Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on 'Agri-environmental priorities for the multi-function agriculture of Agenda 2000'
Date: 1999-10-20
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU environmental policy, agricultural product, common agricultural policy, environmental protection, pollution from agricultural sources, product quality

C 368/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.12.1999

an alternative, competitive form of government, which is
compatible with urban and regional development, while

constantly concerned with the quality of life of all the Union’s
inhabitants. This sums up the challenges that lie ahead.

Brussels, 21 October 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on ‘Agri-environmental priorities for the
multi-function agriculture of Agenda 2000’

(1999/C 368/20)

On 28 January 1999, the Economic and Social Committee, acting in accordance with Rule 23(3) of its
Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on ‘Agri-environmental priorities for the multi-function
agriculture of Agenda 2000’.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 28 September 1999. The
rapporteur was Mr Colombo.

At its 367th plenary session (meeting of 20 and 21 October 1999), the Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 93 votes to one, with four abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
On 24 and 25 March 1999, at its Berlin summit, the
European Council launched what it described as an ‘equitable
and worthwhile reform of the Common Agriculture Policy.
The content of this reform will ensure that agriculture is
multifunctional, sustainable, competitive and spread through-
out Europe, including regions with specific problems, that it is
capable for maintaining the countryside, conserving nature
and making a key contribution to the vitality of rural life, and
that it responds to consumer concerns and demands as regards
food quality and safety, environmental protection and the
safeguarding of animal welfare’. (1)

The reform is based, first and foremost, on Council
1.2.
regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (2), which was adopted as an
accompanying measure
the dissemination
of environmentally compatible farming practices and to
compensate farmers for environmental conservation work.

to promote

(1) Berlin European Council 24/25 March 1999, Presidency con-

clusions. DN: DOC/99/1 of 26.3.1999.

(2) This subsequently became Regulation No. 1257/1999,

in OJ

L 160, 26.6.1999.

The regulation provides for the voluntary involvement of
farmers by means of individual agreements offering financial
incentives to meet specific technical and production-related
requirements or develop certain natural resources within the
farm. It has been the most important instrument to date in
terms of
integrating the environmental dimension into
farming policies.

1.2.1.
The most ground-breaking innovation introduced by
the Agenda 2000 package and the new recently-adopted
regulations concerns the establishment of a number of com-
mon rules for direct payments to farmers under CAP support
schemes. The Member States are to adopt the environmental
measures they deem to be appropriate, in accordance with
specific farmland and production conditions. These measures
may include aid in exchange for agri-environmental commit-
ments or direct payments subject to fulfilment of compulsory
general and specific environmental requirements. The Member
States will have to decide on appropriate penalties reflecting
the ecological consequences of failure to meet official uniform
standards for good farming practice, defined nationally follow-
ing consultation with professional farming organisations. They
can reduce or even cancel support scheme payments if specific
requirements are not met.

20.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 368/69

1.2.2.
On this issue, the Committee refers to its opinion of
10 September 1998 (1), and takes note of the series of decisions
adopted on the subject, as well as the Commission Communi-
cation on ‘Directions towards sustainable agriculture’ (2).

The Committee notes that in this respect, the reform is
1.3.
in line with its previous opinions,
in particular its own-
initiative opinion on the Contract between agriculture and
society (3), adopted by an overwhelming majority on 14 Sep-
tember 1994.

1.7.1.
In essence, farmers have been asked to manage their
land in a manner which as well as being efficient in production
terms is also compatible with the conservation of rural and
environmental values. New ‘services’ will be provided by a
competitive and economically viable farming sector which is
also ecologically sound, using and protecting natural resources
and safeguarding the capacity for renewal and ecological
stability.

1.7.1.1.
This is the meaning of ‘multi-function agriculture’:
an activity that goes far beyond food production pure and
simple.

Inspired by the Granada document (4) of Novem-
1.4.
ber 1992, the Committee opinion highlighted the multiple
functions performed by the Community’s agriculture sector
and named the key ingredients for a ‘contract’ between farmers,
the rural world and society in the European Union.

1.7.1.2.
The concept of ‘multi-function agriculture’ is based
on the statement made by the Luxembourg European Council
on 12-13 December 1997, according to which:

1.5.
The opinion reiterated the position taken by the
Committee in September 1988 in its two opinions on the
Commission communications The future of rural society and
Environment and agriculture (5); namely, that in the face of
radical agricultural and social change in the EU’s age-old rural
settlements, farming must keep up its key role as the heartbeat
of rural society, by satisfying basic public needs in terms of
quantity and quality, and also by safeguarding nature and the
environment.

1.6.
The Committee was already arguing at that stage that
farming/environment compatibility required effective guide-
lines for farm production and action to promote rural life,
within a context of mutual understanding between farmers
and the other sections of society, especially consumers.

This understanding between agriculture and society
1.7.
was to be grounded in a coherent rural development initiative,
based on the multiple functions performed by the agriculture
sector, and thus, in particular, its capacity to meet the public’s
productive, social and environmental requirements.

(1) OJ C 407, 28.12.1998. Opinion on direct support schemes/Agen-

da 2000.

(2) COM(1999) 22 final.
(3) OJ C 393, 31.12.1994, p. 86.
(4) The Granada Document contained the conclusions of the VIth
Camerino Symposium on Community Rural Law held in Granada on
27/28.11.1992,
led by specialists in rural and Community
law and aimed at the European scientific community and the
Community institutions. The full text is appended to the Com-
mittee Opinion on the contract between agriculture and society.
(5) COM(88) 501 final of 28.7.1988 and COM(88) 338 final of
8.6.1988. Opinions: OJ C 298, 27.11.1989, pp. 32 and 40.
(future of rural society) (environment and agriculture).

‘The Union is determined to continue developing the
present European model of agriculture while seeking
greater internal and external competitiveness. European
agriculture must, as an economic sector, be versatile,
sustainable, competitive and spread throughout European
territory, including regions with specific problems. The
process of reform begun in 1992 should be continued,
deepened, adapted and completed, extending it to Mediter-
ranean production. The reform should lead to economi-
cally sound, viable solutions which are socially acceptable
and make it possible to ensure fair income, to strike a fair
balance between production sectors, producers and regions
and to avoid distortion of competition. (6)’

1.7.1.3.
A distinction must, however, be drawn between
multi-function farming and multiple jobbing. The second
covers diversification to non-farm activities (crafts, business or
employed work). In this case, arable and livestock farming are
just part of the occupational definition. This takes account of
the view that rural development should be underpinned by an
increase in non-farm activities and services, which generates
additional or alternative sources of income, and is capable of
reversing the trend towards rural depopulation, revitalising the
economy and making country life more attractive.

Therefore, multi-function farming (7) requires new
1.7.1.4.
duties of farmers, in both traditional and innovative work, the
all-round rationale being to develop the business, with due
respect
tax, social security and pension
arrangements laid down in national legislation.

for any special

(6) Luxembourg European Council — 12/13 December 1997 —

Presidency Conclusions — DN: PRES 97/400 15.12.1997.

(7) For a more detailed definition of the concept of multifunction
farming see the opinion on ‘A policy to consolidate the European
agricultural model’, Point 3.

C 368/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.12.1999

1.8.
In the Committee’s opinion, for agri-environmental
initiatives to succeed, a bond of solidarity must be forged
between all sections of civil society in relation to agriculture,
in contrast to traditional measures aimed solely at improving
production structures and often seen as one more way of
subsidising the primary sector at the tax payer’s expense.

1.9.
The Committee was therefore pleased to note that
many of its views were shared; first, in the conclusions to the
European conference on rural development held in Cork in
November 1996, which identified sustainable rural develop-
ment as an EU priority and cornerstone of all regional policy,
in particular to stem the rural exodus and boost employment;
and second, in the agriculture chapter of Agenda 2000 (1),
where, in setting out the European model for agriculture, the
Commission recognised the major environmental role played
by farming, by virtue of its having always been the most
widespread form of land use.

ments, marking a departure from the simple set-aside compen-
sation system, towards incentives proportionate to the pro-
vision of practical land-conservation services.

