20. 10. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 263/17 
1.2. In previous opinions (!), the Committee posed 
serious questions as to why certain groups tend to 
fall into poverty, why income maintenance and other 
relevant systems of support and solidarity often fail the 
poor, and why increasing disparities between richer and 
poorer sections of society and the general trend towards 
greater inequalities has not been seriously treated as 
an issue for official European Community attention, 
monitoring and policy initiative. The Committee 
repeats its call for greater European Community interest 
and commitment in this matter, as foreseen in the 
preamble and in Article 2 of the Treaty. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. The Committee stressed in its earlier opinion (2) 
that the 35 million ECU originally proposed by the 
(1) See opinion an poverty, OJ No C 25, 28. 1. 1985, plus opinion 
on social developments in the European Community in 1984, 
OJ No C 218, 29. 7 1985. 
(2) OJ No C 25, 28. 1. 1985. 
Done at Brussels, 2 July 1986. 
1. Preliminary comments 
1.1. The Committee points out that it has on several 
occasions already looked at problems connected with 
forests and the regulations governing forestry. It would 
draw attention to its opinions on the communication 
from the Commission to the Council on forestry policy d European Commission in order to fund the current 
o anti-poverty programme (3) was insufficient, and that 
r at least 44 million ECU needed to be budgeted (in line 
e with current real value, allowing for inflation, allocated 
d to the previous 1975 to 1979 programme). The Com-
s mittee notes with disappointment that the Council cut 
s the budget even further, to 25 million ECU (4). 
i, 
e 2.2. In this context, while supporting the amending 
;t Decision at least to add 4 million ECU to the current 
e programme, in order to take account of the accession of 
Spain and Portugal to the Community, the Committee 
nonetheless stresses once more that the programme's 
budget as a whole is too limited, even as a supplement 
to real 'action' by Member States. 
(3) OJ No C 208, 8. 8. 1984. 
(4) OJ No L 2, 3. 1. 1985. 
in the European Community (') and the draft Council 
resolution on the basis and objectives of forestry policy 
in the European Community. In these opinions the 
Committee has continually come out in favour of a 
(') OJ No C 227, 10. 9. 1979. The Chairman of the Economic and 
Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on Community action in the forestry sector 
(86/C 263/08) 
On 14 February 1986 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, 
on Community action in the forestry sector. 
This document was accompanied by a complementary memorandum (COM(86) 792 final). 
The Section for Agriculture, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on 
the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 June 1986, in the light of the report by Mr Schnieders. 
At its 238th plenary session (meeting of 2 July 1986), the Committee unanimously adopted 
the following opinion: 
No C 263/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 10. 86 
common forestry policy. It regrets that the Council has 
hitherto not been ready to take more joint action on 
forestry policy, and that numerous Commission initiat­
ives in respect of forestry measures have not been 
adopted. 
1.2. In view of the social, economic and ecological 
importance of forests, which is exhaustively dealt with 
in the complementary memorandum to the Commission 
discussion paper, the present proposals to tackle for­
estry problems are to be welcomed. 
1.2.1. In the context of efforts to reform agricultural 
policy the Commission is looking for ways of reducing 
the pressure on production. The present action pro­
gramme is part of these deliberations. The Committee 
points out that any appropriate way of withdrawing 
land from agricultural production which results in more 
effective use of public funds deserves support. 
Afforestation has a contribution to make here. A major 
impact on the volume of agricultural production can 
only be expected, however, after an appreciable period 
of time, and only then if appropriate promotional 
measures are adopted. 
The development of forestry must be part of an agricul­
tural land-use policy which takes account of the need 
to maintain a balance between agriculture and forestry 
and all the various aims of forestry policy and the 
common agricultural policy. 
1.3. Quite independently of agricultural consider­
ations, the European Communities, in collaboration 
with the Member States, has a duty to preserve, extend 
and promote forests in the Community. The primary 
aim of forestry policy is to achieve a balance between 
maximum economic return from forests and optimum 
regard for the needs of society. The Committee endorses 
the Commission's basic view that the commercial 
exploitation of woodland remains the most important 
of a variety of functions of forestry despite an unmistak­
able increase in their importance for conservation and 
recreation. The contributions of woodland to conser­
vation (influence on climate, air temperature, rainfall, 
air purity, noise reduction, the provision of shade, water 
management, soil conservation) and recreation are in 
most cases spin-off benefits available at little or no 
additional cost from well managed forests. 
