ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (83) 0 74 
 
 
 
Vol. 1983/00 25 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the opening to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Communit y and the European Atom ic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), t his file is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februa r 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 v om 27.9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION 
OF THE 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
General  Secretariat COM(83)  74 final 
Brussels,  8th  February  1983 
FOR OFFICIAL USE  ONLY 
GUIDELINES  ON  TRANSITION  PERIOD  FOR 
PORTUGUESE AGRICULTURE 
Interim  Commission opinion 
COM(83)  74 final 

2 
INTRODUCTION 
In Doc.  COM/81  final of  27.3.81  the Commission submitted a 
proposal  to the  Council  for dealing with the agriculture portion 
of the Portuguese accession negotiations. The proposal was for 
a fairly long transition period  ("between  seven  and ten years) for 
the progressive integration of Portuguese agriculture into the 
Community.  The market organization machinery would be adopted by 
Portugal  upon accession; the transitional arrangements would 
comprise  primarily  progressive alignment of prices, progressive 
elimination of customs duties  between  Portugal and the Community, 
Portuguese common customs  tariff  alignment, accession compensatory 
amounts, etc. Progressive integration would begin at accession 
and be completed at the end of the transition period.  This  would 
apply  in respect of all  farm  products  except  those  for which 
Portuguese prices  were  already in line with Community  ones:  here 
fuller  integration would be possible.  This  mode of transition 
was very much on the lines of that  laid  down in the Accession 
Treaties of 1972 and  1979?  and could be termed the traditional one. 
In early November 1982 the  French  Delegation submitted a proposal 
for a mode of transition not traditional but phased, which was 
spelt  out by  Mr Chandernagor at the  Council  session  on 22 November 
(see summary in Annex i). The rationale for this was that Portugal 
did not  possess  the physical and human infrastructures needed to 
operate the market organizations, or  some  of them anyhow, upon 
accession. 

- 3 
Phased transition is not a now idea. It figured in the transitional 
arrangements when the  Common  Market  was set up (see  Article  8 of the 
Treaty  of Rome), and was  suggested  "by the Commission in its "Fresco" of 
1978: on the latter occasion, however, it was not proceeded with, as 
neither when the Fresco came "before the  Council  nor during the  Greek 
accession negotiations did the  Council  endorse the idea. 
The Fresco suggestion, however, was for phased transition on somewhat 
different lines from the present  French  proposal. 
In the first place, the arrangement was not confined to particular 
sectors  of agriculture only, hut was to cover in principle all negotiation 
headings calling for a transition period of more than five years. 
In the second place, the content of the two  phases  was different: 
in Phase 1 set  targets  were  to he attained hy set timetables in each 
field  so as to ensure that hy the end of the phase the acceding countries 
were  as much integrated into the Community as possible, and Phase 2 was 
to see completion of the transition in  those  sectors  where the adjustment 
process was so complex or so  extensive  as to need the whole transition 
period  to reach  full  integration. 
Furthermore,  the period for Phase 1 was to he fixed in advance hut 
might he extended hy the  Council,  acting a first time by qualified 
majority  and a second time unaninously, but any extension of Phase 1 
would  involve a corresponding shortening of Phase 2: that is, the 
combined duration of the two  phases  would be fixed in advance. 
Lastly,  one major difference  between  the two approaches is that the 
Commission  did not contemplate in the Fresco the possibility of a new 
Member  State's  continuing to be treated as a  third  country as regards 
economic and trade integration for an initial phase after accession: 
on the contrary, integration of the markets of the Connnunity as 
previously constituted and the new Member  State  was to commence 
immediately upon accession. 

4 
Interim  Commission  opinion 
Since submitting its communication of 27  March  1981 (C0M(81)158 final) 
the Commission has "been able to go more fully into the  state  of Portuguese · 
agriculture  by means in particular of many  meetings  with Portuguese 
Government  representatives. 
Discussion is still in progress, as in  some  matters, notably aid, prices 
and structures, the position remains in  some  respects  unclear and can 
only  be elucidated with the help and cooperation of the Portuguese authorities 
It is at all  events  definitely apparent that the general  state  of Portuguese 
agriculture  presents features—already mentioned in the Commission's "Fresco" 
of 1978—which mean that the adoption of the common agricultural policy in 
Portugal  will  be a most complex and delicate operation if it is not to give 
rise to problems and difficulties of the  kind  encountered since accession 
in the case  of Greece. 
The Portuguese authorites realize this,' and have several times enunciated 
the existing problems, in particular in their Declaration of 19 December 1980 
(COI!F-P/43/80).  The problems are indeed major  ones  which in a number of 
sectors  could make it impossible to adopt the Community rules on a 
practical  working basis immediately upon accession. 
4 
The scale  of the problems is of course not the same for all the matters 
concerned;  it varies according to the nature of each matter. 
In the Portuguese authorities* own view the  issues  involved are the 
general one of aid and on the sectoral side the adoption of the  CAP  upon 
accession in respect of cereals,  fruit  and  vegetables  and  dairy  products, 
plus in certain particular connections wine and fats. 

5 
The Commission,  then, is having its  officials  review Portuguese 
physical and human  infrastructures in all sectors  of agriculture, 
not only  those listed by Portugal  and "by the  French Delegation.  * 
The review  is not yet  finished,  hut it is already clear that  the 
lack of infrastructure  and problems  of implementation  are not very 
limited, nor on the  other -hand invariably universal, within  any 
given sector. 
The question arises  in this context  whether,  having regard  to the 
correlation  "between  the several sectors  of the CAP, to  certain general 
problems  relating  to all those sectors (aid,  market transparency, 
production pattern,  and to the  need for balance  here as in the 
negotiations  as a whole, the approach  should be taken with respect 
to the whole of Portuguese  agriculture  or to a  limited number of 
sectors. 
The point disposed of,  inasmuch  as the  changeover  called for is a 
big one the  Commission  feels pressure  of time and the  setting of 
definite  deadlines  to be met are  essential  to achieve the desired 
purpose. 
Although  it will not be  taking up a position  on the matter  until its 
analysis is completed,  the Commission  thinks it well  to make a number 
of preliminary points  now. 
In particular, 
1. The establishment  of the human,  economic,  technical  and administrative 
infrastructures  Portugal  will need within the Community  to operate 
the CAP machinery  properly should begin well  in advance of actual 
accession.  The periods allowed could,  however,  extend beyond  accession 
and expire  at some  point in the  transition  period, during  which 
completion  of the  machinery's  establishment  would be followed  by its 
operation subject  to the  price/aid  arrangements  and any  other transitional 
measures.  This would in effect mean a two-phase  transition  period. 
.··/··· 

6 
2. Some  flexibility  might "be allowed as regards  movement  fron one 
phase to the other, "but the  overall  length of the  whole transition 
period should "be  precisely  fixed. 
3. All the features of the  whole transition  period (the objectives of 
Phase 1, the conditions for  moving  into Phase 2, the  practical 
details of Phase 2, etc.), including  the rules for pricing  by Portugal 
during Phase 1, should be determined by negotiation before the signing 
of the Act of Accession. 
4. Further to the  structural  measures  under Community  law (EAGGP 
Guidance)  adopted  upon accession, it should be possible to  institute 
special measures  to allow for the  special  features of  Portuguese 
agriculture. 
Before accession the pre-accession aid accorded should continue, 
and if possible b<"s stepped up. 
5· Whenever  possible  market integration  should commence  upon accession. 
Thus except in  particular  specific  cases tariff alignment, both 
intra-Conmunity and on the CCT, and elimination of other obstacles to 
trade should begin  upon accession. 
Appropriate  frontier  arrangements  would, however,  of course  have 
to be operated for so long as  price differences continued,  until such 
time as the CAP  machinery  was fully in force. 
The arrangements  applying to Portugal  would thus no longer be those 
applying  to third countries. 
6. Portugal should throughout the period of establishment of the 
machinery  be accorded all the  knowhow  needed for proper adoption 
of the CAP, both by the  Commission  and by the  individual  Member  States. 

7 
The Commission  will lay before the Council  the findings  of the studies 
it is having conducted and  its proposals  based thereon  by March 1983 
at latest. 
It would stress once again that  the foregoing  is subject to checking 
of the need for a phased  transition  period,  and would  also recall 
that it has always urged the importance of speedy  negotiation. 
Clearly,  in the event of phased  transition  involving  major changes in 
some of the applicant country's  arrangements even  before accession, 
speedy conclusion  of the  accession negotiations  must have a  vital 
bearing on their success.' 

Annex I 
THE FRENCH PROPOSAL 
The French  argument  is that the  .fruit and vegetables sector lacks 
proper statistics  for ascertaining producer  prices,  representative 
markets,  producers* csrganizations and a standardization  system: 
the absence  of these  makes it impossible to operate the  fruit and 
vegetable  market  organization  machinery  upon accession and Portugal 
would not be able to withstand the increased competition  from the 
products of a^n enlarged  Community. 
The French  authorities  fear the  wine and oils and fats sectors are 
likewise  deficient  in infrastructures,  but appear more hopeful 
that the Portuguese  might manage  to institute  the necessary 
arrangements  there before accession. 
In other sectors, such as cereals, the French  «view is that an 
infrastructure  does exist which could be  readily  adjusted to operate 
the market  organization  machinery. 
Gist of the French proposal 
With respect to  fruit and vegetables, and if necessary to  wines 
and oils and fats, France proposes  phased  transition  as follows. 
In Phase 1 Portugal  would establish  the necessary  management  facilities. 
During that time the present trade  arrangements  between  the existing 
Community  and Portugal  would not have to be changed.  No start would 
be made either on price alignment, or on approximation to the  common 
customs  tariff,  or on trade  integration  between  Portugal and the 
Community;  on the other  hand Portugal  would receive CAP aids and take 
part in Community  decision-making.  Phase  1 would in principle  run 
for five or six years, but possibly  either more or less. Movement 
into Phase 2 would depend  on Portugal's  meeting  certain  objective 
criteria  to be written  into the instruments of accession, such as 
observance  of quality  standards, setting-up of producer  groups  and 
so on. The Council  would act upon a report  from the Commission  on 

2 
movement  into Phase 2. Phase 2 would "be a "traditional" transition 
with progressive  approximation  of prices, removal  of customs  duties 
"between the EEC and  Portugal,  and adoption  "by Portugal  of the CCT 
and Community  preference  agreements.  The length of time it was to 
take would "be laid down in the  Treaty of Accession,  "but how  long the 
whole transition  period was .to "be would "be unknown as the  length of 
Phase 1 would not "be  fixed. 
In the case of the  other sectors  of agriculture transition  would "be 
on traditional lines.