COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, Je 04.04.1995 
COM(95) 122 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
On the purpose and the methods of application 
of extraordinary set-aside 
'•"•#>: 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
INTRODUCTION 
In December 1994, the Council and the Commission made the following declaration 
concerning extraordinary set-aside. 
"The Council takes note of the fact that the Commission intends to carry out a reflection 
on the purpose and the methods of application of extraordinary set-aside with regard to 
the objectives of the reform of the CAP. To this end, the Commission will produce a 
detailed report with appropriate proposals, in the light of the experience acquired so far, 
before the 31 March 1995." 
The present report represents a first response to this commitment. 
I THE RATIONALE FOR EXTRAORDINARY SET-ASIDE 
1. Extraordinary set-aside in the context of the 1992 reform 
The main goals of the 1992 reform of the CAP for the arable sector were firstly 
to establish a better equilibrium between supply and demand in the cereals sector 
by means of a reduction in production and an increase in consumption, and 
secondly to make the legislation applicable to cereals, oilseeds and protein crops 
(COP) more coherent.. 
To achieve these objectives, the Council adopted the Commission's proposal to 
reduce the intervention price of cereals closer to the world market level, and to 
introduce a compensatory scheme based on per hectare aids for the three sectors. 
Farmers taking part in the general scheme would receive the per hectare aids on 
condition that they set aside a part of their land. Initially this part was set at 15% 
of the total area for which aid was requested, be it for cereals, oilseeds, protein 
crops or set aside. It was expected that the area set aside would be mostly taken 
out of cereal production and therefore the production of cereals would be lower 
than before the reform. 
A simplified scheme was also introduced aimed at small producers allowing them 
to receive the per hectare aids without the obligation to set aside any part of their 
holdings. 
Within this framework the main risk of not achieving the decrease in production 
would be the expansion of the cereals area under cultivation. 
Rue de la Loi - 200 B-1049 Brussels, Belgium • Office: 
Telephone: direct line (+32-2)29 exchange 299.11.11. Fax: 29. 
Telex: COMEU B 21877. Telegraphic address: COMEUR Brussels 
/:*. 
To avoid this risk, the Commission proposed that each farm be attributed a base 
area according to the area cultivated in the past. This individual base area would 
be the maximum for which a producer could claim an aid and would therefore 
ensure budgetary stability. 
The sum of these base areas, it was hoped, would be broadly the maximum area 
devoted to the reformed crops. Under the assumption that the area planted to 
protein crops and oilseeds would remain stable, it implied an upper limit to the 
area devoted to cereals. 
For several reasons, including the administrative difficulties in applying the 
individual base areas, the Council added the option for each Member State to 
adopt a system of regional base areas. In practice all the Member States chose the 
option of regional base areas, sometimes as large as a whole country. Their sizes 
were determined as the average of the area devoted to cereals, oilseeds and 
protein crops or set aside in the marketing years 1989/90, 1990/91 and 1991/92. 
Two special devices were adopted to ensure that the switch from individual to 
regional base areas would not lead to an overshoot of the base areas and thereby 
increase production and budgetary outlays. 
The first device is aimed primarily at budgetary stability, but should also have 
some effect at discouraging producers from increasing their area. It consists of a 
reduction in the area for which the aid is paid in the same marketing year as and 
in proportion to the overshoot. The expenditure level is not therefore affected by 
the increase in area and the producer receives an effective aid per planted and set 
aside hectare lower than the full rate. 
The second one is more directly targeted at containing the expansion of the area 
planted to cereals, oilseeds and protein crops and the associated increase in the 
level of cereals production. In the marketing year following an overshoot the 
producer must set aside without compensation a percentage of the total area equal 
to that of the overshoot. This percentage is in addition to the normal obligatory 
set-aside. Producers under the simplified scheme are also exempted from this 
extraordinary set-aside. 
Initially this extraordinary set-aside was conceived to compensate for any increase 
in production and was to be counted against the base area. But it was later 
realized that it could create a spiral of ever increasing sanctions in the case of 
structural overshoots, i.e. when producers maintain their cultivated land. These 
difficulties led to its exclusion from the base area in December 1993. 
In addition to containing the regional base areas ex post the strict application of 
this sanction was expected to be a clear signal that the Community did not want 
and would not accept any overshoot of the base area. 
On the other hand, however, at the level of the individual producer the 
effectiveness of the sanctions aimed at preventing the expansion of the cultivated 
area is limited by the fact that they must be applied collectively, without taking 
into account the individual's contribution to the expansion. 
