Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "New economy, knowledge society and rural development: what prospects for young farmers?"
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: agricultural policy, globalisation, information society, sustainable development, transfer of farms, young farmer

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/29

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘New economy, knowledge society and
rural development: what prospects for young farmers?’

(2002/C 36/06)

On 1 March 2001 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph of Rule 23 of
its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the ‘New economy, knowledge society and rural
development: what prospects for young farmers?’

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 27 September 2001. The
rapporteur was Ms Sa´nchez Miguel.

At its 385th plenary session of 17 and 18 October 2001 (meeting of 17 October), the Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 137 votes in favour with one abstention.

1.

Introduction

1.1.
In a Europe which is rapidly developing in the face of
the challenges of globalisation and of the ‘new economy’,
society has begun to wonder once again about the future of
agriculture and rural areas, and to seek development prospects
capable of satisfying the expectations of the new generations.

1.2.
Sustainable development, based on a pact with future
generations, for conservation of available resources, cannot be
achieved without high quality agriculture and rural develop-
ment, providing employment for the young.

1.3.
Only by reversing the trends towards marginalisation
and ageing of human resources in agriculture can a new pact
be reached between agriculture and society (1), making the
most of the potential provided by new information and
communication technology, and bridging the gaps already
noticeable between declining rural areas and areas with a high
level of innovation. Eurostat data reveals that the farm sector’s
population has the form of an inverted pyramid: in view of
expected developments, this structure will probably become
unviable, putting its continuity at serious risk.

1.4.
Agriculture must be fully involved in the promotion of
the knowledge society and innovation, and must benefit from
the employment spin-offs which can result from them: the
new orientations in the field of education and training
(‘eLearning’) and in the promotion of new information tech-
nologies (‘eEurope’), launched by the Lisbon European Council
must be transformed into specific measures in the agricultural
sector, directed particularly at young people.

1.5.
There is also a need for training and research in the
agricultural sector and the practical application of the CAP to
reflect better the effects of other policies on the rural world,
particularly as regards integrating the environmental dimen-
sion, food safety and health, as laid down in recent amend-
ments to the Treaties.

1.6.
It is therefore necessary to reflect on how best to
combine existing policies and intervention instruments, par-
ticularly in terms of training,
incentives for research and
innovation and dissemination of information, to enable them
to operate to the full also in the agricultural sector and rural
areas, directing them in particular towards young farmers,
whether men or women. In drawing up this own-initiative
opinion, the Committee has taken account of the work already
done in this field by the European Parliament and the
Committee of the Regions: it intends to develop a constructive
dialogue with these institutions on these matters, involving the
associations concerned (2).

1.7.
Our purpose, as an economic and social body, is to
work out how to respond to the changes which will come in
the wake of reforms put in motion by Agenda 2000 in both
economic and social structures and, most of all, how to involve
young people. In this context, the human factor as a key
element in change needs to be emphasised.

1.8.
The Committee tackled the problem of succession in
agriculture, looking at the various factors involved, in an own-
initiative opinion in 1994 (3). Many of the problems discussed
then continue today. For this reason instruments should be

(2) Cf. in particular the report by Neil Parish on The situation and
prospects of young farmers in the European Union (PE.286.374)
for
and the Gonzi opinion on The young people’s project
European agriculture (CdR 417/2000).

(1) OJ C 393, 31.12.1994, p. 86.

(3) OJ C 195, 18.7.1994.

C 36/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

developed under the CAP or other common policies which
can tackle these problems.

1.9.
The unsatisfactory results obtained since 1994 were
confirmed by the Court of Auditors’ Special Report No 3/2000
on the measures to assist the employment of young persons (1)
which, while noting that the European Union ‘has introduced
a number of measures to help young farmers in particular’,
concludes that ‘the Court has been unable to establish the
existence of an overall strategy or plan in respect of the
financial contribution made by the ESF and EAGGF Guidance
for the benefit of young farmers. Any impact since 1994 is
still undiscovered’.

1.10.
In its replies, the Commission takes note of these
comments and acknowledges the need for better mechanisms
to evaluate measures adopted under Regulation No 950/97 (2):
it has drawn up a set of guidelines for the Member States for
this purpose. These initiatives should be supported, but equally,
there should be closer coordination of actions targeting
young people, which are spread over a number of different
instruments.

