No C 197/18 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
Opinion  on  the  proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EEC) 
No 1696/71  on the common  organization  of the market  in hops 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
Fjiropean  Communities  No  C 51 of 5 March  1976,  page  3. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 1 March  1976,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Articles  47  and  198  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 
139th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1976. 
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, 
Articles  47 and  198  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of the  European  Communities  on 
1 March  1976, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
30 March  1976,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Agriculture  to prepare  the Committee's  work  on the 
matter, 
Having  regard  to its previous  work  on the matter,  in 
particular  its opinion  of 24 September  1975  (1), 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Bernaert, 
Having  regard  to the  opinion  issued  by the  Section 
for Agriculture  at its meeting  of 6 May  1976, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 139th  plenary 
session  held  on 25 and  26 May  1976  (meeting  of 
26 May  1976), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by a unanimous  vote  with  five  abstentions: 
The Committee  submits  the  following  comments  on 
the Commission  proposal: 
W OJ No C 286,  15. 12. 1975. 1. General  comments 
1.1.0.  The  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
broadly  endorses  the proposal.  The  Commission  has 
taken  account  of recommendations  made  in the past 
by the  Committee.  Nevertheless,  the  Committee 
would  like  to comment  on: 
— the  current  economic  difficulties  of the  hops 
sector, 
—• income  guarantees  for hop  growers, 
— reorganization  of production, 
— the  role  and  powers  of the producers'  groups. 
1.2. The  current  difficulties  of the hop  sector 
1.2.0.  The  Committee  notes  that  the  proposal  is 
designed  first  and  foremost  to solve  the  long-  and 
medium-term  problems  of the  hop  sector.  However, 
in some  parts  of the  Community,  hop  growers  are 
currently  having  a particularly  difficult  time  and  this 
situation  must  be remedied  without  delay. 
1.2.1.  The  Commission  intends  to  propose 
appropriate  short-term  measures  when  the  next 
'Annual  report  on  the  situation  regarding  the 
production  and  marketing  of  hops  in  the 
Community'  is published. 
23. 8. 76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 197/19 
1.2.2.  The  Committee  will  comment  on  these 
measures  at the appropriate  time.  It would,  however, 
have  been  more  logical  to submit  proposals  for 
alleviating  the  current  difficulties  of the  sector 
before,  or at least  at the  same  time  as, the  present 
longer-term  proposal. 
1.3. Income  guarantees 
1.3.0.  The  Committee  would  point  out  that  the 
Community  preference  accorded  to hop  growing  is 
less effective  than  that  enjoyed  by other  Community 
agricultural  products,  and  that  this  may  adversely 
effect  the incomes  of hop  growers. 
1.3.1.  The  Committee  calls  for  strict  surveillance 
(checks  on  certification  and  quantities,  etc.),  of 
imports  from  non-member  countries.  This  is 
necessary  to  prevent  discrimination  against 
Community  growers. 
1.3.2.  If  the  Community's  efforts  to restructure 
hop growers  are  not  to be compromised,  imports 
must  be  monitored  even  more  closely  until  the 
restructuring  has been  completed. 
1.3.3.  Article  15 of the basic  Regulation  states  that 
the normal  rules  on external  trade  can  be departed 
from  if the  Community  market  is seriously  disrupted 
by imports  from  non-member  countries.  The 
Committee  takes  the  view  that  the  Community 
should  not  hesitate  to invoke  Article  15 when  the 
situation  warrants  it. 
1.4. Reorganization  of  production 
1.4.0.  The  Committee  shares  the  Commission's 
view  that  the  aids  to growers  who  change  to 
recommended  hop  varieties  should  be continued.  It 
agrees  that  the  aids  must  not  lead  to an increase  in 
production  capacity.  However,  it would  urge  the 
Commission  to examine  whether  the stipulation  of at 
least  a 40 % reduction  in the  original  acreage,  as a 
condition  for  the  award  of aid,  would  not  be too 
harsh  in some  cases. therefore,  suggest  that  consideration  be given  to aids 
for voluntary  definitive  grubbing  up of poor-quality 
hop fields.  The  Commission  should  examine  whether 
it could  not  include  such  aids  in the  short-term 
measures  it is to propose  in the very  near  future. 
t.5. Producers''  groups 
1.5.0.  The  Committee  notes  with  satisfaction  that 
the Commission  is proposing  that  the  role  and 
responsibilities  of producers'  groups  be expanded. 