Therefore, an individual producer expanding his area more than the average for 
his base area keeps some benefits, while expanding less than the average he is the 
victim of the other producers expansion. This is an incentive to expand. 
In this situation art. 9 of Council Regulation 1765/92 gains importance through 
limiting the maximum amount of land which (theoretically) could be mobilised 
under the COP regime. All land devoted to permanent pasture, permanent crops, 
forest or non agricultural uses on 31.12.1991 is ineligible for the per hectare 
payments. 
The remaining eligible area amounts to about 65 million ha within which is the 
global Community base area of 49 million ha (after the inclusion of linseed in 
1994/95). Theoretically, the maximum risk of expansion of the COP beyond the 
base area is therefore 16 million ha. 
2. Further developments 
Three modifications relating to set-aside that came into force from the beginning 
of the 1994/95 marketing year, are of particular importance for controlling the 
level of production. 
The first is an increase in the set-aside premium from 54.34 ECU/t to 
68.83 ECU/t in order to make the set-aside obligation more acceptable to 
producers. 
The second is the non-rotational set-aside. This frees producers from the 
obligation not to set aside the same plot more than once every six years. However 
the non-rotational set aside rate is 5 percentage points (or 3 in certain cases) 
greater than that for rotational set-aside. 
The third is the possibility to set aside more land than the compulsory amount, 
up to a normal limit of 50% of the total area of the farm (so called voluntary set-
side). 
To some extent, these developments reduce the risk that an overshoot leads 
necessarily to an excessive level of production because it could be accompanied 
by an increase in set-aside. 
The increased set-aside could come from two sources. The first is eligible land not 
previously devoted to cereals, oilseeds or protein crops (and consequently not 
included in the calculation of the base areas) attracted by the higher rate of aid 
for set-aside. Secondly, in the case of voluntary set-aside, some land that 
previously had been cultivated to these crops would be set aside in addition to the 
compulsory area. In both cases, the land set aside would in general be marginal 
land with (much) lower yields than the regional average. 
With regard to voluntary set-aside Member States have to make sure that it 
reduces cultivated land and does not contribute to any overshoot. In many cases 
no particular action in this respect will be necessary on the part of Member States 
to the extent that voluntary set-aside replaces "five year" set-aside, which is within 
the base area, or takes place on farms where because of the nature of the holding 
it reduces planted area. But the provision gives Member States the opportunity to 
prevent flagrant abuse when a farmer seeks voluntary set-aside compensation 
without making any reduction in the area for which normal compensation is paid. 
In practice, however, this provision would appear to be difficult to apply. Strict 
rules of additionality, as foreseen in the original Commission proposal, would 
have to be introduced in order to ensure that voluntary set-aside leads effectively 
to a supplementary reduction of planted area. Otherwise it could always be argued 
that had voluntary set-aside not been available the areas benefiting from it would 
have been cultivated, total cultivated area would have been bigger and overshoots 
would have been the same. 
//. EXPERIENCE FROM THE 1993/94 AND 1994/95 MARKETING YEARS 
(EUR-12) 
1. The 1993/94 marketing year 
Area covered bv applications. 
For the Community as a whole, the area for which an aid was lodged plus the 
fodder declared area amounted to 46.14 million ha. This is almost 2.7 million ha 
less than the Community base area of 48.83 million ha for 1993/94 (see annex 1). 
The part taken by the general scheme (professional producers) corresponded to 
69% of the area (see annex 2). 
In each Member State, the sum of the areas for which the aids were requested 
plus the fodder area for which an aid is not claimed (but which are taken into 
account for the comparison with the base area), was lower than the total base 
areas (see annex 2). 
The sum of the cultivated land (whether aided or not), set aside land and the 
fodder area is estimated to have exceeded the Community base area by about 0.5 
million ha (see annex 3). This means that an aid was not claimed for about 3.2 
million ha. France, Spain and Italy were the countries of most significance in this 
respect. 
Overshoots 
Although at the Community and national levels the applications for aid and 
declarations of fodder land corresponded to an area lower than the sum of the 
respective base areas, overshoots did occur in some regions. This is specified in 
annex 4. 
Set-aside 
Globally the area set-aside was 6.27 million ha, of which 4.61 million ha 
corresponded to rotational set-aside (the only form of compulsory set-aside in 
1993/94) and 1.65 million ha corresponded to the old "five year set-aside" (a 
scheme under Regulation 2328/91, now expiring). 