2. General comments

2.1. A human resources policy for multi-functional agriculture,

with the aim of opening up new prospects for young farmers

The European agricultural model (3), based on multi-
2.1.1.
functionality, environmental compatibility, economic sus-
tainability and food safety, is a cultural, technical, economic
and social model (4). Until a few decades ago, the success of
agricultural production depended largely on material factors:
the fertility and orography of soils, and the climate. Today,
although the above factors still count, greater emphasis is
placed on others such as human intelligence and creativity, the
richness and variety of crops, professional skills and applied
knowledge.

Objectives such as integrated rural development,
2.1.2.
quality certification, making the most of typical products,
economic differentiation, structural modernization of hold-
ings, etc., cannot be achieved merely by regulatory measures
(subsidies, obligations and prohibitions). A human resources
policy is therefore also necessary for the agricultural sector
and the rural world. It is basically a matter of applying the

(1) OJ C 100, 7.4.2000, paragraphs 64 and 87 in particular.
(2) Since amended in Agenda 2000.
(3) ESC opinions CES 952/99 (OJ C 368 of 20.12.1999, p. 68) and

(OJ C 368, 20.12.1999, p. 76).

(4) To define its characteristics, cf. point 7 of ESC opinion OJ C 368,
20.12.1999, p. 76 on a policy to consolidate the European
agricultural model.

principles laid down in Agenda 2000, which, in a section
which was not devoted to agriculture and rural development
(but which covered ‘all the sectors’ of economic activity)
explicitly stated as one of the priorities of the Union the need
to give priority to developing a knowledge policy (research,
innovation and training) as an instrument for supporting
competitiveness.

2.1.3.
It is necessary to make a deeper analysis of structural
development and the composition of human resources in
agriculture in order to identify instruments which could
provide development prospects for young people equal to the
new demands of society — all the more so when there is a call
for the current CAP reform to be speeded up.

2.2. Main structural changes in European agriculture and their

effects on the composition of human resources

2.2.1.
The prevailing trend in the agricultural sector,
although varying in degree among individual states of the EU,
is for a generalised reduction in the number of holdings, in the
overall surface area under agriculture, and in employment (5).
This process has reduced the number of productive units, but
has also fuelled a polarisation in the entrepreneurial make-up
of the farm sector, with an increase in the proportion of
professional holdings and of economic operators in the true
sense of the word. However, small and very small undertakings
still characterise Community agriculture, particularly in the
southern European countries, where the social base of agri-
culture remains — partly for this reason — strong, sizeable
and widespread (6). It should be pointed out that these small
holdings still guarantee a large number of jobs. Many of these
farmers are part-time farmers, and in many other cases it is
often a matter of disguised unemployment, with all the social
repercussions this has.

(5) In the Europe of the 10 the figure of 6,5 million holdings in
1982-1983 fell to little more than 5,5 million in 1989-1990 with
a considerable reduction in the number of small and very small
units. A similar trend was seen in the Europe of the 12 in the
1990s: in 1993 there were about 7,3 million farm holdings,
falling to 6,9 million in 1997. In this period the largest fall was
seen in France, Portugal and Spain (about -8 %), whilst the number
of holdings remained almost stable in the Netherlands. Overall,
between 1990 and 1997 more than a million farmers gave up
their holdings.

(6) In the Europe of the 15, more than half the agricultural holdings
are of less than 5 hectares. In some countries (Italy, Greece and
Portugal) three-quarters of the holdings have a size less than
5 hectares. In others (United Kingdom, Ireland and Scandinavian
countries), holdings of less than 5 hectares account for a minimal
percentage (between 3 % and 13 %).

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/31

2.2.2.
Eurostat data for 1980 showed that 47 % of farmers
were more than 55 years old. This percentage has increased
over the last 20 years, reaching 55 % in 1997. In some
Mediterranean countries, such as Greece,
Italy, Spain and
Portugal, a third of farmers are more than 65 years old. This
amounts to a serious ageing problem in the agricultural sector.
At present only 7,8 % of agricultural entrepreneurs are less
than 35 years old.