1.3.1. The Committee feels, that as a matter of prin­
ciple, a Community action programme on forestry must 
take account of the economic importance of forests 
without neglecting the other functions they fulfil. It is 
pleased that the complementary memorandum makes 
reference to forestry 'products' other than wood, e.g. cork and the use of forests for hunting. These secondary 
uses of forests are very significant in certain areas of 
the Community. 
1.4. Forestry is subject to considerable local variations 
— e.g. as regards ownership and management struc­
tures — and this rules out large-scale, centralized and 
uniform measures. The Committee questions the 
adequacy of merely complementing the individual poli­
cies with a programme of action on forestry. Greater 
long-term coordination of national measures and 
timber market policy should be considered. 
1.5. The Committee also thinks that insufficient con­
sideration has been given in the Commission communi­
cation to the specific problems of forests in upland 
areas. These problems will have to be studied in detail 
at a later date. 
1.6. The Committee feels that more needs to be done 
to develop awareness in the Member States, at all levels 
of government, and among the general public, of the 
need for the maintenance and care of existing forests, 
copses and free standing trees and the planting of new 
woodland and the planting-out and care of suitable 
species both in built-up areas and wherever possible in 
the countryside (alongside watercourses, boundaries, 
roads, etc.). These must not, however, jeopardize the 
crops grown in the area, either from an economic point 
of view or, more importantly, from the point of view 
of the maintenance of a healthy and scenic environment. 
The Committee, therefore, particularly welcomes the 
international conference on the protection of trees and 
forest (Silva) which was held in Paris from 5 to 7 
February 1986 and attended by the Heads of State or 
Government of five European and five African 
countries, representatives — mostly at ministerial level 
— of 50 countries, as well as high-level representatives 
of the European Community and over 20 international 
organizations. 
1.7. The Committee draws attention to the fact that 
the pattern of ownership of woodland varies widely. 
Roughly 60% of European Community forests are in 
private hands, the remainder being distributed between 
the state and other public bodies. In many regions 
farmers are able to make a more or less adequate living 
by combining agriculture with forestry. Agricultural 
policy measures promote primarily the afforestation of 
private land. The Committee feels that the principle of 
economic viability should be applied to all woodland, 
independently of its ownership. This would be the 
most cost-effective way of ensuring that the ecological 
functions of forests are also fulfilled. 
1.8. Forest problems cannot be solved without an 
independent policy on forests. Forestry policy must 
not be used merely to tackle problems arising in the 
agricultural sector. 
1.9. A forestry programme will not suffice to relieve 
pressure on the EEC farm market. 
1.9.1. The Committee stresses the need to find real 
sales' outlets for forestry products and draws attention 
20. 10. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 263/19 
to the clanger of overproduction of resinous timber and 
to the slump in sales of small dimension wood. 
1.9.2. The Committee asks the Commission to sub­
mit to it as soon as possible a survey of the prospects 
for timber production in Europe and the world, and 
also a detailed analysis of the sales' outlets for forestry 
products on the main markets. 
1.9.3. The Committee would like the Community 
action programme on forestry to cover the role of 
the timber processing industry in the development of 
forestry. 
1.10. The Committee also notes that the protection 
and survival of the human race depends on the adequate 
spread of forests of sufficient size both inside and 
outside the Community. The Community must endeav­
our, in all its relations, policies and international agree­
ments, to maintain or restore these conditions, 
especially in view of the widespread, systematic defores­
tation still taking place in key areas such as South-East 
Asia, Latin America and Africa. 
1.11. Following the accession of Spain and Portugal, 
the Community has become the leading world producer 
of cork (already listed in Annex 2 to the Treaty). 
1.11.1. The Committee therefore calls on the Com­
mission to waste no time in putting forward appropriate 
proposals, as outlined in points 168 et seq. of its memor­
andum, for promoting this typical Mediterranean 
product. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. Points 12 and 18 — second indent (Extension of 
forest cover) 
2.1.1. The extent to which farm surpluses can be 
reduced by putting agricultural land down to trees 
depends on the soil quality of the land in question. It 
may realistically be assumed that it is relatively unpro­
ductive or steeply sloping land which is generally used 
for conventional forms of afforestation. Good quality 
land in areas with low forest cover would increasingly 
be used for fast growing woodland if the technology 
for using compressed wood chips as fuel were fully 
developed and more competitive with oil and gas than 
at present and if the use of chips in chipboard could be 
increased. 
2.1.2. Whether or not there is increased afforestation 
will depend to a large extent on the incentives offered 
for afforestation on the one hand and the existing alternative uses of land on the other. There is a rela­
tively lengthy time lag, varying according to type of 
tree, locality and the methods used, between the switch 
from agriculture to forestry and the forest owner's 
first receipt of income. The Commission has not taken 
sufficient account of this problem in its socio-structural 
proposals (COM(86) 199 final). 
2.1.3. Further intensive research and development 
work is needed on the use of fast growing trees on good 
quality soil. The Committee would draw attention to 
the communication from the Commission to the 
Council and the draft Council Decision on a Com­
munity policy for the development of new and renew­
able energy sources (COM(86) 12 final) in which proper 
emphasis is given to the use of biomass energy. The use 
of forestry products for cattle feed should also be borne 
in mind. 
2.2. Points 13 and 14 (Incentives for extending forest 
cover) 
2.2.1. Grants and tax incentives can be an effective 
way of stimulating investment in the planting of forests. 
It should, however, be noted that grants are often the 
only real incentives for small owners who, because of 
their low incomes, pay little tax anyway. 
2.2.2. Incentives should not be such as to distort 
competition between those who receive the incentives 
and existing owners of woodlands and regions where 
forestry is already important. 
2.2.3. Afforestation measures may, especially in the 
Mediterranean area, be applied to land which was 
previously virtually unused. There is a considerable 
need for afforestation in these areas, e.g. in order to 
make good the damage caused by forest fires, which 
should not be lumped together with any measures 
required to relieve pressure on the agricultural product 
market. 
2.3. Point 15 (Promotion of forestry as an alternative 
to agriculture) 
2.3.1. The possibility referred to here of making 
more aid available for forestry investment under Article 
20 of the Regulation to improve agricultural structures 
(797/85) does not seem likely to be fulfilled, as the aid 
in question is restricted to enterprises providing their 
owners with their main source of income. 
2.4. Point 17 (Forestry research, statistics and infor­
mation) 
2.4.1. The Commission's suggestion that greater 
efforts be made in the fields of forestry research, wood 
technology and particularly statistics is to be welcomed; 
action of this kind is urgently needed. It is particularly 
important that the concept 'forest' should be more 
clearly defined. The various forms of woodland — 
ranging from high forest, coppice with standards, cop­
pice through to copse — need to be more clearly defined 
than hitherto and differentiated from scrub. 
No C 263/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 10. 86 
2.5. Point 18 — first indent (Extension of forest 
cover) 
2.5.1. Of the three usual financing instruments for 
investment (own funds, loans, public funding) the latter 
is of particular importance in view of the long time lags 
involved in forestry production. Essentially this covers: 
(a) financial investment incentives; 
(b) bridging aid to compensate either in part or in 
full for lack of income between the planting of 
woodland and the first cut. 
2.5.2. The Committee asks the Commission to look 
at the possibility of harnessing funds from the financial 
institutions for afforestation. These institutions might 
provide timber growers with an annual income until 
the trees are felled and in return obtain part of the 
realization value of the trees. 
2.5.3. Point 1: Owners must be given the widest 
possible discretion to choose the most suitable method 
of afforestation in view of local ecological conditions 
and the structure of their businesses. 
2.5.3.1. The following options are available: 
(a) conventional forestry using traditional types of tree 
with various forms of management, cultivation 
cycles, combinations of species, etc.; 
(b) specialized forms of timber production, e.g. for 
windbreaks, avenues, small woodland areas, etc.; 
(c) fast growing woodland with a cycle of approximate­
ly two years (minirotation) using quasi-agricultural 
production techniques. 
2.5.3.2. Because of the high cost of investment and 
maintenance all these forms of forestry require financial 
incentives, the most effective form of which would be 
fixed grants per hectare, varying according to the type 
of tree. 
2.5.3.3. It needs to be ensured that plantations 
funded from public sources are properly cared for. 
2.5.3.4. The Committee wonders whether repayable 
loans would constitute a sufficient incentive for the 
afforestation of agricultural land. The Committee feels 
that the long cultivation cycles involved would limit 
the effectiveness of such an instrument. 
2.5.4. Point 2: Compensation is also needed for the 
loss of income incurred by using land for forestry 
rather than for agricultural purposes; in the case of 
conventional forestry referred to in (a), compensation 
would need to extend over a period of at least 15 to 20 
years and, for the other forms of forestry mentioned in 
(c), compensation could be adapted to match the shorter 
cycles involved. 2.5.4.1. In some Member States changing from agri­
cultural to forestry production or vice versa requires 
various forms of official authorization. These regu­
lations ought at least to be interpreted so as to encour­
age rather than restrict such changes, or else they should 
be limited in their application or even abolished 
altogether. In some cases the law will need to be 
changed. 
2.5.4.2. In extending forest cover attention needs to 
be paid to the secondary uses of forest such as hunting, 
recreation, leisure, production of resin etc., in the light 
of the regional particularities. 
2.5.4.3. The Committee would stress as a general 
point that if a large number of the planned measures 
are to succeed, training facilities (premises, equipment, 
new teaching methods) will have to be provided at 
teaching establishments for the benefit of farmers 
receiving the aid. 
2.6. Point 21 (Dispersal of forestry holdings) 
2.6.1. Although small, privately owned forests do 
have certain undeniable disadvantages in terms of for­
estry technology and inability to provide a wide range 
of wood products, this does not imply that small private 
holdings need always be at a disadvantage. If measures 
to promote forestry are to be effective, small forestry 
holdings do not need to be and cannot be managed like 
large holdings in miniature. The very different aims of 
small forestry enterprises, linked to their ownership, 
management and age, must be taken into account. 
2.6.2. The Commission is asked to propose ways of 
improving the management of forest land belonging to 
small owners. 
2.7. Point 22 (Forestry associations) 
2.7.1. The Committee observes that the Commission 
refers to the Swedish and Finnish forestry associations. 
It would, however, draw the Commission's attention 
to the existence in a number of Member States of similar 
associations, with a long and established record of 
efficiency. 
2.7.2. Their main objectives are: joint purchase of 
equipment, pooling of forestry products offered for 
sale, training and provision of information to members. 
Only in exceptional cases is it appropriate for forestry 
associations to become involved in joint management 
plans. As self-help organizations for forest owners, the 
associations help relieve the burden on the State, as 
they carry out numerous functions which would other­
wise be the responsibility of the State forestry authori­
ties. The Community should, therefore, do more to 
promote both the formation and the activities of for­
estry associations. In promoting the formation of 
associations the following main criteria should be 
observed: 
20. 10. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 263/21 
— voluntary membership, 
— associations to be established under civil law, co­
operatives for example, 
— marketing provisions (if appropriate, compulsory 
sale of certain forestry products). 
2.7.3. Attention needs to be drawn here to the sum­
mary of the Community action programme on forestry 
for 1986 to 1990 in the complementary memorandum 
to the Discussion Paper — COM(86) 26 final — and 
in particular to the Community action planned in 
accordance with points 165, 198 and 199, which stress 
the urgent need to promote the creation of forestry 
associations by regulations. The following points arise 
from this: 
2.7.4. The criteria for promoting the setting up of 
forestry associations should be based on particular 
activities, rather than on their organizational structure 
or specific legal form. 
2.7.5. The following might be considered as ways of 
encouraging the activities of forestry associations: 
— administration grants, 
— investment grants. 
2.7.6. In the latter case some caution would need to 
be exercised so that associations were not encouraged 
to embark on action already being carried out by other 
bodies specifically set up for the purpose, e.g. producers' 
associations, purchasing and sales associations, rural 
commercial bodies, machinery pools, technical back-up 
enterprises. 
2.7.7. The Committee points out that in its opinion, 
the term 'forestry association' includes producer 
cooperatives. 
2.8. Point 23 (Roads) 
2.8.1. Community funding for road building would 
only make sense in the context of regional programmes. 
There would need to be guarantees that European 
Community finance was actually being used to help 
bring about a real improvement in the road network, 
rather than simply as a substitute for national funding. 
2.9. Point 24 (Stable markets) 
2.9.1. Given that markets for forestry products, 
especially trunk wood, firewood and by-products, differ 
considerably from one region, area or even enterprise 
to another, care must be taken to avoid over-regulation. 
Supply contracts are designed to satisfy both supplier 
and purchaser. The negotiation and fulfilment of con­
tracts must, however, be carried out on a voluntary 
basis. This is the assumption underlying point 167 of 
the complementary memorandum. 
2.9.2. It might, however, be worth considering 
whether it would be possible to exempt certain 
measures relating to sales, particularly in respect of 
forestry cooperations, from the cartel law requirements. 
This would be a way of making the large number of forest owners more competitive vis-a-vis the oligopolis­
tic timber product industry. 
2.9.3. Specific measures designed to improve 
regional economic structures and involve the wood 
processing industries would also help improve forestry. 
This applies particulary to Member States with central­
ized systems of government. 
2.10. Point 25 (Forestry product standards) 
2.10.1. Past experience suggests that the existing 
classification rules for unprocessed wood are adequate 
in some Member States. The Committee asks the Com­
mission to consider whether, and to what extent, 
further action is needed. But before setting up additional 
standards for processed wood, e.g. with regard to hard­
ness, the likely positive impact should be assessed — 
i.e. timber would become more convenient to use and 
thus more competitive with metal, concrete and syn­
thetic materials. This should in turn be weighed up 
against possible disadvantages, in particular for small-
scale wood processors and users and also in terms of 
the impact on sales of timber for construction. 
2.11. Point 26 (Ecological code of conduct) 
2.11.1. As already pointed out in the preliminary 
comments, the heavy emphasis given to conservation 
and recreation and efforts to maintain the diversity of 
species in the northern European Community countries 
have already produced a volume of administrative 
requirements in respect of forestry which exceeds any­
thing applicable to other forms of land use. Moreover, 
in some Member States there is a forestry tradition 
stretching back decades based on concepts such as 
knowledge of local conditions and management conti­
nuity which although not described as such would 
today be classified under the heading 'ecology'. 
2.11.2. The Committee feels that, for the purposes 
of drawing-up an ecological code of conduct, the Com­
mission should take account of the above Member 
States' experience in such matters. 
2.11.3. The Committee calls on the Commission to 
submit proposals taking account of varying local con­
ditions, land ownership patterns and structures and 
designed to help improve forest structures and country­
side. A comprehensive and universally applied code of 
conduct is, therefore, not possible to draw up or oper­
ate. The (sometimes erroneous) promotion of certain 
types of tree needs to be avoided. There are many 
convincing historical examples of 'fashionable trees' 
being planted on unsuitable sites, especially as a result 
of the provision of aid from public funds. The planting 
of the right tree in the right environment is an ecological 
and forestry objective which should be pursued. 
No C 263/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 20. 10. 86 
2.12. Point 27 — first indent (Eliminating plot dis­
persal) 
2.12.1. Experience suggests that the best way to over­
come the structural disadvantages arising from the dis­
persal of plots in small privately owned forests is 
through: 
— the reparcelling of forest holdings (increased Euro­
pean Community aid could be used to good effect 
here), 
— the voluntary formation of forestry associations (see 
comments on point 22), 
— where appropriate, structural specialization e.g. 
ornamental trees, firewood. 
2.13. Point 27 — second indent (Improvement in 
market openings for wood and other forestry products) 
2.13.1. Consideration should be given to: 
— wood product research — innovation — (chipboard 
and laminates are classic examples of forward-look­
ing innovations), 
— timber market research and follow-up measures, 
— timber advertising campaigns. 
2.13.2. In recent decades the use of timber in Europe 
has risen in line with the rise in the standard of living. 
Timber has the additional environmental advantage of 
being a renewable and reusable raw material. 
2.14. Point 27 — third indent (Improvement of the 
productivity of forests, environmental quality and the 
diversity of species) 
2.14.1. Appropriate local measures include: 
— collection of data on locality, ownership, manage­
ment and rotational cycles and definition of the 
needs arising from these factors. Appropriate atten­
tion should also be paid to economic, regional, 
property, labour market and energy factors, their 
benefits and spin-off effects, 
— reconciliation of needs actually or supposedly in 
conflict, where possible through contractually and 
legally binding agreements with forest owners, 
— legal entitlement to compensation for economic 
hardship resulting from forest owners' agreement 
to take, or refrain from, a given course of action, 
— planting of trees appropriate to the terrain and use 
of suitable and, as far as possible, natural forestry 
methods. 
2.14.2. In conclusion it should be pointed out that a 
large number of individual forest owners is the best 
guarantee of varied and diverse woodland. 
2.15. Point 30 (Forest fires) 
2.15.1. European Community initiatives ought, 
therefore, to be confined to action which exceeds the capacity of individual Member States affected or which 
can only be implemented effectively on a supranational 
basis e.g. forest fire monitoring in border areas, the 
combatting of major disasters, exchange of information 
and new fire fighting techniques. 
2.15.2. The Committee, in accordance with the 
ESC's opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation 
on Community action for increased protection of 
forests in the Community against fires and acid rain 
(COM(83) 375 final) calls on the Council to take an 
early decision on introducing effective measures. 
2.15.3. The Economic and Social Committee feels 
that it is essential in this instance that Member States 
provide for exemplary sentences for those found guilty 
of deliberately starting forest fires. 
2.15.4. Member States should also introduce more 
rigid authorization procedures in the case of requests 
to use land where there has been a forest fire for other 
than the original (or previous) purposes. 
2.16. Point 31 — last sentence (Genetic impoverish­
ment through atmospheric pollution) 
2.16.1. This gives the impression that the weakened 
resistance of forests to disease is the result of genetic 
impoverishment. In fact the reverse is the case. The 
weakened disease resistance of forests, mainly caused 
by atmospheric pollution, necessarily leads to genetic 
impoverishment. Anti-pollution measures are, there­
fore, needed, together with measures to prevent the loss 
of valuable and endangered genetic material. 
2.17. Point 33 — first indent (Protection of forests 
against atmospheric pollution) 
2.17.1. The most effective and lasting improvement 
can be made through the use of methods for producing 
goods and energy adapted to the current state of tech­
nology, as well as through energy saving, the reduction 
of waste emissions and the reprocessing of waste. 
2.18. Point 33 — second indent (Protection of forests 
against fires) 
— the planting of mixed and broadleaved woodland 
wherever possible, 
— the provision of firebreaks, metalled forest roads 
and fire-fighting reservoirs, 
— measures to increase public awareness of the prob­
lems of forests and the environment in general, 
— wide-ranging restrictions on tourists' access to 
forest paths in those Mediterranean regions with 
the highest fire risk, 
— the encouragement of up-to-date attitudes to 
forests among owners and visitors, 
— the setting-up of a system for the early identification 
of forest fires and early warning, 
— the acquisition of up-to-date forest fire-fighting 
equipment. 
20. 10. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 263/23 
2.19. Point 34 (Forestry in developing countries) 
2.19.1. The Committee is aware of the importance 
of forestry problems in developing countries. It would 
like to see European experience in forestry, which in 
some cases stretches back for several centuries, used for 
the benefit of developing countries in an appropriate 
way. 
2.19.2. Attention is drawn here to those European 
countries which for many years had — and still have — close relations with non-Community countries, 
in particular through stronger promotion of forestry 
projects included in development aid programmes. 
2.19.3. It should not be the sole objective of develop­
ment aid programmes to promote timber production 
and afforestation. The waste caused by the primitive 
use of timber for firewood in private households also 
needs to be combated. 
Done at Brussels, 2 July 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the mid-1986 economic situation 
(86/C 263/09) 
On 26 November 1985 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth paragraph 
of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an opinion on the mid-1986 
economic situation in the Community. 
The Section for Economic and Financial Questions, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted it opinion on 17 June 1986, in the light of the 
report by Mr Geuenich. 
At its 238th plenary session (meeting of 3 July 1986) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion by 91 votes to 49 with 5 abstentions (vote recorded): 
1. The mid-1986 economic situation 
1.1. The main features of the economic situation 
Since 1984 the European Community has once again 
been going through a period of steady but relatively 
modest economic growth. On the world economic front 
the exchange rate for the US dollar once again reflects 
purchasing power parities more closely and oil prices 
have fallen. On balance these factors have stimulated 
domestic demand. 
The expectations for 1986 are that inflation in the 
Community will drop considerably, growth will 
increase and unemployment will fall in some Member 
States, if only slightly. The successes achieved in stabil­
izing price levels mean that at least some Member States 
have the chance, without turning their backs on the fight against inflation, to put more emphasis on other 
economic targets. The relatively favourable economic 
climate will make it possible to put more emphasis on 
employment so that the jobless total can be cut as far 
as possible during the upturn. 
The analysis given in 1.2 to 1.4 is based on data from 
the Commission. 
1.2. Economic growth 
The 2,7% growth rate expected for the Community 
economy in 1986 will be due mainly to domestic factors. 
Because of the fall in inflation, real personal disposable 
incomes will probably rise more rapidly than in 1985. 
The growth in real fixed investment should also increase