Implementation of the sanctions 
As can be seen in annex 4, in all the cases where an overshoot took place, some 
special arrangements were introduced to avoid that the application of the sanctions 
involve too negative consequences for farms. Only Scotland was subject to 
extraordinary set-aside for 1994/95 (1986 ha). 
Cereals balance sheet. 
The total production of cereals is estimated at 163.2 million tonnes, well under 
the historical trend. Due to the decrease in prices, cereals consumption increased 
by 4 to 5 million tonnes as had been foreseen. 
Both the increase in consumption and the decrease in production contributed to 
a better balance in the cereals sector. Total final stocks fell from 42.3 million 
tonnes at the end of 1992/93 to 33.1 million tonnes at the end of 1993/94. Public 
stocks went from 33.3 million tonnes to 18.1 million tonnes while private stocks 
were 10 million tonnes at the beginning of the 1993/94 marketing year and 15 
million tonnes at the end. 
2. The 1994/95 marketing year 
Legal modifications 
On top of the already mentioned modifications concerning set-aside, at the 
beginning of the 1994/95 marketing year linseed was introduced within the 
reformed arable crops and the base areas were adapted correspondingly from 
48.83 million ha to 49 million ha. 
Area covered by the applications. 
For the whole of the Community, the area covered by the applications and 
declarations of fodder use were 47.57 million ha, this was 1.43 million ha more 
than in 1993/94. Consequently the total of area covered by the applications and 
declarations was lower than the total of the base areas at the Community level 
(see annex 1). The same was true at the national level, except for Germany, 
France and the UK (see annex 5). 
The part of the general scheme (professional producers) corresponded to 74% of 
the area. The area under the simplified scheme was lower than the previous year 
both as a proportion of the total and in absolute terms (see annex 5). 
Cultivated land (whether aided or not) and set aside land, including the fodder 
area, is estimated to have exceeded the Community base area of 49 million ha by 
about 1.1 million ha (see annex 6). This means that aid was not claimed for about 
2.5 million ha. 
Set-aside 
There was a steep increase in the area set aside in all the Member States (see 
annex 7). At the Community level, the set-aside area for types of set-aside other 
than the old "five year" set-aside reached 6,01 million ha, 1.4 million ha more 
than in the 1993/94 marketing year. 
The old "five year" set-aside comprised 1.3 million ha, 0.35 million ha less than 
in 1993/94.Rotational set-aside decreased by 0.88 million ha, while other forms 
of set-aside reached almost 2.3 million ha. Out of this area, it is estimated that 1.2 
million ha replaced the 0.88 million ha of rotational set-aside, 0.6 million ha 
corresponded to the increase in the area for which an aid was requested under the 
general scheme, and 0.6 million ha were voluntary set-aside. Half of this voluntary 
set-aside took place in Spain. 
It must be pointed out that only a few Member States communicated their figures 
for voluntary set-aside to the Commission. The figure of 0.6 million ha is thus an 
estimate. 
Globally the total area under set-aside increased by about 1 million ha of which 
about 0.5 million ha were taken out of the 1993/94 cultivated area and 0.5 million 
ha were added from land without COP nor set aside. 
Overshoots 
As can be seen in annex 8, some overshoots took place that led to the application 
of a reduction of the area for which an aid had been requested. In addition to this 
sanction, in the case of oilseeds additional sanctions were implemented under the 
form of reduction of the aids. 
Cereals balance sheet. 
Cereals production is estimated at 161.6 million tonnes, a reduction of 1.6 million 
tonnes (1.0%) on 1993/94. As the area planted to grain cereals was the same in 
both marketing years (see annex 7), the decrease in production is explained by a 
lower average yield in 94/95 mainly due to weather conditions. Assuming that 
there is not a negative evolution of the internal consumption and of exports, at the 
end of the marketing year there should be another reduction in the total final 
stocks from 33.1 million tonnes to about 26 million tonnes and in the public 
stocks from 18 million tonnes to 11 million tonnes. 
3. Assessment of some aspects of the 1993/94 and 1994/95 marketing years 
A significant part of area remains outside the scheme. It can be expected that with 
the increase of the aid in 1995/96 and with better information in some regions 
there will be an increase in the areas for which an aid is requested, as happened 
in 1994/95 compared with 1993/94. 
With regard to the equilibrium of the cereals market, the two first years of the 
application of the reform have been a success marked by a decrease in production, 
an increase in consumption and a reduction in the level of final stocks (still a 
forecast for 1994/95), and in particular of public stocks. As a result the 
compulsory rate for rotational set-aside was reduced from 15% to 12% for the 
1995/96 marketing year. 
