16.10.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 125/23 
suance  of the  Directive.  It therefore  proposes  that 
the following  be added  to the  first  indent  of para-
graph  1: 
, as well  as those  which  are  liable  to have 
effects  in the field  in question'. 
3.11.  Article  11 
3.11.1.  The  Committee  wonders  why  the EAGGF  is 
only to refund  25 % of the expenditure  eligible  for 
assistance.  It requests  that  this  figure  be brought  in 
line with  that  stipulated  in the  other  Directives  on 
structural  improvement  for certain  regions. 
3.11.2.  In the Committee's  view  the maximum  con-
tribution  laid  down  by Article  11 (4) — 200  u.a./ha 
— is too  low.  For  certain  species,  especially  hard-woods,  a higher  aid  figure  must  be  given.  Cost 
inflation  must  also  be taken  into  account  in deter-
mining  the level  of aid. 
3.12.  Consultation  of professional  circles 
Lastly,  the  Committee  considers  that  in the  special 
field  of forestry,  consultation  of the  relevant  pro-
fessional  circles  is called  for.  It therefore  suggests  that 
a forestry  sub-group  be shortly  set up in the Advisory 
Committee  on Agricultural  Structure. 
Done  at Brussels,  17 July  1974. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Alfons  LAPPAS 
Opinion  on the  food  crisis  and  the  Community's  responsibilities  towards  developing 
countries  and  on the memorandum  on food  aid policy  of the European  Community 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has not been  published  in the Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 20 March  1974,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  subject  to the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  198  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its Opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
122nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 17 and 18 July  1974. 
The full  text  of the Opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to Article  198  of the  Treaty  estab-
lishing  the European  Economic  Community; 
Having  regard  to the request,  dated  22 March  1974, 
from  the Council  of the  European  Communities  for 
an opinion  on the food  crisis  and  the  Community's responsibilities  towards  developing  countries  and  on 
the memorandum  on food  aid policy  of the European 
Community; 
Having  regard  to its Rules  of Procedure,  and  in 
particular  Article  22 thereof; 
Having  regard  to the  Decision  taken  by its Bureau 
on 26 March  1974  entrusting  the Section  for External 
No C 125/24 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 16.10.  74 
Relations  with  the preparation  of an opinion  on the 
document  and  the  Section  for  Agriculture  with  the 
preparation  of a supplementary  Opinion  on the agri-
cultural  aspects; 
Having  regard  to the  Opinion  delivered  by  the 
Section  for External  Relations  at its meeting  of 8 and 
9 July,  session  of 9 July; 
Having  regard  to the supplementary  Opinion  of the 
Section  for Agriculture; 
Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr.  Tasker; 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 122nd  plenary 
session  on 17 and 18 July  1974,  sitting  of 17 July, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
unanimously: 
1. GENERAL  COMMENTS 
1.1. The  Commission's  Memorandum  proposes  an 
expanded  programme  of food  aid  to developing 
countries,  both  in response  to emergency  situations 
(e.g. disaster  relief)  and  as an instrument  of the 
Community's  overall  development  policy.  In the light 
of current  and  projected  food  shortages  in developing 
countries,  of the increases  in world  food  prices,  and 
of the  impact  on  the  economies  of developing 
countries  of the energy  crisis  coupled  with  continuing 
inflation,  the Commission  argues  that  'the  adoption 
of a substantial  and  coherent  food  aid policy  of the 
Community  is becoming  an urgent  necessity'. 
1.2. Recognizing  that  the  Community  has  so far 
lacked  a coherent  food  aid  policy,  the  Committee 
welcomed  the  Commission's  proposal  to initiate 
forward  programming  for  this  form  of assistance, 
which  was  likely  to be needed  over  the next  5 to 10 
years.  At the same  time,  it endorsed  the recognition 
by the Commission  of the need  for the proposals  on 
food  aid  to fit into  the  broader  framework  of the 
Community's  financial  assistance  to  developing 
countries,  and  to conform  with  the overall  objectives of the  Community  towards  the  third  world,  and 
noted  that  these  overall  objectives  have  yet  to be 
defined. 
1.3. The  Committee  saw  the solution  to the problem 
of the  overall  food  shortage,  which  is particularly 
marked  in certain  developing  countries,  as lying  in 
stepping  up production  capacity  in those  countries. 
But Community  food  aid  to those  countries  was 
thought  essential  until  such  time  as they  achieved 
significant  capacity  increases. 
