No C 189/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 7. 86 
The Section for Agriculture, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the 
subject, adopted its opinion on 3 April 1986, in the light of the report by Mr de Tavernier. 
At its 236th plenary session (meeting of 23 April 1986), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion with no dissenting votes but with one abstention. 
1.1. The Committee endorses the Commission's pro­
posal amending Council Directive 77/93/EEC in order to: 
— extend the application of the Directive as a whole to 
Spain and Portugal, 
— extend the protection in respect of certain harmful 
organisms of general Community concern and organ­
isms of particular concern to Spain and Portugal or to 
other Member States or regions with similar ecological 
conditions. 
1.2. The Committee points out that Spain and Portugal 
will be under some time pressure to take the legislative and 
administrative steps necessary to meet the 1 July 1986 
deadline agreed with them for application of the Directive. 
2.1. The Committee would like to take this opportunity 
to reiterate a number of points raised in a previous 
Committee opinion (J), concerning the wider issues under 
discussion here. 
2.2. In particular, the Committee feels that research on 
harmful organisms and protection from them is largely 
inadequate, and that better provisions are needed. 
(!) OJ No C 25, 28. 1. 1985, p. 31. 2.2.1. A consolidated instrument would facilitate the 
implementation of this complex piece of Community 
legislaton, and would give the consumer a feeling of greater 
legal certainty. 
2.2.2. The enlargement of the Community does not 
make the problem of the tolerances contained in Annexes 
I A and II A any easier. On the one hand there is the need to 
promote free trade between the Member States, but on the 
other hand the fact remains that some Community 
countries are still free of a number of these pests and 
infecting organisms. 
3.1. With regard to the scope of Council Directive 77/ 
93/EEC, but also bearing in mind the deadline set by the 
Community for completion of the internal market, the 
Committee urges the Member States to cooperate to the 
fullest possible extent. Appropriate Community initiatives 
are needed, not only with regard to the specific content of 
this Directive, but also with respect to other related areas, 
such as the use of plant-protection products and maximum 
permitted levels for plant-protection-product residues. 
Done at Brussels, 23 April 1986. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting ERASMUS: the European 
Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students 
(86/C 189/06) 
On 20 January 1986 the Council of the European Communities decided to consult the Economic 
and Social Committee, under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic 
Community, on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Social Questions, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on 
the matter, adopted its opinion on 10 April 1986 in the light of the report by Mr Schwarz. 
At its 236th plenary session (meeting of 23 april 1986) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion unanimously. 
28. 7. 86 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 189/9 
1. General Comments 
1.1. The Committee welcomes the wide support from 
the Heads of States and Governments, the Council, the 
European Parliament and the Commission for the proposal 
on student mobility between European Community 
Member States, and endorses the aim of encouraging 
improved comprehension of economic and social structures 
amongst the future generations of European citizens. This 
is a significant step in the promotion of an overall European 
exchange programme for young people. The Committee 
would urge further proposals of this kind, notably in order 
to cover young workers and trainees not involved in higher 
education. 
1.2. Notwithstanding the success of the pilot study, 
proven over a period of 10 years of operational experience, 
the Committee recognizes the serious obstacles to increased 
student mobility; those of finance, language and academic 
recognition. It therefore applauds the urgency with which 
the proposal attempts to deal with the demand, placing 
emphasis rightly on teacher involvement and the pro­
motion of student exchange programmes. 
1.3. The aim of the ERASMUS programme is, therefore, 
to increase the number of students who spend a period of 
study in another Member State of the Community from the 
present enrolment of about 3 000 to a minimum of 
150 000 by 1992. Within the pilot study it has often been 
the younger and developing institutions that have taken 
part in the activity and the Committee endorses the attempt 
to include the broad cross-section of higher education 
establishments in the proposal. It feels that although the 
wider definition of university is envisaged in the implemen­
tation of the ERASMUS programme, it would have been 
more appropriate to use a generic title in the documen­
tation from the outset, such as 'higher education es­
tablishments' or 'the higher education sector'. 
1.4. The Committee recognizes the flexible nature of the 
proposal, ensuring institutional freedom of operation, 
allowing room for innovation, and encouraging the 
establishment of a European network of institutions 
working closely together, by twinning or in consortia. It is 
an effective programme, directing the major proportion of 
funds available to non-administrative activities, and 
drawing on the existing national administrative machinery 
for its implementation. 
2. Specific comments 
2.1. The Committee acknowledges that it is not the 
intention of ERASMUS to select students particularly in 
certain priority-subject areas thus duplicating other Community proposals and activities. The Committee feels 
that the programme should encourage mobility along the 
entire higher education curricular range and that positive 
methods should be considered to monitor and correct 
subject or national and regional imbalances. 