2.3.3.
From this viewpoint agriculture continues to be the
fundamental pillar of modern economies, and the quality of
human resources constitutes a decisive factor in its develop-
ment. Moreover, agricultural activity should be understood
not only in a strictly productive sense, but in the wider
dimension of conserving natural and landscape resources and
of rural development.

2.2.3.
The rise in the number of women working in the
farm sector is a new factor. A Eurostat report (1) has revealed
that women account for 37 % of the agricultural working
population, with the highest concentrations in southern
Europe. 82 % of agricultural holdings where women were
classed as ‘farm managers’ were of less than 8 hectares: the
percentage was lower for larger holdings.

2.2.4.
As far as the applicant countries are concerned,
statistics on the presence of young people in agriculture are
not very comparable. However, important structural changes
are taking place in these countries, and it is not easy to foresee
what impact EU accession will have on the demographic
structure of their agriculture.

2.2.5.
Nevertheless, a European Parliament study on the
future of young farmers in the European Union (2) showed that
the percentage of young farmers in the first wave of applicant
countries is higher than the average for the existing EU
countries.

2.3. The agri-food sector and the role of rural development

2.3.1.
The close connections existing between agriculture,
the processing industry and the logistical and distributive
system now call for a more comprehensive vision which would
include not only agricultural production proper but the agri-
food system as a whole.

Thus the agri-food industry is now one of the main
2.3.2.
branches of European industry, second only to the electrical
and electronic construction branch (Eurostat, 1999).
It
employs almost 3 million people and the value of its pro-
duction, higher than that of internal consumption, exceeds
EUR 600 billion. To a large extent, it is based, like agriculture
itself, on a large number of cooperatives and small and
medium-sized enterprises
than
100 employees account
the total,
whilst more than 90 % of the enterprises have fewer than
20 employees).

(enterprises with more

for less than 2 % of

(1) EU Statistical Office — 30 April 2001.
(2) AGRI 134 of April 2000, PE 290.358, p. 24.

2.3.4. With the enlargement of
the Union to include
the central and eastern European countries, the social and
economic role of agriculture and the rural world will probably
become even more evident and vital. Indeed, in the applicant
countries the demographic and labour market structure is in
some ways very similar to western Europe in the 1950s and
1960s. It is therefore desirable to assess in good time the
effects which implementation of the CAP could have on the
Community labour market.

2.4.

Levels of training in agriculture

2.4.1. Making an assessment of training levels, policies on
knowledge and training possibilities for agriculture is a highly
complex matter. There are no complete, comparable sources
of information, making it possible to establish the relationship
between levels of training in agriculture and, for example,
aggregate economic results or productivity of labour and of
the land in all its diversity in territorial, business, family, age
and gender terms. Statistical information on farmers’ level of
training, which in the past was available through structural
surveys, has over recent years become optional — where not
simply abolished — at the request of the Member States. Even
a straightforward quantification of the level of training is now
difficult.

2.4.2.
Some Eurostat statistics, relating to certain Member
States only, now make it possible to analyse the situation of
agricultural holdings in those countries according to the level
of training of the head of the holding. The figures are not,
however, broken down by age and therefore do not fully
reflect the situation of young farmers, who generally have a
much higher level of training. The statistics are also based on
a simple distinction between ‘full agricultural training’, ‘basic
training’ and ‘only practical experience’, which fails to take
adequate account of the wide range of conditions.

2.4.3.
The situation varies widely from one country to
another, and sometimes between regions in the same country.
In some areas, levels of training of those working in agriculture
(both employers and workers) are comparable with those
working in other economic sectors. In others, the low levels of

C 36/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

agricultural training generate clear disadvantages in compari-
son with, for example, agroindustry, the distribution sector
and public administration.

put forward by the media, and the perception of the agricul-
tural sector which tends to link it with pollution and health
problems in the food sector, contribute to this image.

2.4.4.
Even the qualifications required to acquire and run a
farm, or to receive a start-up grant, vary from one country to
another. This variety does not contribute to the balanced
development of the agricultural economy and rural society as
a whole.

Another problem, undoubtedly more complex in
2.4.4.1.
theoretical and methodological terms,
is that of the link
between qualifications and vocational competence or literacy.

The fact of having acquired a formal qualification
2.4.4.2.
the person
when young does not necessarily mean that
possesses effective knowledge or skills as an adult. Although
the problem arises for all adults, it is applies in particular to
those working in the farm sector. It is well known that the
farming profession is based more than anything else on
knowledge and skills developed ‘on the spot’.

2.4.5. With the above considerations in mind, the OECD in
the 1990s launched a series of comparative international
research projects on the knowledge and skills of the adult
population (International Adult Literacy Survey) based not
only on the formal qualification but, more generally, on the
capacity to absorb and deal with information involving
reading, writing and calculation, needed in order to use the
printed material distributed to workplaces and in domestic
and social life (OECD, 1999).

This source makes it possible, among other things, to compare
the level of knowledge and skills of the population employed
in agriculture, industry and services in 13 OECD countries,
revealing the agricultural sector’s general disadvantage in
comparison with other sectors.

2.5. Critical factors in the situation

2.5.3.
In many rural areas, as indeed in the poorer urban
districts, young people do not have access to high-quality
education and training. Problems of mobility (physical and
social), the lack of social services and leisure time facilities, and
the limited possibilities of the local labour market create a
situation of disadvantage and difficulty which affects the entire
pattern of people’s lives and helps to create, in a vicious circle,
further situations of structural disadvantage.

2.5.4.
A further situation of disadvantage concerns the
overall decline in the level of services to the individual, families
and undertakings in rural areas; schools, child-care centres,
efficient transport and leisure facilities are all lacking.

2.5.5.
The problem is often aggravated by the lack of
available training in rural areas, and by the disparity in levels
of both education and cultural facilities between rural and
urban areas, especially with regard to continuous life-long
training, but already at the level of primary education because
of depopulation and the concentration of pupils far from their
places of origin.

2.5.6.
The serious problem which the lack of infrastructure
for the new technologies poses in many rural areas of the EU
should be mentioned in this regard. There is a shortage of
cable networks, there is no specific training for access and lack
of
foreign language skills often restricts the use of such
technologies.

2.5.7.
In addition, care should be taken to see that CAP
measures do not make it more difficult for young farmers to
take over farms. Measures which tax supply, such as quota
regulations, play an important role in stabilising markets, but
they can lead to difficulties when farms are transferred. More
account should be taken of this problem, in the interests of
young farmers.

2.5.1.
Farming’s image as hard, badly-paid, year-round
work offers no incentives to young people. This disadvantage
is compounded by the general public’s tendency to hold
farmers partly responsible for the problems which have arisen
in the food chain.

2.5.2.
Factors of this kind discourage young people from
choosing a future in agriculture. The dominant social model

2.6.

Lack of policies and measures to counteract the critical factors

2.6.1.
There is a lack of linkage between agricultural and
rural development policy on the one hand and European
policy on employment, training, research and innovation
(knowledge society) on the other. In effect the CAP underesti-
mates the need to ‘accompany’ the reforms with training and
technical assistance measures.

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/33

2.6.2.
Agenda 2000 makes a good start by introducing the
second pillar, but provides only limited resources. Assistance
for farmers starting up is envisaged, but it is not obligatory to
provide such opportunities, which depend on national and
regional priorities, with the result that the rural development
plans of some Member States do not provide any assistance
for young farmers. Without belittling the importance of the
it would be desirable to avoid the
subsidiarity principle,
situation where different
implementation of Community
measures leads not only to a distortion of competition among
Member States but to a lack of a clear signal that Europe wants
a future for agriculture.

2.6.3.
The EAGGF structural policy, for its part, totally
excludes the possibility of funding research measures through
this Fund. There remains the possibility of funding through
the EAGGF training measures and management assistance
services through the EAGGF. But the Commission’s policy in
this case, after the adoption of the new Community rules on
state subsidies, is to grant only the expenditure relating to the
launching of such services. This exclusion — which is not
envisaged by the ESF and ERDF regulations — is normally
justified by the Commission by citing the need to have a single
coordination centre for research at Community level, and
hence to bring agricultural research under the Framework
Programmes coordinated by the Directorate-General
for
Research.

2.6.4.
This has two immediate negative consequences: the
impossibility of integrating research at territorial level with
agricultural and rural development programmes, and the
drastic and immediate reduction of financial resources available
for agricultural research. Indeed (going beyond statements of
principle on the importance of food safety, for example, or on
the need to develop the competitiveness of Community
agriculture) in purely financial terms the research projects
relating to agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development
taken together account for barely 3.4 % of the budget of the
fifth framework programme for research and technological
development (1999-2002 period). However, the new regu-
lation includes innovative aspects which could well have been
incorporated in a coherent policy of developing knowledge in
agriculture, and envisages among the new requirements laid
down for aid to investment
the beneficiary should
demonstrate adequate professional knowledge and skills.

that

most clever in picking up new trends, and new resources
should therefore be allocated to them; indeed, a great deal of
research demonstrates that the presence of young workers
encourages innovative behaviour and active entrepreneurial
strategies even when the owner of the farm is an older person,
and especially when the young workers have a good level of
training.

2.6.6.
The application of new technologies to farming is
also having a major impact, as is scientific research in areas
such as GMOs. These latter are now an established fact,
although they must be strictly monitored and controlled until
it is established that they are harmless. Publication of the
results of innovation is a key factor regarding the general
public, as this will create a perception of transparent infor-
mation.

The Committee notes with interest the work of the
2.6.7.
Directorate-General for Agriculture to improve the coordi-
nation of the various instruments available under the Leader
initiative, rural development programmes and agri-environ-
mental measures, and advocates Community measures in
favour of young farmers. This further strengthens the view
there is a need for horizontal actions specifically targeting
young farmers, promoted at European and Member State level.

2.7.

‘eLearning’ and ‘eEurope’ programmes

If well

regulated,

2.7.1.
the competitive opportunities
peculiar to the information society can induce economic
growth and create new jobs which more than offset the
number of
jobs which in other ways are abolished by
technological progress. However, the information society is
not accessible to all, and the maintenance of initial disadvan-
tages can be a further factor for exclusion from economic and
social development processes (1).

2.7.2.
One of the typical factors of weakness of the rural
areas can be found precisely in the poor distribution of
information and the low level of participation in the building
and development of an innovative European society using the
potential of knowledge as a factor for development. The
information society, in particular, has arisen as an essentially
urban phenomenon, and while the new information and
communication technologies (ICT) are not yet sufficiently

Society continues to place new demands on agri-
2.6.5.
culture: not only quality, safety, protection of the environment
and of animal welfare, but also conservation of the landscape
and of rural traditions. We must ensure that rural development
continues to help the farmer meet these demands. Rural
development must therefore adapt and change through a
process of continual updating. Young farmers are among the

(1) According to data issued by the Commission, the degree of
Internet penetration varies considerably among the Member
States, particularly depending on territorial location, income and
gender; 8 % of families in the countryside are linked to the Net, as
against 15 % in the cities.

C 36/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8.2.2002

widespread in the non-urbanised regions of Europe, this is due
not just to objective economic and infrastructure problems,
lack of adequate content and
but also to the substantial
language to meet the productive and cultural needs of rural
undertakings and the rural population. That is to say, it is a
social rather than a technological problem. It is precisely in
the more peripheral areas that ICT can make a decisive
contribution to reducing the relative disadvantage arising from
the physical distance from centres of information, culture and
production (universities, undertakings, political institutions).
In some ways,
indeed, the physical distance from urban
centres — and hence from congestion, population density and
pollution — if combined with adequate development of
telecommunication networks, can itself become an important
factor for competitiveness and development.

2.7.3.
The question of the integration of rural areas in the
European information society or their exclusion from it is an
important challenge for all. In order to benefit fully from the
economic and social advantages of technological progress, the
European information society should be based on principles
of equality of opportunity, participation and integration.
And this objective can be achieved, provided that access is
guaranteed for all — whether producers or consumers — to at
the opportunities made available by the
least a part of
information society.

The Committee has learned with interest of the
2.7.4.
eInclusion initiatives launched by the Directorate-General for
Employment and Social Affairs, aimed at groups vulnerable to
this new form of exclusion (the so-called ‘digital divide’),
including rural and remote areas. Projects are underway in
Finland, with eCottages in remote rural areas, and in Greece,
where Internet access points are being set up in the islands.
The successful development of virtual communities and local/
regional portals in a number of Member States, modelled
on Canadian and Australian experiences, represents another
valuable instrument. These initiatives should be better cata-
logued and coordinated with rural development programmes
and with initiatives for young farmers.

2.7.5.
The instruments introduced by the eLearning and
eEurope programmes must be used not only by public
administrations, to whom training and information are dis-
pensed: farmers’ groups must also use them as a means of
refreshing and transmitting the knowledge made necessary by
structural and human change.

2.7.6.
The new information technologies can also serve to
amplify communication between farmers and consumers, in
terms of both promoting products and e-commerce, and
information campaigns on quality and safety. Such campaigns
can provide opportunities to highlight areas of activity attract-
ive for young farmers.

3. Conclusions

The ESC believes that there is a need for various
3.1.
instruments which, from different viewpoints, and following
an analysis of the situation, can identify the causes of the
problems and help to provide solutions,
in particular by
evaluating the impact of different policies — agricultural and
other — on the presence of young people in agriculture.

Firstly,

3.2.
to obtain a more effective multifunctional
policy, a new specific remit for the ‘human factor’ (work,
employment, education, training, technical back-up, ageing,
equal opportunities, succession, etc.) needs to be introduced
within DG Agriculture.

The tax rules on succession should also be addressed
3.3.
so that they provide real encouragement for young people to
set up and stay in agriculture, by facilitating the transfer of
farms intact.

3.4.
Since European statistics are based on the figures
provided by the Member States, they should be encouraged to
put more work and resources into this area.

It

3.5.
is necessary to develop at Community level a
rapid, up-to-date statistical system, capable of monitoring the
development of European agriculture, and particularly the
number of young people starting up in business and the
number leaving the sector. The present system is confined to
estimating, every three years, the number of farmers by age
group; there is now a need for a register which keeps track of
trends in the sector and notes the net balance between the
numbers starting up and the numbers leaving the agricultural
sector. The development of such a statistical system should be
accompanied by a study aiming to analyse the number of
farmers who have no successor and do not know to whom
they could leave or sell
their agricultural holdings. The
forthcoming mid-term review should take into account the
statistical data on the actual trends of the European agricultural
sector.

8.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 36/35

3.6.
It is necessary to encourage young people in innovative
ways, but also to be prepared to adapt to changing market
conditions and society’s expectations of agricultural product.
The Commission and the Member States should therefore be
called upon to encourage, within the framework of the usual
Community funding channels (Structural Funds, Community
action programmes such as Leonardo and Socrates, 6th RTD
framework programme, etc.):

— support

for transnational cooperation and exchange
projects between companies, schools, training bodies,
universities and agricultural/rural research centres;

— support

for decentralised action plans at

local and

regional level;

— the creation of new local agencies for the development of
agriculture and rural communities, or consolidation of
existing agencies;

— the inclusion of agriculture as a target group in eEurope
with the aims of fostering a better dialogue between
farmers and society and making it easier for farmers to
exchange opinions and/or experiences over the Internet.
In order to:

— promote the European agri-food culture to the
general public, and particularly to young and very
young people, promoting on-going training at
school;

— promote agricultural and rural entrepreneurship

amongst young people;

ance (agricultural advisory services), or encourage
them to take up existing information opportunities
in all sectors of economic activity;

— promote agricultural and rural operator access to
the instruments, technology and language of the
information society, and encourage them to provide
innovative and individualised input;

— encourage more investment

in training for the
agricultural sector and for rural communities, focus-
ing on social and cultural skills, on safeguarding
income and employment, and on improving the
protection and promotion of the environment. This
action should mainly target young people between
the ages of 18 and 40 (new agricultural entrepre-
neurship);

— maintain and develop a network of services enabling
young farmers to enjoy regular leisure periods and
holidays;

— cooperate to boost mobility among young farmers
in the EU, so that they can compare their expe-
riences.

3.7.

The Commission is asked to:

— boost general public awareness of the need for European
agriculture to be multifunctional and/or the European
agricultural model to be safeguarded, and to combat the
sometimes negative image that farming has; and to

— provide agricultural and rural businesses with spec-
ific training, information, advice and technical assist-

— boost young people’s interest in agriculture by providing

better and more up-to-date information in schools etc.

Brussels, 17 October 2001.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS