Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco'
Date: 1996-12-19
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: Austria, common organisation of markets, production aid, tobacco













EUR-Lex - 51996AC1508 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51996AC1508

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco'  


Official Journal C 075 , 10/03/1997 P. 0020 





Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Regulation (EEC) No 2075/92 on the common organization of the market in raw tobacco` (97/C 75/04)On 17 October 1996 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.The Economic and Social Committee decided to appoint Mr Strasser as rapporteur-general for its opinion.At its 341st Plenary Session held on 18 and 19 December 1996 (meeting of 19 December), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 75 votes to 16, with 22 abstentions.1. Introduction1.1. Pursuant to Article 3(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2075/92, a supplementary amount has been granted for flue-cured, light air-cured and dark air-cured tobaccos grown in Belgium, Germany, and France. This amount was established when the tobacco market rules were reformed to supplement the standard premium and so prevent an excessive fall in incomes in the northern tobacco-growing areas as a result of the abolition of the intervention price. The intention was also to safeguard the production of high-quality tobacco.1.2. The production conditions for tobacco in Austria are particularly comparable to those in Germany, although cultivated areas are smaller on average (about 1 hectare per farm). The total area devoted to tobacco cultivation in Austria is not very large, but it is still relatively important for the regions concerned.1.3. After Austria joined the EU, average incomes from tobacco cultivation fell steeply (by 45 % without the supplementary premium and 30 % with the premium). Unlike other production areas, tobacco cultivation does not benefit from degressive compensatory payments. Without the supplementary amount that is granted to the northern tobacco-growing areas, production in Austria would certainly not be profitable and would undoubtedly have to be abandoned by growers, who would have no alternative way of earning their living in their own region.1.4. The impact on the Community budget is small, the amount involved being just ECU 0.4 million per annum.2. Comments2.1. The Economic and Social Committee welcomes the Commission's proposal to grant Austria the supplementary amount that has been provided for the tobacco types cultivated in Germany, since tobacco-growing conditions in Austria are comparable.Brussels, 19 December 1996.The President of the Economic and Social CommitteeTom JENKINSAPPENDIX to the Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee Delete from the second line of point 1.2 to the end of the opinion. Replace with:'The Commission is therefore proposing to extend the supplementary payment to Austrian tobacco farmers.1.3. Tobacco is unique among the crops supported by the European Union. Far from being a foodstuff, it is known to damage health while the EU spends ECU 1 176 million (in 1994) supporting tobacco growing, it only spends ECU 64 million (1996-2000) in its Europe against Cancer programme.1.4. The Committee supports the payment of prima to farmers, including Austrian farmers, currently engaged in tobacco farming - but these prima should subsidize conversion of their land to other crops and uses, including environmental purposes. The overdue reform proposals for the tobacco regime should be published now and make this switch.`Result of the voteFor: 34, against: 70, abstentions: 7.