1.10.3.
The Committee would stress the need to prevent
unfair distortions to competition rules, resulting from environ-
mental obligations or draconian protection schemes, and
limiting opportunities for normal profitable land-use. A series
of good farming practice standards should be drawn up, listing
the general and specific environmental conditions for direct
payments required of farmers by the CAP reform.

1.9.1. While approving the approach taken by Agenda
2000, the Committee does not in any way wish to invalidate
the general and sectoral critical assessment made in its various
opinions on the agriculture chapter of Agenda 2000 and the
individual proposals for COM reform contained in them (2).

1.10.4.
In short, the CAP is evolving into a more refined
policy aimed at the rural world as a whole — a world no
longer to be considered as backward or less important, but in
terms of the opportunities it provides to improve quality of
life and use natural resources more sensibly and rationally.

1.10.
Under Agenda 2000, income support policies will be
increasingly dependent on the services farmers can offer the
community, and the sector’s competitiveness will be yoked to
production techniques that protect natural resources, reduce
and where possible prevent pollution, and generate quality
produce.

1.10.1.
In other words, while the once predominant
demand for increased food production is receding, new farm
activity openings are emerging for the general purpose of
serving the common good, by means of environmentally-
sound methods and improvements in product quality and
individuality.

1.10.2. More importantly, provision has been made for aid
to be allocated in exchange for agri-environmental commit-

(1) COM(97) 2000 final of 15.7.1997.
(2) OJ C 73, 9.3.1998, p. 71. Opinion on the agricultural aspects of
the Commission’s Communication — Agenda 2000; OJ C 284,
the COM —
14.9.1998, p. 55. Opinion on the reform of
cereals/Agenda 2000; OJ C 407, 28.12.1998, p. 196. Opinion on
the reform of the COM — beef/Agenda 2000; Ibidem, p. 203
Opinion on the reform of the COM — milk/Agenda 2000; Ibidem,
p. 208 Opinion on direct support schemes/Agenda 2000; Ibidem,
p. 210 Opinion on the reform of the EAGGF/Agenda 2000;
Ibidem, p. 221 Opinion on the financing of the CAP/Agenda
2000.

1.11.
In the light of the European Union’s intention to use
this approach more consistently and effectively than in the
past to add value to farm work and activities that protect and
steward the land, and to promote the wider dissemination of
ecologically-sound production techniques, the present opinion
is designed to pinpoint:

— the most pressing objectives for protecting rural areas,
preventing harm to the environment and conserving
natural resources, the upshot of which should be to secure
economic activity and jobs, particularly in upland and
other naturally disadvantaged areas, and thus give present
and future generations a reason to stay on the land;

— priority measures for promoting high quality, traditional
foods more effectively, to meet the standards which society
demands of agriculture in terms of quality, safety, and
environmental compatibility;

— the necessary incentives to sustain activities which protect
the land and enhance the quality of European agriculture,
coupling environmental protection with the need to bolster
the efficiency of the Union’s production system in the face
of fiercer competition on the international markets.

20.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 368/71

2. The most pressing objectives for protecting rural
areas, preventing harm to the environment and con-
serving natural resources

2.1. Preserving the land for farming

2.1.1.
Against a backdrop of constant attacks on the
identity, rural habitats are being
countryside and regional
invaded and compromised, with the danger that traditional
river management and soil conservation systems will deterio-
rate.

2.1.2.
The ongoing urban sprawl and siting of various types
of development and their accompanying infrastructure in
flourishing farming areas has contributed to the unravelling of
the
the land-holding system and the urban conquest of
countryside, forcing the landscape through major change.