1.5.1.  The  obligation  on  members  of producers' 
groups  to undertake  to sell  all their  output  through 
their  particular  group  raises  a general  problem.  The 
Committee  does  not  intend  to take  a stand  on this 
problem  in the  present  opinion,  although  it does 
wonder  whether  the  obligation  to  sell  through 
'producers'  groups'  (as  defined  in Article  5 of the 
proposal)  will  genuinely  further  the  Commission's 
objectives  for  agriculture  — particularly  that  of 
rationalizing  competition  between  Community 
producers  — in all cases. 
1.5.2.  The  Committee  can  accept  the  application 
of this  condition  to Community  hop  production, 
given  its special  features.  But  it would  point  out  that 
the condition  would  cause  serious  difficulties  in 
Germany  unless  it were  introduced  gradually. 
1.5.3.  Finally,  the  Committee  thinks  that 
producers'  groups  should  also  show  commercial 
dynamism.  One  of their  tasks  should  be to look  for 
markets  for  Community  hop  production  outside  the 
EEC. 
1.5.4.  However,  the  Committee  considers  that  the 
Commission  proposal  should  be  relaxed  on  this 
point,  should  its implementation  have  adverse  affects 
on certain  aspects  of the  hop  market  in its present 
form. 
1.6. Consolidation  of  legal  instruments 
1.4.1.  The  Committee  would  point  to  the 
similarity  of the  problems  faced  by hop  growers  in 
some  parts  of the  Community  to those  of certain 
wine-producing  areas.  The  Committee  would, 1.6.0.  The  Committee  would  draw  the 
Commission's  attention  to the  need  to consolidate 
the legal  instruments  governing  hop-growing  and 
marketing  in the Community. 
No C 197/20 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 23. 8. 76 
2. Comments  on the Articles 
2.1. Article  2 (2) (b) 
2.1.0.  Given  the nature  of Community  production, 
the Committee  believes  that  hop  gardens  may  be 
considered  as being  in full  production  from  the 
second  year;  Article  2 should  be  amended 
accordingly. 
2.2. Article  3 
2.2.0.  The  Committee  wholeheartedly  endorses 
the Commission's  proposals  for  introducing  a 
certification  procedure  for  hops  and  hop  products 
sold on the market. 
2.3. Article  5 (1)  (a)  (page  7 of Commission 
document) 
2.3.0.  The  Committee  would  refer  to  its 
reservations  (of  general  comments)  about  the 
proposals  in respect  of producers'  groups. 
2.4. Article  5 (3) (e) 
2.4.0.  Growers  who  are  giving  up hop  farming 
completely  should  not  be required  to give  notice  of 
their  intention  to  leave  the  group.  Otherwise, 
producers  who  have  belonged  to a group  for three  or 
more  years  should  be required  to give  a minimum  of 
two years'  notice.  The  proposal,  which  stipulates  a 
minimum  of one  year's  notice,  should  be amended 
accordingly. 
2.5. Article  7 
2.5.0.  The  Committee  would  reiterate  the case  for 
measures  similar  to those  taken  in the wine  sector  to 
be used  to encourage  rationalization  of hop  gardens. 
It believes  that  such  measures,  involving  above  all a 
ban on  the  planting  of new  fields,  should  be 
introduced  in the hop  sector.  They  would:  (a) help 
to solve  certain  of the short-term  difficulties,  and (b) 
would  increase  the effectiveness  of the Commission's 
action  to promote  the switch  to better  varieties. 
2.6. Article  7 (I) 
2.6.0.  The  Committee  considers  that  the  new 
version  of Article  7 should  read: 'Member  States  may  grant  to  recognized 
producer  groups  aid  of a maximum  amount  of 
1 800  units  of account  per  hectare  for  the 
replanting  of hop  gardens  with  different  varieties 
and/or  the reorganization  of hop  gardens  referred 
to in Article  7 (1) (b),  which  are completed  by 31 
March  1978,  provided  that  such  operations  entail 
a reduction  of at least  40 °/o in the  area  of the 
gardens  replanted  or reorganized.' 
2.6.1.  The  Committee  refers  to what  it said  in the 
'general  comments'  about  the  need  to tie aid  to a 
significant  reduction  in acreage.  The  reason  for  the 
31 March  date  is to make  spring  plantings,  which 
are common  in some  parts  of the  Community, 
eligible.  1978  is the year  suggested  to give  producers 
wishing  to change  over  to new  varieties  at least  two 
years  from  the entry  into  force  of the Regulation  to 
do so. 
2.7. Article  8 (3) (a) 
2.7.0.  The  Committee  would  draw  attention  to the 
excessive  delays  that  occur  for one  reason  or another 
in the  awarding  of this  aid  to hop  producers.  The 
Committee  has  had  occasion  to deplore  these  delays 
in several  earlier  opinions.  It urges  the Commission 
to fix  the  level  of aid  annually  in future,  by a 
suitable  date,  and  to take  steps  to ensure  that  aid 
reaches  applicants  as quickly  as possible. 
2.8. Article  S (4) (a),  second  line 
2.8.0.  The  Committee  notes  that  under  the 
Commission's  proposal  the  Community  authorities 
would  be able,  on the basis  of the report  referred  to 
in Article  11, to reduce  the flat-rate  aid per  hectare 
provided  for  in the  basic  Regulation  by  an 
unspecified  amount,  without  producers  having  any 
means  of appealing  against  such  a decision.  Since 
this aid is an important  part  of producers'  incomes, 
the Committee  considers  that  producers  should  be 
given  prior  warning  of a reduction  so that  they  can 
see how  it will  affect  their  business  and  take  any 
necessary  action.  In other  words,  if a reduction  in 
aid proves  desirable,  for example,  when  the  report 
shows  there  to be structural  surpluses,  the reduction 
should  apply  not  to the harvest  to which  the report 
refers,  as is proposed  by the Commission,  but to the 
following  harvest. 
23. 8.76 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 197/21 
2.9. Article  8 (4) (b) 
2.9.0  In  the  light  of the  amendment  proposed  to 
Article  2, the  Committee  urges  that  the  proposal 
should  read: 
'(b) Those  areas  under  hops  which  are  in their 
first year  of production  may  be declared 
ineligible  for aid.' 
2.10.  Article  10 
2.10.0.  The  Committee  considers  that  the 
proposed  amendment  to Article  10  of the  basic 
Regulation  should  not  be  allowed  to  lead  to alteration  'of Article  17 (6),  which  lays  down  that  the 
aids scheme  for  the  formation  of  producers' 
organizations  shall  operate  for  10 years  from  the 
date of entry  into  force  of the Regulation. 
As the basic  Regulation  entered  into  force  on 26 July 
1971,  the scheme  should  operate  until  26 July  1981. 
Done  at Brussels,  26 May  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Regulation  on a programme  for restructuring  the 
non-industrial  inshore  fishing  industry 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of  the 
European  Communities  No  C 6 of 10 January  1976,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 9 December  1975,  the  Council  referred  the  abovementioned  proposal  to the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Articles  47 and  198  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 
139th  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 25 and  26 May  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to Articles  47 and  198  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community, 
Having  regard  to the request  for an opinion  made  by 
the Council  of  the  European  Communities  on 
9 December  1975, 
Having  regard  to the  decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 16  December  1975  instructing  the  Section  for 
Agriculture  to prepare  the  Committee's  work  on the 
matter, Regulation  concerning  the  implementation  of  a 
common  structural  policy  for  the  fisheries  sector  (1), 
the opinion  of 24 February  1972  on the  proposal  for 
a Regulation  on financing  by the  EAGGF  (Guidance 
Section)  of reconversion  schemes  in the  cod  fishing 
sector  (2) and  the  opinion  of 27 June  1974  on the 
proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  laying  down 
conditions  for  granting  national  aid  under  the 
common  structural  policy  for  sea  fishing  (3), 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Piga, 
Having  regard  to previous  Committee  work  on the 
matter,  and  more  specifically  the  opinion  of  26 
March  1969  on  the  proposal  for  a Council (!) OJ No C 76, 17. 6. 1969. 
(2) OJ No C 61, 10. 6. 1972. 
(3) OJ No C 116,  30, 9. 1974.