1.4. In the  Committee's  view,  developing  countries 
would  be able  to step  up their  production  if the 
market  situation  for basic  foodstuffs  improved.  The 
Community  should  devote  special  attention  to this 
aspect,  particularly  in multilateral  trade  negotiations. 
Clarification  of the  purpose  of food  aid 
1.5. The  Committee  felt  that  the  Commission's 
proposals,  in common  with  other  donors'  approaches 
to this  subject,  do not distinguish  sufficiently  between 
food  aid which  is based  on humanitarian  consider-
ations  — e.g.  for famine  prevention  or relief,  or to 
protect  the nutritional  standards  of vulnerable  popu-
lation  groups  — and  food  aid which  is designed  to 
promote  economic  development.  These  are  different 
purposes  with  different  requirements. 
Food  aid  for humanitarian  reasons 
1.6. Recognizing  the  response  by the  Community 
to emergency  situations,  the Committee  emphasized 
the importance  of coordinating  Community  action 
with  improved  international  machinery  for  disaster 
relief.  Experience  in the Sahel  had again  demonstrated 
the need  for such  machinery,  and  it was  hoped  that 
the Community  would  take  a lead  in the formulation 
and implementation  of  effective  international 
measures  for emergency  relief. 
1.7. Continuing  famine  in the Sahel,  and  the  threat 
of famine  elsewhere,  also  underlined  the urgent  need 
to rebuild  national  food  stocks  and  to establish  an 
international  emergency  reserve  system.  These  were 
essential  elements  of the  proposed  world  food 
security  system,  to be considered  by  the  United 
Nations  World  Food  Conference  in November. 
16.10.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 125/25 
1.8. In the  Committee's  view  there  could  be  no 
greater  claim  on the  world's  conscience  than  action 
to outlaw  hunger  and  malnutrition,  and  the poverty 
they reflect.  The  Committee  would  have  wished, 
therefore,  to see  greater  emphasis  on food  aid  for 
humanitarian  purposes;  and,  in endorsing  the  need 
for a positive  contribution  by the Community  to the 
World  Food  Conference,  it recommended  that 
priority  be given  to Community  initiatives,  among 
others,  for  international  action  both  to rebuild 
deflated  food  stocks  in the  countries  affected,  and 
to establish  an international  emergency  reserve  system 
with strategic  stocks  on a regional  basis.  Those  most 
directly  concerned  with  agricultural  production  in 
the Community  could  usefully  be identified  with 
these  initiatives. 
Food  Aid  for development 
1.9. The  contribution  of food  aid  to economic 
development  was  seen  by the Committee  as essentially 
a means  of releasing  foreign  exchange  resources  in 
recipient  countries  for imports  of capital  and  other 
goods  needed  for  development.  Counterpart  funds 
generated  by food  aid could  also  provide  budgetary 
support.  Food  aid  was  therefore  complementary  to 
other  forms  of development  assistance,  and  should 
be considered  as part  of the total  flow  of concessional 
resources  from  the  Community  to  developing 
countries. 
1.10.  The  Committee  noted  that,  given  adequate 
world  food  supplies  and  stable  prices,  any  form  of 
aid which  freed  foreign  exchange  would  be as help-
ful to recipient  countries  as food  aid for development. 
Being  tied  both  to commodity  and  to source,  and 
dependent  on the  uncertainties  of agricultural  pro-
duction  in donor  countries,  food  aid was  less  flexible 
than financial  aid,  though  it could  in such  circum-
stances  perform  a useful  role  in stabilizing  world 
markets. 
1.11.  At the  same  time,  the  Committee  recognized 
that in current  economic  conditions  — even  if the 
food  supply  and  price  situation  were  more  favour-
able — it was  unlikely  that  the Community,  or the 
industrialized  countries  as a whole,  would  be able 
to provide  financial  aid on the  scale  required.  The 
World  Bank  had  estimated  that  the  developing 
countries  would  need  an additional  4 billion  dollars 
in 1974  in order  to pay  for their  current  level  of oil 
imports,  and  the Community  had  proposed  an inter-
national  fund  of 3 billion  dollars  to assist  the devel-
oping  countries  worst  affected  by the  energy  crisis. Looking  further  ahead,  FAO  estimates  quoted  by the 
Commission  showed  that  only  about  60%  of the 
food  import  requirements  of developing  countries 
by 1980  was  likely  to be met  by commercial  imports, 
leaving  an effective  demand  gap  of some  5 billion 
dollars  at 1973  prices. 
1.12.  The  Committee  considered  the extent  to which 
food  aid  was  additional  to whatever  development 
assistance  would  be available  otherwise,  and  thought 
it unlikely  that,  in the  absence  of food  aid,  there 
would  be a corresponding  rise  in other  aid.  At the 
same  time  it noted  that  for  some  Member  States 
food  aid was  not  additional  to other  forms  of aid, 
and that  an increase  in Community  food  aid might 
lead them  to make  corresponding  adjustments  in 
other  parts  of their  aid  programmes.  Since  Com-
munity  food  aid  was  predominantly  financed  from 
the Community's  own  resources,  the  Committee 
hoped  that  such  adjustments  could  be avoided. 
2. THE  COMMISSION'S  PROPOSALS 
An increase  in the  Community's  current  food  aid 
commitments  by means  of a three-year  indicative, 
quantified  programme 
2.1. The  Committee  accepted  in principle  the Com-
mission's  proposals: 
— for  a three-year  indicative,  quantified  programme, 
to allow  rational  planning  of the  continuity  of 
supplies,  and  forward  guidance  to recipient 
countries  and  international  organizations, 
— for a diversified  food  aid 'basket'  of commodities 
related  to the  nutritional  requirements  of devel-
oping  countries  and  to product  availabilities  in 
the Community. 
2.2. Appreciating  that  continuity  of supplies  was  a 
priority  requirement,  the Committee  recognized  that 
Community  agricultural  production  would  need  to 
be sufficient  — on average  over  several  years  — to 
ensure  such  continuity.  The  volume  of food  aid 
should  not  in future  depend  on unplanned  surpluses, 
but should  be established  in the light  of real  needs, 
as an aspect  of agricultural  policy.  If production 
targets  could  be concerted  at international  level,  this 
might  resolve  the difficult  problem  arising  from  the 
No C 3 25/26 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 16.10.74 
necessity  to avoid  surpluses  while  at the  same  time 
ensuring  the  necessary  quantities  of agricultural 
products  for the food-aid  programme. oping  countries  to assured  supplies  of fertilizer  at 
prices  they  could  afford  — if lasting  benefits  were  to 
be obtained;  and  hoped  that  the Community  would 
propose  or support  such  measures  in the forthcoming 
World  Food  Conference. 
2.3. As  regards  the  size  and  composition  of the 
three-year  indicative  programme,  the  Committee 
noted  the  Commission's  proposals  to increase  the 
Community's  annual  commitments  in cereals  from 
the current  1*3  million  tons  to a minimum  of 1-7 
million  tons  and  a maximum  of 2-5 million  tons;  to 
provide  for a maximum  increase  of 50%  in current 
commitments  in skimmed-milk  powder  and  butter-
oil; and  to increase  substantially  the  present  small 
commitment  in sugar. The chanelling  of the bulk  of the Community's  food 
aid direct  to developing  countries,  while  passing 
substantial  and  possibly  increasing  quantities  through 
multilateral  agencies 
2.4. The  Committee  recognized  that  the  quantities 
proposed  were  inadequate  if related  to the expected 
food  shortages  in developing  countries.  Noting  FAO 
estimates  that  the food  deficit  of developing  countries 
could  reach  70 to 80 million  tons  of cereals  annually 
by 1985,  the  Committee  appreciated  that  the  level 
of Community  food  aid  in cereals  might  need  to 
approximate  more  closely  to 4 million  tons  — 
representing  the  Community's  share  of cereal  pro-
duction  by all major  donor  countries,  as a proportion 
of the current  total  food  aid in cereals.  Similarly,  the 
Committee  recognized  that  larger  annual  commit-
ments  in skimmed-milk  powder  might  be required 
in view  of the  Commission's  comments  on  the 
demand  and  absorptive  capacity  in  developing 
countries  for  milk  protein.  Relating  these  potential 
needs  to the immediate  requirements  for Community 
action,  the  Committee  endorsed  the  Commission's 
proposal  that  commitments  should  be set  at the 
minimum  levels  initially,  and  should  be reviewed  in 
the light  of experience. 2.6. The  Committee  considered  the  Commission's 
arguments  for direct  versus  indirect  food  aid.  It noted 
that in the period  1968  to 1973  only  6% of the Com-
munity's  food  aid  in cereals  had  been  distributed 
indirectly  through  international  organizations;  and 
that the 'Decisions  concerning  the distribution  of the 
Community's  food  aid as between  direct  and  indirect 
actions  will  be taken  bearing  in mind  the  relative 
merits  of each  method'. 
2.7. The  Committee  also  noted  its earlier  view  that 
the Commission's  proposals  do  not  distinguish 
sufficiently  between  food  aid  for  humanitarian 
reasons  and  food  aid for economic  development,  its 
emphasis  on  the  importance  of  coordinating 
Community  action  with  improved  international 
machinery  for  emergency  relief,  and  its recommen-
dation  that  priority  be given  to Community  initia-
tives  for  international  action  in rebuilding  national 
food  stocks  in vulnerable  areas,  and  in establishing 
an international  emergency  reserve  system. 
2.5. The  Committee  was  also  concerned  that  food 
aid for development  should  be seen  as complemen-
tary to, not  as a substitute  for,  other  forms  of aid. 
Noting  that  the proposals  on food  aid should  fit into 
the broader  framework  of the Community's  financial 
assistance  to developing  countries,  and  that  'a part 
of the  Community's  financial  aid to the  developing 
countries  could  usefully  be spent  on  structural 
improvements  in their  food  production  sector,  since 
such  improvements  alone  can  provide  a satisfactory 
long-term  answer  to the critical  food  problem  which 
faces  them',  the  Committee  questioned  whether  an 
expanded  food-aid  programme  represented  an ad-
equate  response  to this  problem  by the Community. 
It felt  that  food  aid needed  to be supplemented  by 
other  measures  — e.g.  aid for  relevant  agricultural 
research  in developing  countries,  and  access  by devel-2.8. In line  with  these  views,  the  Committee  felt 
that Community  food  aid for humanitarian  purposes 
should,  in measures  to be determined,  increasingly 
be channelled  through  multilateral  agencies.  Noting 
that,  under  the  Food  Aid  Convention,  10%  of the 
commitments  in cereals  by the Community  and  the 
Member  States  for 1973/1974  had  been  earmarked  for 
the World  Food  Programme,  and  another  4% divided 
between  the  International  Committee  of the  Red 
Cross,  the  United  Nations  Children's  Fund  and  the 
United  Nations  Works  and  Relief  Agency,  the 
Committee  recommended  that  future  allocations  to 
such  organizations  should  be  related  wherever 
possible  to the  needs  and  performance  of the 
multilateral  agencies  —  rather  than  to  other 
considerations.  In  the  Committee's  view,  and 
16.10.74 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 125/27 
consistent  with  the previously  noted  initiative  by the 
1 Community  for an international  fund  to assist  the 
developing  countries  worst  affected  by the  energy 
crisis,  such  a policy  would  demonstrate  the 
Community's  support  for  international  responses  to 
international  responsibilities,  as well  as contributing 
to administrative  efficiency  and economy. 
2.9. As  regards  the  distribution  of food  aid  for 
development,  the  Committee  appreciated  the 
Commission's  view  that,  having  an identity  and  a 
personality  of its own,  the  Community  should  give 
most  of its food  aid direct  to developing  countries, 
while  at the  same  time  channelling  substantial  and 
possibly  increasing  quantities  through  multilateral 
institutions.  It also  noted  the  complementary 
approaches  by the Community  and  the  World  Food 
Programme,  and  the  Commission's  view  that  the 
direct  approach  was  necessary  to ensure  that  a high 
proportion  of the  Community's  food  aid  went  to 
those  countries  most  in need.  The  Committee 
considered,  however,  that  the  identity  of  the 
Community  need  not  necessarily  be at risk  in inter-
national  aid programmes,  arid,  while  recognizing  the 
importance  of ensuring  that  Community  food  aid 
continued  to favour  those  countries  at present 
inadequately  covered  by the World  Food  Programme, 
it hoped  that,  as the  Community  established  the 
quantities  to be  channelled  through  multilateral 
channels,  it would  also  endeavour  to work  towards 
an improved  multilateral  programme  of food  aid 
for development  — in line  with  the  Committee's 
views  on food  aid for humanitarian  purposes,  and  for 
the same  reasons. 