This does not mean that there are no risks for the future. In particular, the 
introduction of non-rotational and voluntary set-aside should have led to a 
decrease in the area cultivated to cereals but this has not been the case. If one 
considers that the poorest land of every farm was put into the different types of 
set-aside, one can conclude that the average quality of the land in production has 
increased, this is to say that the production potential of the cultivated land is 
increased even though the total cultivated area has remained constant. 
Therefore, although in some cases overshoots could at first sight be attributed to 
the increase in the area set aside and not to an increase in cultivated land, they are 
not necessarily production neutral. 
Ill SOME PROBLEMS CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE 
EXTRAORDINARY SET-ASIDE IN 1995/96 
According to the terms of the Council regulation n* 1765/92 an extraordinary 
set-aside without compensation should be applied in all the regions where an 
overshoot took place in 1994/95. There appear to be several problems related to 
the economic consequences of the application of this. 
1. Producers under the simplified scheme are not subject to this sanction. 
This means that a producer could avoid the sanction by shifting from the 
general scheme to the simplified one and not claim the aids for part of his 
holding. The extent of this phenomenon cannot be foreseen but is probably 
of minor importance given that only those producers with potential 
production slightly over the definition of small producer can find this 
move economically appealing. Nonetheless, in the cases where the rate of 
extraordinary set-aside is high, there is a risk that other methods of 
becoming a small producer could also be put into practice in order to 
avoid it. 
2. In zones where a given plot can be part of two different base areas (eg 
maize and other cereals), high rates of extraordinary set-aside can induce 
the producers to switch production from the base area subject to the 
sanction to the non subject one. 
If this would lead to massive shifts between products from year to year it 
could become a permanent factor of disturbance. 
3. In extreme cases, producers could even not plant crops covered by the 
reform and plant different products, with the risk of disturbing other 
markets. 
4. Land previously used as temporary grassland or forage land could be used 
to comply with this sanction thus expanding the area under the COP 
system. 
In addition to these more technical and economic aspects there would appear to 
be also a psychological and political aspect. More than the limitation of the 
compensatory payments to a base area, the extraordinary set-aside is seen by 
many farmers as overburdening the CAP with sanctions. This can create political 
pressures -and the experience of the first two years indicates that it does so- to 
circumvent such sanctions. The more the overshoots are important the more these 
pressures are high and the more it becomes difficult to resist them at the EU level. 
As a result, the whole system could loose its credibility through repeated 
exceptions. 
All these considerations lead to the conclusion that the application of the 
extraordinary unpaid set-aside such as it is established currently in the Council 
regulation 1765/92 would be difficult and could produce quite counterproductive 
results. 
IV. OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE 
The difficulties found in applying extraordinary set-aside and the present very 
favourable market situation could lead to believe that it is no longer necessary to 
have any device directly aimed at avoiding the expansion of areas devoted to the 
COP crops. In such a case the simple abolition of extraordinary set-aside would 
appear as the simplest option for the future. All the problems caused by the 
application of extraordinary set-aside would be eliminated and the legislation 
would be simplified. 
However, the present market situation is in part due to conjuncture factors (such 
as the weather in 1994/95) that could change in the future. Yields are also likely 
to increase in the coming years following an upwards trend that the reform 
probably has moderated but not eliminated. Furthermore, the monetary evolution 
within the EÙ could lead to an increase in the rates of the aids per hectare that 
would encourage the expansion of areas devoted to the COP crops. 
Unwanted increases in cereals production are therefore possible for the future and 
for this reason the simple abolition of extraordinary set-aside does not seem a 
prudent option at this stage. The Commission is, however, prepared to review this 
question in the broad context of a first global evaluation of the 1992 reform and 
its impaas which it intends to present after the transition period during the first 
year of full application. 
In the meantime it would appear to be important to maintain the extraordinary set-
aside as a means to limit the area devoted to COP crops and to keep cereals 
production under control. However, in order to avoid or to reduce the undesirable 
side-effects of this instrument, certain modifications could be envisaged. 
Two of these possible modifications are explored here. 
1) Deducting voluntary set-aside from the calculation of the overshoot 
The basic idea of this suggestion is to reduce any overshoot by the areas on 
voluntary set-aside corrected by a coefficient of 75% to take into account the 
likely lower productivity of this land. 
( This reduction would apply only to the calculation of the rate of extraordinary 
set-aside, not to the reduction of areas for which an aid is paid.) 
This modification would reduce the frequency and severity of the sanction in cases 
where an overshoot is associated with voluntary set-aside, in which cases the strict 
application of extraordinary set-aside could be perceived as unjustified. 
Two views can be taken about the need to apply extraordinary set-aside when an 
overshoot is accompanied by voluntary set-aside. 
The first view is that it is difficult to justify the strict application of extraordinary 
set-aside given the fact that no increase in production is caused by the areas on 
voluntary set-aside. Both extraordinary set-aside and voluntary set-aside are 
considered as alternative devices aimed at the same goal: controlling cereals 
production. It could become a political problem to explain to producers that the 
success of one of the devices (voluntary set-aside) produces the application of the 
other ( extraordinary set-aside) while in principle it should reduce the need for it. 
It must also be pointed out that the financial consequences of an overshoot as far 
as it does not cause an increase in production are by and large neutralised for the 
Community's budget through the reduction of all the areas for which and aid is 
requested within the same base area. 
The second view maintains that the strict application of extraordinary set-aside is 
needed because voluntary set-aside was supposed to be an additional instrument 
aimed at an additional reduction of the level of production. Any overshoot would 
show that this additional effect had not been achieved. In fact, from a legal point 
of view, MemberStates are obliged by the Community legislation to make sure 
that voluntary set-aside reduces the cultivated land and that it does not contribute 
in any way to overshoots. If this were always the case, it would seem illogical to 
deduct voluntary set-aside for the calculation of the overshoot. However, as has 
already been said, this provision is difficult to implement. 
In case of deduction of voluntary set-aside a number of other arguments have also 
to be considered. 
(1) Deducting voluntary set-aside is not consistent with one of the aims of 
voluntary set-aside: to give producers participating in the now expiring "five year 
set-aside" scheme the possibility to maintain the same area on set-aside in order 
to avoid that it be put on cultivation (1.65 million ha in 1993/94 that planted with 
cereals could produce between 6 and 7 million tonnes). At present these areas on 
"five year set-aside" are not deducted for the calculation of overshoots. 
(2) There is a risk that the calculations of the overshoots could rapidly become 
more complicated (bureaucratic) and/or subject to manipulation. 
(3) The temptation to use marginal land which is eligible, but would normally not 
be cultivated, for voluntary set-aside in order to obtain the premium would 
increase since no sanction under the form of extraordinary set-aside would have 
to be expected. 
(4) When an overshoot is not associated with voluntary set-aside, all the negative 
side-effects of the present sanction would still appear. 
2) Introduction of a maximum rate for extraordinary set-aside 
This modification would reduce the problems of shifts between the general and the 
simplified schemes and between base areas. The risks of incorporation of new land 
into the COP areas to avoid the sanction would also be reduced. At the same time 
it would maintain certain degree of severity that should prevent the expansion of 
cultivated areas. In fact, an upper limit for extraordinary set-aside would make it 
a credible and applicable, and therefore effective, instrument to control cereals 
production. 
A difficulty associated with this modification is that of finding the right maximum 
rate. The lower the maximum rate, the less effective extraordinary set-aside. The 
higher the maximum rate, the more likely it is that the present problems will again 
be found. Ideally, it should be the maximum rate that does not encourage 
producers to switch from one scheme, base area o product to another. This rate 
probably is not the same all over the Community but only one maximum rate 
should apply for all producers. 
Following consultations on this report, the Commission will make 
appropriate proposals to be implemented for the plantings in autumn 1995 
and spring 1996. Extraordinary set-aside in respect of this season will be 
almost completed before the first possible date by which the Council will 
adopt any change in existing legislation. 
10 
Annex 1 
Area for which an aid was requested or declared as fodder area. 