In the Committee’s view, rural areas can no longer
2.1.2.1.
be treated as property reserves, but must become integral parts
of a single land-use programme and influence the planning
process at all levels. This means that the urban and construc-
tion planning permission authorities must remain faithful to
the usual use and purpose of a given area.

2.1.3.
The land degradation triggered by the closing down
of numerous farms and the ensuing rural exodus from entire
regions is just as grave a problem as pollution. The Committee,
therefore, feels that it would be worthwhile promoting and
providing appropriate support for a move towards ‘sustainable
agriculture’ in predominantly family-run farms, as a means of
actively managing rural areas. Such farms should secure a
satisfactory level and quality of output, while keeping the
right ecological balance, and would help to preserve natural
resources as unique and irreplaceable public assets.

2.1.3.1.
Young people must be encouraged in entrepreneur-
ial endeavours, focusing especially on the establishment and
expansion of production units, applying special tax and credit
incentives should be
provisions. At national
granted for the establishment of cooperatives to meet demand
for environmental services and improve conditions for pro-
cessing and marketing products.

level, special

2.2. Specific measures for disadvantaged and upland areas

of difficult physical conditions, and where there is very low
population density or a trend towards depopulation (all
common features of upland areas). In disadvantaged areas that
are economically depressed in spite of having attractive
scenery, state intervention to change social structures and
redistribute income must focus on providing basic public
services (schools, hospitals, transport) even when they are
not strictly speaking economically viable, and on targeting
investments and promoting the development of production
initiatives that help to safeguard the environment, as the
gradual changes it is undergoing are causing disastrous land-
slides, floods and other natural disturbances.

2.2.2.
The Committee believes that, within the broader
context of social solidarity, public action should be stepped up
to encourage development in disadvantaged areas which are
losing population, starting by recognising the central role
played by farming in optimising these areas simply by virtue
of its interaction with natural resources. The aim should be to
set up viable farm businesses, using productive capacity to
the full and supporting farming families by giving proper
recognition to traditional values, in order to serve the common
interest by nurturing a truly people-friendly and people-centred
environment.

2.2.3. With regard to upland farming, schemes for certify-
ing and adding value to typical agri-forestry products should
be encouraged.

2.3. Making nature parks and reserves into multi-purpose assets

2.3.1.
There is a trend towards protecting areas of regional
importance for the purposes of nature conservation and the
preservation of rural cultural values.

Having examined the complex relationships that
2.3.2.
hold the balance between natural resources, the Committee
maintains that conserving areas does not necessarily mean
never using them, but rather that the right conditions must be
found for sustainable coexistence.

2.3.2.1.
On these lines, the Committee takes the view that
nature reserves and parks should be multi-purpose. They
should not be seen as out of bounds or no-go areas for
development programmes, but as special places for conducting
research and, wherever possible, piloting methods that bring
human life into harmony with the environment.

2.2.1.
In view of the structural and environmental dispari-
ties between farming regions and the need to link environmen-
tal protection with the revitalisation of rural economies, the
Committee is particularly concerned about areas which are
disadvantaged or where farming is barely productive as a result

2.3.3.
The Committee highlights the particular way in
which these areas can serve other interests besides nature
conservation, such as the economic development of local
communities, through the promotion of appropriate forms of
tourism and traditional farming, forestry and pastoral activities
using sustainable methods.

C 368/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.12.1999

2.4. Protecting biodiversity

— developing renewable energy sources, by investing in wind,

solar and biomass energy production technology;

2.4.1.
In the face of the gradual erosion of genetic resources,
species and the ecosystem, caused by a reduction in natural
capacity for genetic improvement and by environmental
damage, the Committee feels that the key to safeguarding
biodiversity is to protect ecosystems and natural habitats and
to keep species in their natural environments.

— investing in transport services, using multi-modal systems;

— promoting arable and livestock farming methods that

maintain biodiversity.

However, apart

from defending ecosystems and
2.4.2.
animal and plant species, protecting biodiversity means achiev-
ing the critical goal of sustainable development, in accordance
with models and processes that, in particular, allow time for
resources to regenerate.