The distribution  of food  aid  for  development  by 
means  of open  market  sales  in recipient  countries, 
and the utilization  of the resulting  counterpart  funds 
for development  programmes  selected  by the recipient 
countries  and  approved  by the Community 
2.10.  Considering  the  proposals  for  open  market 
sales  and  noting  the recognition  by the Commission 
of the  potential  dangers  of distorting  international 
trade  and  reducing  the  incentives  to agricultural 
production  in recipient  countries,  the  Committee 
emphasized  the importance  of the Commission's  view 
that 'any  disincentive  to agricultural  production  in 
a developing  country,  resulting  from  aid programmes, 
would  be a serious  disadvantage'. 2.11.  While  appreciating  that  valuable  lessons  had 
been  learned  from  the United  States'  experience  with 
the PL 480  programme  of food  aid,  the Committee 
was concerned  that  Community  policy  should  not 
underrate  the disincentives  to agricultural  production 
in the recipient  country  that  could  result  from  open 
market  sales.  Apart  from  providing  opportunities  for 
speculation,  food  aid could  have  an adverse  impact 
in two  ways:  first,  by increasing  the availability  of a 
commodity  in the local  market  to the extent  that  its 
price  was  lowered,  and  consequently  the incentive  to 
the farmer  to produce  it was  reduced;  secondly,  by 
relieving  the  recipient  government  of the  need  to 
make  necessary  changes  in the institutional  structure, 
and to give  agricultural  development  the  priority  it 
deserved. 
2.12.  However,  recognizing  that  in a period  of food 
shortages  and  high  prices  the Community  needed  to 
respond  to developing  countries'  requests  for  food 
with  food,  and  that  international  machinery  existed 
to monitor  all food  aid transactions,  and  noting  its 
earlier  view  that  the  initial  size  and  composition  of 
the Community's  three-year  indicative  programme 
should  be reviewed  in the  light  of experience,  the 
Committee  concluded  that  what  was  essential  was  to 
ensure  that  the effectiveness  of the programme  — as 
an aspect  of Community  development  policy  — was 
regularly  assessed. 
2.13.  Recognizing  that  the potential  disincentives  to 
agricultural  production  in recipient  countries  could 
be offset  to the  extent  that  counterpart  funds 
generated  by food  aid  were  applied  to agricultural 
development  programmes,  the  Committee  rec-
ommended  that  a clear  priority  in the utilization  of 
counterpart  funds  should  be*  accorded  to such 
programmes. 
Delegation  of executive  authority  by the Council  to 
the Commission 
2.14.  Endorsing  the  Commission's  proposals  to 
improve  the procedural  and  management  aspects  of 
the Community's  food-aid  programme,  and  in line 
No C 125/28 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 16.10.  74 
with  its views  on the  channelling  of food  aid  for 
humanitarian  purposes  through  multilateral  agencies, 
the Committee  drew  attention  to the  importance  of 
ensuring  that  the  administrative  machinery  was 
adapted  to the extent  to which  Community  food  aid 
could  be internationalized. Implementation  of all future  aid through  Community 
actions 
2.16.  Accepting  the  Commission's  proposal  'to 
adopt  a principle  that  all future  aid,  including  that  in 
cereals,  should  take  the form  of Community  actions', 
the Committee  recommended  that  this  principle 
should  be applied  progressively,  with  a phasing-out 
of national  actions. 
2.15.  As  regards  the  monitoring  of open  market 
sales  in  recipient  countries,  the  Committee 
emphasized  the  need  for  regular  assessment  of the 
programme's  effectiveness,  as had  been  stressed 
earlier  in considering  this method  of distribution. Done  at Brussels,  17 July  1974. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Alfons  LAPP  AS 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive  on stunning  of animals  before  slaughter 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has been  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 44 of 19 April  1974,  page  27. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 26 March  1974,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Articles  43 and  198  of the Treaty  establishing 
the European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its Opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
122nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 17 and  18 July  1974. 
The full  text  of the Opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the request,  dated  27 March  1974, 
from  the Council  of the  European  Communities  for 
an opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Directive 
on stunning  of animals  before  slaughter; 
Having  regard  to Articles  43 and  198  of the Treaty; 
Having  regard  to the Decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
26 March  1974  entrusting  the Section  for Agriculture 
with  the  preparation  of an opinion  on the  matter; 
Having  regard  to the report  submitted  by Mrs  Evans, 
the Rapporteur; Having  regard  to the Opinion  delivered  by the Section 
for Agriculture  at its meeting  on 4 July  1974; 
Having  regard  to the discussion  at its 122nd  plenary 
session,  held  on 17 and  18 July  1974,  sitting  of 
17 July, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by a majority  with  1 against  and  5 abstentions: 
1. General  observations 
1.1. In principle,  the  Committee  welcomes  the 
Commission's  intention  to standardize  the  rules