(million ha) 
__ 1993/94 1994/95 
CEREALS(INCLUDING SILAGE) 31.81 32.69 
OILSEEDS 5A3 5.23 
PROTEIN CROPS 1.32 1.26 
LINSEED -» 0.09 
FODDER AREA 1.31 1.00 
SET-ASIDE ^27 7.30 
TOTAL(million ha) 46.14 47.57 
TOTAL BASE AREA 48JJ3 49.03 
(c:\data\excell\aides,xls) ANNEX 2 
ARABLE CROPS - AID APPLICATIONS 1993/94 
I B 
Number of accepted applications 
(1000) 
General scheme 
Simplified scheme 
Total 
Areas (1000ha)(1) 
COP 
-General scheme (2) 
-Simplified scheme (2) 
Total COP 
NFodder area 
jj5 year set-aside 
TOTAL AREAS 
BASE AREA (3) 
i Average aided area 
per farm (excl. 5 year 
jsot-aside) (ha) 
{General schamo 
| 
,S« nplified scheme 
I' , 
JTotrJ 3 
6,7% 
42 
93,3% 
45 
100% 
(2) 
115 
28,4% 
290 
71,6% 
405 
100% 
47 
1 
453 
479 
38 
7 
9 DK | D 
27 
38,0% 
44 
62.0% 
71 
100% 
(2) 
1385 
74,8% 
466 
25,2% 
1851 
100% 
100 
7 
1958 
2017 
51 
11 
26 96 
25,2% 
285 
74,8% 
381 
100% 
(2) 
6797 
74,0% 
2387 
26,0% 
9184 
100% 
293 
415 
9892 
10002 
71 
8 
24 EL ES | FR 
7 
2,5% 
270 
97,5% 
277 
100% 
97 
7,7% 
1155 
92,3% 
1252 
100% 
20 
1 
1273 
1492 
14 
4 
5 142 
28,3% 
360 
71,7% 
502 
100% 
(2) 
5756 
68,1% 
2694 
31.9% 
8450 
100% 
64 
88 
8602 
9229 
41 
7 
17 184 
33,8% 
360 
66,2% 
544 
100% 
(2) 
10177 
79,4% 
2641 
20,6% 
12818 
100% 
329 
225 
13372 
13522 
55 
7 
24 IR 
3 
17.6% 
14 
82,4% 
17 
100% 
(2) 
170 
59,4% 
116 
40,6% 
286 
100% 
22 
2 
310 
345 
57 
8 
17 IT LUX 
42 
7,8% 
494 
92,2% 
536 
100% 
1239 
31,9% 
2642 
68,1% 
3881 
100% 
130 
786 
4797 
5800 
. 30 
5 
7 0 
13,0% 
2 
87,0% 
2 
100% 
11 
30,6% 
25 
69,4% 
36 
100% 
3 
0 
39 
43 
37 
13 
16 NL | 
1 
2,1% 
46 
97,9% 
47 
100% 
51 
15,3% 
282 
84,7% 
333 
100% 
23 
15 
371 
436 
51 
6 
7 P 
3 
5,9% 
48 
94,1% 
51 
100% 
401 
63,1% 
235 
36,9% 
636 
100% 
130 
0 
766 
1054 
134 
5 
12 UK 
32 
52,5% 
29 
47,5% 
61 
100% 
(2) 
3735 
92,3% 
310 
7,7% 
4045 
100% 
151 
109 
4305 
4407 
117 
11 
66 Total | 
540 
21,3%| 
1994J 
78,7%| 
25341 
100%fl 
29934 
69,3% 
13243 
30,7% 
43177 
100% 
1312 
1649 
46138 
48826| 
55 
7 
17 
(1) Linseed area excluded 
(2) The distribution between the general and simplified schemes is an estimate based 
i.e. including fodder area and "five year" set-aside. 
(3* As indicated in regulation (CEE) n° 845/93 plus 181,000 ha for Germany on the proportion derived from communications for the whole area. 
(c:\data\exceH\surcop,xls) Annex 3 
Estimated COP area 1993/94 - 1000 ha 
I Area planted to different COP products aided or not 
B/LUX DK D EL È8 FR R ft* NL PO UK EUR12 
Cereals («K»-food«ci.) 347 1452 6224 1317 6300 8511 274 3798 183 664 3029 32099 
Oiiseeds (non.food«ci.) 5 143 1089 17 2076 1352 2 249 1 10° 38° 54u 
Linseed (1) 1 0 29 0 0 11 6 11 0 156 205 
Protein 9 121 89 5 29 750 6 90 4 17 214 1334 
Silage 164 77 1264 0 347 1487 2 565 229 40 73 4248 
Total area 
under cultivation S26 1793 8695 1339 8752 12111 290 4763 418 821 3852 43300 
Set aside 
•.-•..' ' • ' ' . 
5 years set aside 1 7 415 1 88 225 2 786 15 0 109 1649 
Rotational set-aside 21 208 1050 15 872 1590 26 195 8 61 568 4614 
jfoiai set-aside 22 215 1465 16 960 1815 28 981 23 61 677 6263 
jTOTAL J 548 2008 10160 13SS 9712 13926 318 S684 441 882 4529 B 49563 
Base area 522 2017 10002 
(2_ 1492 9229 13522 345 5800 436 1054 4407 
(?) 48826 
(1) Linseed area not included in the 1993/94 base area. 
(2) 150,000 ha temporary overshot authorized. 