2.4.3.
The Committee would stress that farming occupies
an especially important position in this context and can make
a vital contribution on two fronts. Firstly, it can help restore
order in land-use, by combating the various forms of environ-
mental decay. Secondly, it can help to maintain habitats and
the interaction between ecosystems, with a view to the
sustainable use of resources and a form of development which
does not threaten animal or plant life.

2.4.4.
A support strategy which respects biodiversity could
bring the farming sector additional investments, generated by
greater economic opportunities which provide increased value
added, a wider range of products and a broader supply of
services designed to maximise the natural environment and
increase public access for leisure activities.

2.5. Recommended measures for rehabilitation and delivery of the
full potential of development systems and regional services

In the Committee’s view, the top priority is to stem
2.5.1.
the rural exodus and improve quality of life by promoting
jobs, particularly in regions with high unemployment (upland
and other naturally disadvantaged areas). This should be done
by:

— establishing or upgrading administrative service networks
to the standard required to provide information on farm-
ing, tourism and the hospitality business;

— conducting land conservation work, paying special atten-
tion to forests and applying specific measures for pre-
venting and fighting forest fires and for river management;

— launching credit policies and simplifying red tape for
setting up agricultural businesses specialising in traditional,
high-quality products that are linked to the local culture
and customs and are based on local plant systems and the
natural diversity of the area;

2.5.2.
At all events, the Committee takes the view that
rural development policy should uphold the principle of
subsidiarity, promoting the cultural heritage and traditions of
rural communities as well as regional diversity.

2.5.3.
Rural development is governed by specific local
socio-economic and physical conditions and can thus require
widely differing approaches. The model used must therefore
fit in with normal production in the area concerned, placing
an emphasis on enhancing the quality and individuality of
local products, and using techniques that do not threaten the
environment or animal welfare.

3. Priority measures for promoting high quality, special-

ity foods more effectively

Growing demand for natural products,

3.1.
leading to
market competition based on product diversification rather
than reduced production costs, should certainly create a
favourable climate for local speciality products.

These products are opening up new opportunities for
3.1.1.
farmers to restore a more direct relationship with consumers,
responding to their preferences and needs and playing a greater
role in guaranteeing product authenticity.

3.1.2.
Protecting the health and safety of operators and the
public should be one of the prime objectives of suppliers of
technology to farms.

3.1.2.1.
Health and hygiene standards must be applied to
protect public health, while bearing in mind that farming
practice does not have to be exactly the same as that of
industry.

High-quality products can generate a number of knock-

3.2.
on effects:

— output maximisation ceases to be the sole objective as
value added for the final consumer and improved product
quality come into play;

20.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 368/73

— support is given to the development of local systems,
optimising the human and natural resources available in a
given area, as well as local communities’ deep-rooted
traditions and customs;

3.3.1.2.
The aim here is to develop the full potential of
products from areas that outstretch the local or regional
parameters generally used for the PDO or PGI, and that go
beyond the concept of local specialities, by acknowledging
their designation of origin or national trademark.

— the agri-foods sector becomes more balanced as a whole,
through the development of local activities centring on
market niches that attract more sophisticated consumers;

— regional skills and know-how are preserved, by integrating

local craft activities into multi-function farming;

— the foods produced are often tastier than mass-produced

products.

3.3.
High-quality farm products must,
priority, in view of their positive impact as regards:

therefore, be a

— consumer health and safety, and application of environ-

mental health standards;

— product description matching product on the shelf;

— guaranteed constancy in basic characteristics;

— production techniques;

— protection of the environment via a reduction in the
use of fertilisers and pesticides and the introduction of
integrated farming systems;

— complementary activities (tourism, craft, commerce, etc.)

generated at local level;

— reference to the local area.

As tax payers and consumers, the general public will appreciate
the tangible benefits which these efforts will bring in the form
of a better and healthier life style and diet.

These products, destined for mass consumption
3.3.1.3.
via the major marketing channels, must however measure up
to the quality implicit in their special characteristics, their
geographical identity and the assurances given by the local
agri-food sector.

3.3.1.4.
The Committee believes that, in addition to keeping
a major share of the value added within local communities,
giving high-quality products a strong regional link also neces-
sarily stimulates the development of associated economic
sectors (tourism, arts and crafts), boosting local development
through innovative and varied forms of investment (for quality,
safety, and the environment).

3.4. The Committee’s recommendations for developing natural
resource conservation and management opportunities in tan-
dem with complementary production initiatives

3.4.1.
Against that background, producer organisations too
are called upon to play a key role in promoting products,
applying appropriate practices and techniques, establishing
controls and maintaining standards, and raising awareness of
the unique nature of the local product.

3.5.
The Committee also maintains that local authorities
can work with producer organisations to develop production
activities that fit in with the objectives of protecting and
managing natural resources; for instance:

— launching education (from primary school age) and train-
ing initiatives to revitalise local employment prospects;

3.3.1.
By guaranteeing a product’s geographical origin for
the purposes of consumer information, speciality products can
be marketed as being unique in terms of production cycle and
local conditions, and as providing the consumer with better
value.

3.3.1.1.
It must be made clear that when there is a strong
link with an area, product labels can refer to geographical
origin and to special cultivation and production methods
without carrying Community certification (PDO, PGI (1)).

— setting up support schemes tailored to local business and

providing businesses with financial support;

— restoring local economic activity (traditional crafts and

production techniques);

— tapping the potential for tourism by developing high
quality local products linked to specific regional contexts;

(1) PDO: protected designation of origin; PGI: protected geographical

indication.

— establishing marketing networks, outside the local pro-
for speciality products, also using new

duction area,
technologies;

C 368/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.12.1999

— pioneering employment policies to harness business ser-
vices provided by farmers, for instance land rehabilitation
and conservation.

— unless enough is done to correct the ecologically unbal-
anced use of natural resources in intensive farming, the
resulting deterioration will be costly;

4.

Incentives needed to maintain land conservation work
and boost production system efficiency

4.1.
Redefining the technical objectives of the farm, switch-
ing the focus from quantity to quality, will involve acknowledg-
ing the range of goods and services that are linked to the
specific features of arable and livestock farming, and forestry,
especially where traditional forms of land use come into play.

The fact that farms are regionally widespread makes it
4.2.
essential to assess the vital contribution they make to safe-
guarding natural resources, and also to protecting and strength-
ening the social and commercial fabric of local economies.

— the type and scale of incentives provided for marginal
farming will not be enough to dissuade people from
leaving the land.

4.5.2.
On this issue, by recognising the decisive role played
by farmers in protecting the environment and managing rural
areas, the new system set up under Agenda 2000, which has
now been adopted and transformed into a regulation, tops up
the direct Community aid system and the moves to modernise
farms and improve their economic viability.

4.6.
The need to assess the external effects and make
provisions to discourage the negative ones and promote the
positive ones is also a central issue.

Among other measures, an integrated approach
4.6.1.
to rural development should help to boost
income and
employment. This presupposes a less rigid and sector-based
approach to employment policy.

4.3.
Currently, the practical measures and financial backing
directed at this aspect of farming are insufficient and ineffec-
tive.

4.7.

Possible initiatives include:

a) premiums for:

4.3.1.
An assessment has still to be made of the point at
which environmental protection should cease to be a voluntary
duty and become a paid service.

4.4.
Only by recognising the multiple functions of agri-
culture will the relationship between the production process
and the environment be definitively reversed. Meanwhile,
natural resources must be treated as both environmental
production factors and as public assets on which local
well-being depends.

— protecting and developing stocks of wildlife species in

danger of extinction

— restoring the countryside and the environment and

improving public access

— reforesting and upkeep of the land for the purposes of

fire prevention

— adapting livestock farming with a view to reducing its
environmental impact while giving due consideration
to animal welfare.

4.4.1.
The result should be to promote a more balanced
understanding of the boundaries governing the use of resources
in production, while enhancing their productive capacity.

These premiums should be allocated on the basis of objective
criteria and quantifiable results.

Effective state intervention is linked to the continuity
4.5.
of accompanying measures. Negative factors which have
affected local application must be eliminated with a view to
introducing environmentally sustainable practices and behav-
iour patterns. The new agricultural policy instruments must be
in order to develop new
implemented in their entirety,
employment opportunities in rural areas.

b) agreements with farmers to provide services for:

— environmental rehabilitation

— conservation of biodiversity

— land conservation and management

Judging by experience so far, even if the current
4.5.1.
accompanying measures are continued with extra financial
backing, they will have to counter the risk that:

— water management and runoff control measures

c)

support for regional and environmental protection

20.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 368/75

d) aid to encourage farmers to settle in farming areas and in

upland and other naturally disadvantaged areas.

4.8.
Support for negotiated policies could be particularly
useful for the preservation of sites of high biological value, as
the management of nature parks and reserves is largely
determined by the farming policies that steer spatial develop-
ment.

4.8.1.
For multifunctional agriculture to come into its own,
economic policy must, at the very least, take the following
aspects into account:

thorities should also be free to make direct payment arrange-
ments for the provision of services, providing the work is on a
reasonable scale and the compensation owed does not exceed
a given threshold.

5.1.3.
Furthermore, special attention should be paid to
building up the know-how and skills of farmers, by raising
professional standards. Rapid changes in market conditions
and technology, and the development of new product types,
require a real commitment to training, research and support
in the interest of enabling green farming and effective steward-
ship of the land.

a) protecting the social fabric and quality of life of the rural

population;

6. Conclusions

b) differentiating management methods, on the basis of the

real potential of each area;

c)

striking a new balance between public and private interests
in the management of natural resources;

d) evaluating external costs in company balance sheets.

5. A contract between agriculture and the public auth-

orities to safeguard the environment

5.1.
In the Committee’s opinion, revamping the role of the
farmer involves building up environment-related services and
encouraging greater practical accountability, as part of an
environmental management programme.

5.1.1.
To this end, the Committee hopes that the authorities
will draw up appropriate voluntary conventions with individ-
ual farmers or farming associations, for work or services
relating to agricultural, forestry and rural environment conser-
vation and management, water management, and environmen-
tal and countryside protection and development.

These conventions, entered into voluntarily, should
5.1.2.
specify the nature and purpose of
the general regional
conservation and management services to be provided, the
length of the agreement, and the compensation to be paid by
the authorities. To simplify and speed up the process, au-

Brussels, 20 October 1999.

6.1.
The Committee believes it can play a major role in
assessing the sustainability of the results of the CAP reform
in terms of optimising the competitiveness of farms and
production. In any event, in practical terms the future of the
sector must centre on steering through the current changes in
market policy, with a view to achieving an integrated and
sustainable European model for farming. The implementation
of the new rural development measures should therefore be
supported, with the adoption of new criteria for the allocation
of public resources to respond to problems such as unemploy-
ment and rural decline. The aim should be to encourage a
policy of providing infrastructural support for rural areas and
farms, recovering the competitive edge of local products by
playing the quality and local speciality cards, and boosting
income levels by diversifying farm activities, with multi-
functionality as the all-embracing goal.

6.2.
The Committee offers this opinion as a set of guide-
lines, for examination in the light of the rural development
programmes which Member States are to submit under the
new Regulation (EEC) No 1257/1999. The agri-environmental
indicators, requested by the Cardiff and Vienna European
Councils with a view to mainstreaming environmental protec-
tion into all policies, will provide further important elements
for evaluation. The ‘agriculture and environment’ study carried
out jointly by Eurostat and the Commission’s Agriculture and
Environment Directorates-General, was a useful preliminary
exercise. The Committee hopes that there will be concrete
results by the end of the year, in time for the Helsinki European
Council.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI