rights  had  a solid,  long-established  legal  basis, 
but there  were  other  countries  where  there  was  no such 
legal  basis. 
The Committee  further  notes  that  in the  present 
circumstances  certain  Member  States  grant  free  planting 
rights  to producers  of quality  wines  psr,  whereas,  in the 
case of table  wine,  producers  wishing  to make  new 
plantings  can  do so only  through  transferred  rights,  and 
these  rights  have  to be paid  for.  The  Committee  finds  this 
situation  to be anomalous  and  feels  that  consideration 
should  be given  to finding  a balanced  solution. 
2.10.  With  a view  to putting  an end  to the different 
rules  obtaining  in the  Member  States,  the  Committee 
would  argue  in favour  of a uniform  planting  system  for 
the whole  of the Community.  This  could  be based  on the 
following  principles: 
— For  all categories  of table  wine  or quality  wine  psr,  it 
is the  person  who  has  earlier  carried  out  the 
grubbing-up  who  is entitled  to planting  rights;  the 
transfer  of planting  rights  to another  person  in return 
for payment  would  be controlled  and  limited,  as 
follows: 
— New  planting  rights  could  be  granted  in 
Category  I areas  (including  all  the  specified 
No C 227/16 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 10. 9. 79 
'quality  wine'  regions),  provided  that  the balance 
in each  market  is unlikely  to be endangered; 
planting  rights  arising  from  grubbing-up  in 
Category  I areas  could  be transferred  against 
payment  as long  as the  new  vineyards  were 
planted  only  in  Category  I areas  under 
conditions  to be determined. 
— Planting  rights  arising  from  grubbing-up  in Category 
II and  Category  III areas  could  be exercised  only  by 
holders  of these  rights  and  only  in Category  II and 
Category  III  areas;  rights  transferred  against 
payment  could  be exercised  only  in Category  I areas 
under  conditions  to be determined. 
The Committee  considers  that  this  package  of measures 
will help  to stabilize  production  potential  and  at the same  time  bring  about  a gradual  improvement  in the 
quality  of Community  table  wines. 
2.11.  As  far  as quality  wine  psr  plantings  are 
concerned,  the Committee  notes  with  satisfaction  that, 
although  the various  Member  States  use slightly  different 
methods,  they  pursue  a coherent  policy  based  partly  on 
strict  geographical  or property  boundaries,  and  partly  on 
a strict  limitation  of wine  varieties. 
The Committee  nevertheless  favours  the  general 
acceptance  of property  boundaries  and  hopes  that  a 
more  precise  Community  framework  than  that  defined  in 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  817/70  will  lead  to greater 
uniformity  of conditions  of production  for this  category 
of wine. 
Done  at Brussels,  22 May  1979. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Fabrizia  BADUEL  GLORIOSO 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
The following  amendments  were  rejected  during  the debate: 
Delete  point  2.8. 
Reasons 
Any attempt  to help  the production  of quality  wine  should  be encouraged.  But  there  is no discrimination 
against  table  wines.  It should  be remembered  that  the standards  applied  in the Member  States  for quality 
wines  psr  are the same  as Community  standards. 
Voting 
For:  3; against:  45;  abstentions:  2. 
Delete  the second  paragraph  in point  2.9. 
Reasons 
See reasons  given  for previous  amendment. 
Voting 
For:  3; against:  47;  abstentions:  2.