(3) 24,500 ha temporary overshot authorized. 
Remarks: Figures refer to total area planted disregarding whether aid is requested or not. Area planted to non-food is excluded 
as it reappears under section set-aside. 
Annex 4 
A) OVERSHOOTS OF BASE AREAS IN 1993/94. 
Germany: All the new Lander overshot their base areas. 
Spain: The base area was exceeded by 8% (91,000 ha approximately) in the zone 
"Regadio" (irrigated) for products other than maize. 
United Kingdom: In Scotland, there was an overshoot of 5.4% (about 27,000 ha) in 
the zones other than Less Favoured Areas. The initial calculation of the overshoot was 
16.6% (about 66,500 ha), but the correction of the historical data on which the base 
areas were based reduced the overshoot to 5.4%. 
Belgium: In the Northern region, the "maize" base area was overshot by 16.7% 
(16,200 ha). 
Ireland: The "maize" base area was overshot by 699% (1,100 ha). 
B) IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SANCTIONS IN 1993/94. 
Germany: In December 1993, the Council decided to increase the German base area 
by 181,000 ha. The Commission introduced a system of progressive adaptation of the 
penalties that implied the elimination of all the overshoots in 1993/94. 
Spain: The Commission decided not to apply any reduction to the area "other than 
sunflowerseed". 
United Kingdom: In December 1993 it was decided to apply to Scotland a system of 
progressive adaptation of the sanctions that implied a reduction of 0.54 % of the area 
for 1993/94. In 1994/95 Scotland had an extraordinary set-aside of 1986 ha. 
Belgium: The overshoot was eliminated for the 1993/94 marketing year as a 
consequence of the modification of the Council Regulation in December 1993. 
Ireland: As for Belgium, the overshoot was eliminated in December 1993 through the 
modification of the Council Regulation. 
/lit 
(c:\data\excell\aides.xl8) ANNEX 6 
Number of accepted applications 
;(1000) 
jGeneral scheme 
Simplified scheme 
jTotal 
Areas (1000 ha) 
COP 
|-General scheme 
-Simplified scheme 
i 
'Total COP 
I 
! 
Fodder area 
15 year set-aside 
ITOTAL AREAS 
ÎBASEAREA(I) 
jAverage aided area 
'per farm (excl. 5 year 
set-aside) (ha) 
General scheme 
Simplified scheme 
•Total B 
4 
8,9% 
41 
91,1% 
45 
100% 
157 
36,6% 
272 
63,4% 
429 
100% 
45 
1 
475 
479 
39 
7 
10 DK 
31 
44,9% 
38 
55,1% 
69 
100% 
1564 
79,4% 
405 
20,6% 
1969 
100% 
27 
6 
2002 
2018 
50 
11 
29 ARABLE CROPS - AID APPLICATIONS 1994/96 
D 
114 
30,4% 
261 
69,6% 
375 
100% 
7643 
79,1% 
2024 
20,9% 
9667 
100% 
277 
221 
10165 
10156 
67 
8 
26 EL 
9 
3,0% 
291 
97,0% 
300 
100% 
141 
10,8% 
1168 
89,2% 
1309 
100% 
26 
0 
1335 
1492 
16 
4 
4 ES 
133 
32,2% 
280 
67,8% 
413 
100% 
6537 
74,9% 
2185 
25,1% 
8722 
100% 
37 
68 
8827 
9220 
49 
8 
21 FR 
194 
38,1% 
315 
509 
100% 
11051 
83,4% 
2201 
16,6% 
13252 
100% 
277 
190 
13719 
13526 
57 
7 
26 IR 
4 
25,0% 
12 
75,0% 
16 
100% 
200 
69,0% 
90 
31,0% 
290 
100% 
10 
0 
300 
346 
50 
8 
18 IT LUX 
63 
9,5% 
600 
90,5% 
663 
100% 
1474 
35,1% 
2726 
.64,9% 
4200 
100% 
118 
711 
5029 
5801 
23 
5 
6 0 
13,0% 
2 
87,0% 
2 
100% 
13 
35,1% 
24 
64,9% 
37 
100% 
3 
0 
40 
43 
43 
12 
16 NL 
2 
4,2% 
46 
95,8% 
48 
100% 
84 
22,4% 
291 
77,6% 
375 
100% 
19 
14 
408 
437 
42 
6 
8 p 
4 
5,0% 
76 
95,0% 
80 
100% 
420 
57,7% 
308 
42,3% 
728 
100% 
51 
0 
779 
1054 
105 
4 
9 UK 
35 
56,5% 
27 
43,5% 
62 
100% 
4011 
93,4% 
285 
6,6% 
4296 
100% 
111 
86 
4493 
4461 
115 
11 
69 Toto! 
593 
23,0% 
1989 
77,0% 
2582 
100% 
33295 
73,5% 
11979 
26,5% 
45274 
100% 
1001 
1297 
47572 
49033 
56 
6 
18 
(1) As indicated in Regulations (CEE) n° 1098/94 and n° 1000/94. 
