Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) on the improvement of the Community production of apples, pears, peaches and nectarines
Date: 1997-02-13
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU production, agricultural production policy, grubbing premium, pip fruit, stone fruit

COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  13.02  1997 
COM(97) 35 nnal 

97/0031  (CNS) 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL  REGULATION  (EC) 

on the improvement of the Community production of apples, pears, peaches and  nectarines 

(presented  by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

Subject:  Proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on  the  improvement  of  the  Community 

production of apples, pears, peaches and nectarines 

The  attached  proposal  for  a  Regulation  is  in response  to  a request  made  by the  Council  at  its 
July  1996  meeting  when  reforming  the  common  organization  of  the  market  in  fruit  and 
vegetables. Its provisions  are based, taking account of the experience gained, on the  provisions 
decided  in  1990 for the grubbing up of apples'  and in  1995 for the grubbing  up of peaches and 
nectarines2. The text differs  from  the previous provisions in the following ways: 

- 

- 

- 

in  accordance  with  the  Council's  request,  the  operation  has  been  extended  to  include  pear 
orchards, 

the area  covered  by  the operation  is at  the  Council's  request  limited  to  10 000  hectares  per 
product  group,  apples  and  pears  on  the  one  hand  and  peaches  and  nectarines  on  the  other 
hand;  a  breakdown  is  made  by  Member  State  on  the  basis  of  the  surface  area  planted, 
production and withdrawals as indicated in the Annex hereto, 

to  allow  account  to  be taken  of the  ecological  or economic  situation  in  certain  regions, the 
proposal  allows the Member  States the option  of not  applying  the  measure to  all  or part  of 
their territory and of establishing further  conditions for the grant of the premium, 

-  experience  gained  in  the  two  previous  operations  on  the  grubbing  up  of  apple  trees,  from 
1990 to  1993 and again in the  1994/95 marketing year, shows that the requirement to effect  a 
complete  grubbing-up  limits  the  effectiveness  of  the  measure;  furthermore,  complete 
grubbing-up  is  much  harder  to  check  since  it  requires  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the 
applicant's orchard;  it is therefore  proposed  to extend  the measure to partial  grubbing-up  but 
to insist on the grubbing-up of at least 0.5 hectares to avoid abuses, 

- 

lastly, to ensure the effectiveness  of the measure, it is proposed  to limit  it to orchards with a 
density  equal  to  or  greater  than  300 trees per hectare, without  restrictions  on the  age  of the 
trees. 

The  detailed  rules  for  implementing  this  operation  will  lay  down  in particular  the  level  of  the 
premium  and  also provisions  to ensure that the budget cost of the measure  is not borne  by the 
1997 budget. 

1  Regulation  (EC)  No  1200/90 (OJ  No L  119,  11.5.1990, p. 63.), as amended  by  Regulation  (EC) No  1890/94 

(OJNol,  197,30.7.1994). 

Regulation (EC) No 2205/95 (OJ No L 258, 28.10.1995, p.  I.) 

I 

ANNEX 

Member  State  allocation  of  areas qualifying  for the grubbing-up  premium 

I.  Apples  and  Pears 

In the case of  the three  new  Member  States, the areas  allocated  are  in  proportion  to their orchard  area compared  to  the  Community 
orchard  area: 

Member 
State 

Austria 
Finland 
Sweden 
EC  12 
EC 15 
Source: 

Apples 
(ha) 

6 787 
419 
1 822 
326 275 
335 303 

Pears 
(ha) 

Apples and pears 
(ha) 

466 
-
248 
135 681 
136 395 

7 253 
419 
2 070 
461 956 
471 698 

% 
1.5% 
0.1% 
0.4% 
97.9% 
100.0% 

EUROSTAT (orchards/1992)  for  EC  12 and 
Member  States  for  A (1994),  FIN  (1995)  and  S  (1993) 

An  allocation  is proposed  for  the  rest  of the  Community  that  takes  equal  account  of the orchard  surface  area,  the  average 
production  for  the  marketing  years  1991/92  to  1995/96 and  aggregate  withdrawals  in these same  years: 

Member  States 

Orchards 
! 

ha 

% 

Production 

tonnes 

I  % 

Withdrawals 
I  % 

tonnes 

B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
LUX 
|NL 
P 
UK 
EC  12 

16 025 
2  153 
41  622 
18  477 
91  606 
81  612 
594 
134  539 
726 
21  626 
29  736 
23  240 
461  956 

3,47 
0,47 
9,01 
4,00 
19,83 
17,67 
0,13 
29,12 
0,16 
4,68 
6,44 
5,03 
100,00 

552  484 
46  200 
2  613  572 
387  043 
1 292  213 
2 313  486 
8  556 
3  052  685 
7  263 
619  800 
337  983 
338  720 
11 570  005 

4,78 
0,40 
22,59 
3,35 
11,17 
20,00 
0,07 
26,38 
0,06 
5,36 
2,92 
2,93 
100,00 

201  012 
129 
128417 
463  403 
377  466 
1  858  948 
2  572 
607  284 
0 
261  539 
36  107 
63  494 
4 000  371 

5,02 
0,00 
3,21 
11,58 
9,44 
46,47 
0,06 
15,18 
0,00 
6,54 
0,90 
1,59 
100,00 

Average 

% 

4,42 
0,29 
11,60 
6,31 
13,48 
28,04 
0,09 
23,56 
0,07 
5,53 
3,42 
3,18 
100,00 

ha 

433 
28 
1  137 
618 
1  321 
2 748 
9 
2  309 
7 
541 
335 
312 
9  800 

Proposal 
ha 

430 
30 
1 140 
620 
1 320 
2 750 
10 
2 3 10 
10 
540 
330 
310 
9  800 

An  allocation  is proposed  that  takes  account,  as above, of the  breakdown  by  producer  Member  State of the orchard  area, 
average  production  in  the  marketing  years  1991/92 to  1995/96 and  aggregate  withdrawals  in the same  years: 

Member  States 

Orchards 

Production 

ha 

I  % 

tonnes 

I  % 

Withdrawals 
I  % 

tonnes 

Average 

% 

I  ha 

Proposal 
ha 

B 
DK 
D 
EL 
E 
F 
IRL 
I 
LUX 
NI. 
A 
I* 
UK 
EC  12 

0 

0,00 

1 

0,00 

0 

0,00 

0,00 

0 

p.m. 

0 
37  404 
76  501 
33  971 

0,00 
13,86 
28,34 
12,59 

20  265 
1 061  300 
825  998 
483  163 

0,48 
25,39 
19,76 
11,56 

223 
2  699  716 
111  162 
353  780 

0,01 
69,57 
2,86 
9,12 

0,16 
36,27 
16,99 
11,09 

16 
3  627 
1 699 
1  109 

10 
3  630 
1  700 
1  110 

110 982 

41,12 

1 680  963 

40,22 

712  090 

18,35 

33,23 

3 323 

3 320 

0 
474 
10 571 

0,00 
0,18 
3,92 

II  020 
96 792 

0,00 
0,26 
2  32 

0 
0 
1 863 

0,00 
0,00 
0,10 

0,00 
0,15 
2,11 

0 
15 
211 

p.m. 
20 
210 

269 903 

100,00 

4  179  503 

100,00 

3  880  834 

100,00 

100,00 

10 000 

10 000 

Proposal 

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 

/ 

or 

on the improvement of the Community  production of apples, pears, peaches and  nectarines 

THE COUNCIL OF THE  EUROPEAN  UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and  in particular Article 43 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from  the Commission, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European  Parliament, 

Whereas  a  feature  of  the  Community  market  for  apples,  pears,  peaches  and  nectarines  is  a  certain 

mismatch  between  supply  and  demand;  whereas this  situation justifies  the  re-introduction  and  extension 

to  pears  of  the  measures  to  improve  Community  production  introduced  for  the  1990/91  to  1994/95 

marketing years as regards apples and for the  1995 marketing year as regards peaches and nectarines; 

Whereas  the  areas  benefiting  from  this  operation  should  be  limited  and  the  least  productive  orchards 

should be excluded  from  it; whereas these areas should  be apportioned  between the Member States on the 

basis  of  the  orchard  area,  production  and  withdrawals  of  each  Member  State;  whereas  it  should  be 

possible  to  amend  this  apportionment  to  optimize  the  area  grubbed  up;  whereas  it  is  also  necessary  to 

allow  the  Member  States to decide  on  the  regions and  conditions  under  which  this operation  shall  apply 

so that  its introduction  does not disturb the economic and ecological  balance of certain  regions; 

Whereas  the  premium,  to  be  paid  once  only,  must  be  established  by  taking  account  of  both  the  cost  of 

grubbing-up and the producer's  loss of income; 

Whereas the aim  of the  grubbing-up  premium  is to achieve the objectives  laid  down  in Article  39 of the 

Treaty; whereas provision  should  be made for the measure to be financed  by the Guarantee  Section of the 

European Agricultural  Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), 

MAS ADOPTED THIS  RIXiULATION: 

Article 1 

1.  Apple,  pear,  peach  and  nectarine  producers  in  the  Community  shall  qualify,  on  application  and 

under  the  conditions  laid  down  in  this  Regulation,  for  a  premium,  to  be  paid  once  only  for  the 

grubbing-up of apple trees, pear trees, peach trees and nectarine trees. 

2.  The premium  shall  be granted  for the grubbing-up of a maximum  surface area of  10 000 hectares  for 

each group of products, apples and pears on the one hand, peaches and  nectarines on the other  hand, 

divided as follows: 

Member States 

Apples and pears 
(ha) 

Peaches and  nectarines 
(ha) 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Portugal 

Finland 

Sweden 

United  Kingdom 

430 

30 

1140 

620 

1320 

2750 

10 

2310 

10 

540 

150 

330 

10 

40 

310 

p.m. 

10 

3630 

1700 

I  I  10 

3320 

p.m. 

20 

210 

i 

The  above  allocation  may  be  amended  by  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  the  procedure 

referred  lo  in  Article  6  to  optimize  the  area  qualifying  for  ii  grubbing-up  premium,  within  the 

maximum  surface area  limit  laid down  in the first  subparagraph  above. 

3. 

The Member States: 

- 

shall  designate  the  regions  in  which  the  grubbing-up  premium  is to  be  granted  on  the  basis  of 

economic and ecological  criteria, 

-  shall  lay  down  conditions  ensuring  in  particular  the  economic  and  ecological  balance  of  the 

regions concerned. 

They shall  notify  these regions and conditions to the Commission once adopted. 

5 

1. 

The premium  shall be granted subject  to a written  undertaking by the recipient: 

Article 2 

(a)  To  grub  up  or  have  grubbed  up,  at  one  time,  before  a  date  laid  down  in  accordance  with  the 

procedure  referred  to  in Article  6, all  or part of his apple, pear,  peach  or  nectarine  orchard,  the 

grubbed-up area being at least 0.5 hectares per product group. 

(b)  To refrain  from  planting apple, pear, peach or nectarine trees, in accordance  with  the  provisions 

laid down by the procedure referred  to in Article 6. 

2. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  Regulation,  and  for  each  of the  two  product  groups  referred  to  in  Article 

1(2), "orchard"  means  all  planted  parcels  on  the  holding  with  a density  of  300 trees  per  hectare  or 

more. 

ArJkJe_3. 

The  premium  shall  be  fixed  taking  account  in particular of the grubbing-up  costs and  the  loss of  income 

to producers carrying out grubbing-up operations. 

Article 4 

The  Member  States  shall  check  whether  recipients  of  the  premium  have  fulfilled  the  undertakings  laid 

down  in  Article  2.  They  shall  take  any  further  measures  in  particular  to  ensure  compliance  with  the 

provisions of this scheme. They shall  inform  the Commission  oflhc  measures taken. 

Article 5 

The  measures  provided  for  in  this  Regulation  shall  be  deemed  intervention  intended  to  stabilize  the 

agricultural  markets  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3 of  Regulation  (EEC)  No  729/70  of  the  Council  of 

21 April  1970 on the  financing  of the common  agricultural  policy1,  as  last amended  by  Regulation  (EC) 

No  1287/952. They shall be financed  by the EAGGF Guarantee  Section. 

OJ  No  1.94,  28.4.1970,  p.  13. 

O.I  No  I.  125,  X  6.1995,  p.  I. 

Article 6 

The  grubbing-up  premium  shall  be  determined  and  the  detailed  rules  for  the  application  of  this 

Regulation  shall  be  adopted  in  accordance  with  the  procedure  laid  down  in  Article  46  of  Council 

Regulation  (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October  1996, on the common  organization  of the  market  in fruit  and 

vegetables3. 

Article 7 

This  Regulation  shall  enter  into force  on the third  day  following  its publication  in the Official  Journal  ol 

the European  Communities. 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 

Done at 

For the Council 

3 

OJ  N u l,  297,  21.11.1996,  p. 1 

1 

1.  TITLE OF OPERATION 

Proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  on  improving  Community  production  of apples, 
pears, peaches and nectarines 

2.  BUDGET HEADING  INVOLVED 

B 1505 

3.  LEGAL BASIS 

Article 43 of the EEC Treaty 

4.  DESCRIPTION  OF OPERATION 

4.1 

General  objective 

To  reduce  the  quantities  withdrawn  through  measures  on  production 
potential. There is a structural  over-supply  on the Community  market  which 
continues  to  be  out  of  keeping  with  demand.  It  is  therefore  necessary  to 
continue  the  improvement  measures  undertaken  from  1990  to  1995  in  the 
case  of  apples  (Regulation  (EC)  No  1200/90) and  in  1995 for  peaches  and 
nectarines  (Regulation  (EC)  No  2505/95)  and  extend  these  measures  to  the 
Community  orchard  in  pear  trees.  However,  given  the  existence  of  the 
previous  measures,  the  Council  wanted  to  limit  the  current  operation  to 
10 000  hectares  per  group  of  products,  apples  and  pears  on  the  one  hand, 
peaches and nectarines on the other. 

4.2 

Period covered and arrangements for renewal or extension 

This  is a single measure  which  will not be renewed.  It will be  implemented 
as  soon  as  possible,  account  being  taken  of  the  Council's  request  not  to 
charge it to the  1997 budget. 

5.  CLASSIFICATION  OF  EXPENDITURE 

Compulsory  expenditure 

Non-differentiated  appropriations 

:^ 

6.  TYPE  OF  EXPENDITURE 

The  proposal  provides  for  the  grant  of  a  single  grubbing-up  premium  to  producers 
who,  before  a deadline  to  be  fixed  by  the  Commission  having  had  the  opinion  of  the 
Management  Committee,  grub  up  all  or  part  of  their  apple,  pear,  peach  or  nectarine 
orchards.  To  ensure  that  the  measure  is  not  used  to  grub  up  unproductive  orchards 
that  have  no  effect  on  the  market,  and  taking  simultaneous  account  of  the  structure 
of the  Community  orchard,  it  is proposed  to  introduce  a  minimum  grubbing-up  area 
(0.5  hectares)  and  to  limit  the  grant  of  the  premium  to  those  orchards  with  a 
plantation  density  equal  or greater than  300 trees  per  hectare. 

Provisions  are  proposed  that  allow  the  Member  States  to  take  account  of  varying 
regional  circumstances  and  the  minimum  eligible  surface  area  is  divided  between 
the  Member  States  on  the  basis  of  the  orchard,  production  and  withdrawals  in  each 
State. 

7.  FINANCIAL  IMPACT 

7.1  Method  of calculating  total  cost  of  operation 

The  proposal  lays  down  that  the  amount  of the premium  will  be  fixed  by  the 
Commission,  having  had  the  opinion  of the  Management  Committee,  taking 
account  of  the  grubbing-up  costs  and  the  estimated  loss  of  income  for  the 
beneficiaries.  It  is  therefore  not  possible  to  calculate  at  this  stage  the 
expected  cost  of the  measure  without  pre-empting  the  Commission  decision. 
It  is at  most  possible  to  produce  a hypothetical  estimate  of  the  cost  using  the 
amount  of  the  premium  fixed  by  the  Commission  for  the  grubbing-up  of 
peach  and  nectarine  trees  for  the  1995  marketing  year,  i.e.  ECU  5 000  per 
hectare  grubbed  up. 

In this scenario, the overall  cost of the measure  can  be estimated  at: 

E C U5  0 0 0 / h a x2  10 000 ha = ECU  100  MILLION 

3 

7.2 

Itemized breakdown of cost 

(Commitment appropriations,ECU  million in current prices) 

Breakdown 
(apples -  pears/ 
peaches - nectarines 

Budget 
year 
1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

20002 
and 
subs, 
yrs. 

Total 

BE  (430ha/p.m.) 
DK  (30ha/p.m.) 
DE  (1140ha/10ha) 
EL  (620ha/ 3630ha) 
ES  (1320ha/  1700ha) 
FR(2750ha/1110ha) 
IR(10ha/-) 
IT(2310ha/3320ha) 
LX(10ha/-) 
NL (540ha/ p.m.) 
OS(150ha/20ha) 
PO(330ha/210ha) 
SF(10ha/-) 
SV (40ha/ -) 
UK(310ha/-) 

Total(2*l0  000ha) 

-

102.5* 

p.m. ** 

102.5 

*  . 

100*  1,025  (Double rate) 

** : balance if necessary 

8.  FRAUD PREVENTION MEASURES 

As in previous operations, anti-fraud  provisions will be included  in the detailed rules 
of  application.  They  will  be  the  same  as  those  introduced  in  the  past  (Regulation 
(EEC)  No  1196/90  and  Regulation  (EC)  No  2684/95).  However,  Article  4  of  this 
proposal already stipulates that the Member States must ensure that the  beneficiaries 
comply with the undertaking they gave not to replant or extend  production. 

9.  ELEMENTS  OF COST  EFFECTIVENESS  ANALYSIS 

9.1 

Specific  and  quantifiable  objectives; target population 

In accordance with the request of the Council, the purpose of this measure is 
to  grub  up  10 000  hectares  of  apple  and  pear  trees  on  the  one  hand  and 
10 000 hectares of peach and nectarine trees on the other hand. 

This should result in the following  reduction in Community  production:1 

-  apples:  10 000 ha x 71.1 % x 25  t/ha =  177 750  tonnes 

pears:  10 000  ha x 28.9% x  17 t/ha  49  130 tonnes 

-  peaches:  10 000 ha x 81.6% x  10 t/ha =  81  600  tonnes 

-  nectarines:  10 000  ha x  18.4% x  10 t/ha --  18 400  tonnes 

If  we  assume  that as  a  result  of  this  operation  Community  withdrawals  will 
drop  by  about  80%  of  these  quantities,  the  resulting  savings  from  the 
1998/99 marketing year will  be:2 

-  apples:  177 7501 x 80% x ECU 97.5/t = ECU  13.9 million 

-  pears: 49  1301 x  80% x ECU 92.8/t = ECU  3.6  million 

-  peaches: 81  600 t x 80% x ECU  128.2/t =  ECU 8.4  million 

-  nectarines:  18 400 t x  80% x  ECU  152.2% =  ECU 2.2  million 

The  outcome  will  be  an  average  total  saving  on  withdrawals  of  about 
ECU  28  million  a  year,  a  sum  close  to  the  expected  cost  of  the  measure 
(ECU  100 million),  which  will  thus  pay  for  itself  in  less  than  four  marketing 
years. 

Lastly, the final beneficiaries  of the measure are the producers  themselves. 

9.2 

Grounds  for  the  operation 

As this assistance  is  intended to stabilize  an agricultural  market, the  measure 
is to  be  borne  entirely  by the  EAGGF  Guarantee  Section  in  accordance  with 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  729/70.  Furthermore,  as  it acts  directly  on  production 
potential,  it  will  have  a  long-term  effect  on  the  level  of  withdrawals.  Its 
attractiveness  for  producers  depends,  however,  on  the  market  situation  for 
the products  in question. 

9.3  Monitoring  and  evaluation  of the  operation 

The  very  nature  of  the  measure  allows  its  performance  to  be  monitored 
immediately.  The  detailed  rules  of  application  will  include  the  information 

1  Calculation  is based on the  following: 

the surface  grubbed  up for each  product group  is in proportion  to the surface  area of the orchards; 
the  yields  used  are slightly  smaller than  the average  yields which  are 20 to 40 t/ha  for  apples,  15 

to 30 t/ha for  pears and  14 t/ha for peaches and nectarines. 

1 

The  withdrawal  cost  chosen  is  the  average  of  the  Cominunity  withdrawal  premium  valid  for  the 
1998/99 to 2001/2002 marketing years. 

) 

) 

the Member Stales must send to the Commission  in this regard so that it can 
examinatc the results and then evaluate this operation. 

)Z. 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(97) 35  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03  01 

Catalogue number  :  CB-CO-97-032-EN-C 

ISBN 92-78-15301-X 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European  Communities 

L-2985  Luxembourg 

•-"i