2.2. Proposals regarding suitable levels of financial 
support to students need to be receptive to the wide 
national variations in fees and other financial arrangements 
for higher education within the Community. Levels of 
support must be adjusted so that no Member State's 
students are handicapped or discouraged for financial 
reasons. 
2.3. The Committee welcomes further attempts to 
facilitate a credit-transfer scheme throughout the Com­
munity and endorses the involvement of 20 European 
universities in a pilot study. It feels, however, that 
particular care must be taken in the selection of institutions 
in order to ensure the inclusion in the study of the widest 
possible range. The Committee is conscious of other 
Community initiatives, particularly in the technical and 
vocational fields, and is concerned that no measures be 
approved which counteract those initiatives and further 
isolate universities in their traditional role. As a con­
sequence, there should be a determined effort to cast the 
ERASMUS net as widely as possible institutionally and 
great sensitivity should be brought into play in order to 
achieve this. 
2.4. Whilst applauding progress in credit-transfer 
schemes and in the evaluation and recognition of European 
academic standards, the Committee considers that other 
proposals and initatives are required in order to remove 
negative influences on students towards mobility, for 
example, legislation. To reduce or remove potential 
disincentives, an essential strand already appears in the 
Council proposal document, namely that 'to continue and 
further develop Community support for joint curriculum 
development' (Action 3, paragraph 25). The Committee 
advocates the identification and investigation of further 
methods of implementing such developments along the 
entire higher education curricular range, through the 
development of streamlined common core topics in the 
various subject areas; through the joint production of 
curricula; and related matters. 
2.5. The Committee concurs with the view that effective 
methods be utilized to acquaint students with opportunities 
within the ERASMUS programme. It feels, however, that 
passive methods proposed under Actions 4.2.1 to 4.2.4 
(paragraphs 37 to 40 inclusive) are unlikely to be sufficient 
and would urge that, following the dissemination of 
information, the programme ensure that consideration be 
given to extending the remit of the European Community 
Network of National Academic Recognition Information 
No C 189/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 28. 7. 86 
Centres (Action 3, paragraph 23) to include the provision 
of guidance and counselling of student applicants. 
2.6. The Council proposal makes reference (para­
graph 18) to language preparation and the Committee 
believes that as much recognition must be given to students' 
linguistic difficulties as problems in the areas of financial 
support, course content, credit-transfer and legislation. It 
welcomes initiatives already taken by Member States to 
provide special subject language support and would 
recommend that more extensive provision be made 
available for language preparation within the ERASMUS 
programme. The intensive teaching programmes men­
tioned in paragraph 15 could be an appropriate vehicle, 
though the duration of language courses need to be 
reviewed in the light of expert opinion. 
Done at Brussels, 23 April 1986. 
1. General comments 
1.1. There is much talk about solidarity in all quarters 
nowadays, but does this talk of such a key humanist 
concept really affect individual behaviour ? Does it lead to a 
reform of social customs ? 
Have our societies become more compassionate towards 
the victims of fate, the poor and the most vulnerable, and 
do they treat them with sufficient fairness ? 
1.1.1. It would be pleasant to be able to answer 'yes' to 
these basic social questions. Unfortunately, lucid observ­
ation of the situation obliges us to acknowledge that the 
number of social, economic and cultural outcasts is 2.7. Within the proposal it is noted that grants made 
available to each Member State through the ERASMUS 
programme will be allocated in proportion to the number 
of students in the higher education sector of each State. The 
committee would wish to ensure that the broadest cross-
section of students benefit from the activity and feels that 
the academic representatives on the Committee assisting 
the Commission in programme implementation reflect the 
diversified higher education provision within the Com­
munity. 
2.8. The decision states that after three years of 
operation an interim report will be repared for submission 
by the Commission to the Council and Parliament. This 
report should also be submitted to the Economic and Social 
Committee. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Gerd MUHR 
increasing at a time when 'progress' should be reducing 
it (1). 
1.1.2. Since there are such contradictions, this is one of 
the factors to be taken into account (as the Economic and 
Social Committee has repeatedly suggested) at the earliest 
stage of scientific, technological or legislative consider­
ation, istead of much later (in some cases too late), under 
the pressure of effects which are sometimes unbearable in 
human terms, and which could often have been avoided or 
mitigated. 
1.1.3. A sizeable proportion of the resources of social 
policy and action then has to be used to cure ills which have 
their origin at an earlier stage, either in lack of foresight or 
(!) OJ No C 218, 29. 8. 1985, p. 15. Opinion on the draft Council recommendation on the employment of disabled people in the 
European Community 
(86/C 189/07) 
On 7 February 1986 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Social Questions, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on 
the subject, adopted its opinion on 9 April 1986, in the light of the report by Mr Burnel. 
At its 236th plenary session (meeting of 23 April 1986) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following opinion unanimously.