(c:Vdata\excell\surcop,xls) Annex .6 
ÙAIQ.R 
Area planted to different COP products aided or not | 
Cereals 
Oilseeds 
Linseed 
Protein 
Silage (1) (ncm-food cxcL) 
(non-food excL) 
Total area 
under cultivation 
5 years set-aside 
Rotational set-aside (2) 
Others, 
of which voluntary 
Total set-aside 
TOTAL 
Base area B/LUX DK D 
326 
5 
0 
6 
172 1425 
129 
1 
106 
77 6255 
1170 
26 
94 
1208 1327 
20 
0 
509 1738 8753 
1 
22 
6 
1 6 
119 
147 
n.a. 221 
692 
703 
n.a. 
29 272 1616 
538 2009 10369 
522 2018 10156 1492 9220 
(1) Maize silage area plus the additional surface for other than maize siiage in Danrhark, Spain and lit 
(2) For Ireland and Portugal the figure refers to total other than five year set-qsiçîô. • 
(3) Estimate. 
Remarks: Figures refer to total area planted disregarding whether aid is requested or not. Area planted to non-food is excluded 
as it reappears under the set aside section. 
(c:\data VexceU\surcop,xls) 
Annex7 
COP area - Difference in % between 1993/94 and 1994/95 
Area planted to different COP products aided or rxsrt 
B/LUX DK D ËL ES ir PO UK EUR12 
Cereals 
Oilseeds 
Linseed 
Protein 
Silage (non-food excL) 
(non-food excL) -6% 
0% 
•100% 
-33% 
5% -2% 
•10% 
-13% 
0% 0% 
7% 
•10% 
6% 
-4% 1% 
18% 3% 
-34% -4% 
-20% 238% 
-2% •17% 
0% •14% -8% 
32% 
0% 
-94% 
0% 0% 
9% 
-65% 
7% 
0% 0% 
-4% 
-57% 
-2% 
-3% 
Total area 
under cultivation -3% -3% 1% 1% -5% •2% -5% 2% -5% -1% -1% 
Set aside 
5 years set aside 
Total set-aside 0% -21% -47% -100% -23% 
32% 26% 10% 13% 48% •16% -100% 
17% 29% -2% 22% 0% -21% 
10% 9% -21% 
17% 
TOTAL -2% 0% 2% 1% 1% 3% -4% 0% 1% 
Annex 8 
OVERSHOOTS OF THE BASE AREAS IN 1994/95. 
A) General base areas: 
Germany: Taking into account the temporary increase in the areas decided for the 
new Lander, there was an overshoot in the following: 
Brandenbourg 5.9% (54,400 ha) 
Mecldenbourg 1.7% (16,800 ha) 
Sachsen 3.4% (20,400 ha) 
Sachsen-Anhalt 3.8% (33,100 ha) 
Thuringen 2.0% (11,000 ha) 
Baden-Wurtemberg 1.0% ( 7,000 ha) (maize). 
France: Overshoot of the base area other than maize by 1.3%. In 10 out of the 12 
départements having a specific "maize" base area, there was an overshoot ranging 
from 0.7% to 17%. 
United Kingdom: In Scotland ("other than Less Favoured Areas"), there was an 
overshoot of 3.5% (15,400 ha). 
In England there was an overshoot of 66% (33,500 ha) in the maize base. 
Spain: There were the following overshoots: 
"Regadio" base, 12.6% (142,000 ha) 
Castilla-Leon, 6.2% (160,000 ha) 
Aragon 3.7% (25,250 ha) 
Base country 3.8% (1,350 ha) 
B) Oilseeds base areas: 
There was an overshoot of 9% in the maximum guaranteed area for oilseeds in the largest 
Community area. In Spain there was an overshoot of 4% in the sunflowerseed area while in 
the Portuguese sunflowerseed area there was an overshoot of 20%. 
/>% 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(95) 122 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 83 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-95-147-EN-C 
KBN 92-77-87725-1 
Office for Official Publications of the EiErepeaa Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg