^oC^lO Official]ournal of the European Communities 1^.^.90 
opinion on the C^omrni^ion^ proposal foraC^ouncil Regulation ^EEC^^ amending Regulation 
^EEC^^o^^B^ on the common organisation of the market in cereals 
^90BC^B0^ 
On^Octoberl989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198oftheTreaty establishing the European Economic Commumty,on the abo^ementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Eishenes,which was responsible for preparing the Committee's 
worl^ on the subject, adopted its Opinion on ^0^o^emberl989.The Rapporteur was ^Btr Strauss. 
At its ^^.nd plenary Session ^meeting of 19 POecember 1989^, the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opimonunanimously. 
1. IntheCommittee's^iewtheCommission'sReporton 
the coDresponsibihtyle^y arrangements in the cereal sector 
is an accurate account ofthe historical development for co^ 
responsibility in this sector. 
^. TheReport sets out the administrative andcontrol 
difficulties resulting from the current co^responsibihtyle^y 
arrangements encountered by Aiember States. In particular 
the Committee notes that it is difficult to control sales of 
cerealsbetween farmers andbehe^es that this andother 
problemsmay lead tomarl^etdistortions. However, the 
current co^responsibility levies, together with the stabiliser 
arrangements, will come up for review after the 1991^199^ 
hardest. Problems arising from these distortions will ha^e 
to be considered fullyat this review. 
^. It is far from clear whether the current stabiliser 
mechanisms,andparticularly the coDresponsibihtyle^ies, 
help to control production which is at the root of the 
budgetary problems. The curtailment of the upward trend 
in output in 1988 and 1989 was due to adverse weather 
conditions, meanwhile, the le^y and stabiliser arranged 
ments add significantly to PEOC^A resources. At the same 
time they e^ert cumulative downward pressure on support 
levels. 
^. TheCommission'sReport states thatfromatechnical 
and administrative point of ^iew the current le^y 
arrangements operate satisfactorily. The Committee must, 
however, add that they impose a considerable adminis 
trati^e burden on firsthand buyers and producers, for 
example, the collection, invoicing and payment to the 
authorities ofle^ymust add to traders'costs and is lively to 
be reflected in the price paid to producers. Again, growers 
in many member countries ha^e experienced difficulties in 
obtaining reimbursement of additional le^y when this was 
initially fi^ed at too highale^el. 
^. The latter difficulty stems from the current method of 
estimating the hardest. 
^. IntheCommittee's^iew penalties for o^er^produc^ 
tion should not be triggered by hardest estimates which are 
inevitably imperfect.Cereals ha^ealargenumber of outlets and uses and production can therefore not be gauged with 
precision as,for example,for oil seeds which ha^etobe 
processed. Plowe^er, it is recognised that fundamental 
changes to the stabiliser mechanism will ha^e to await the 
1991B199^ review. 
^. Onder the present arrangements the production 
estimate determines the si^eofthe additional le^y as well as 
thepossible^^ inter^entionpncecutin thefollowmg 
year.The Committee believes thatit is impossible to obtain 
adefimti^e hardest estimate for total cereal production for 
the whole of the EC before the end of the calendar year or 
the early months of the following year.Thereisadanger 
that the objectivity of early hardest estimates may be 
impaired if the amount of additional le^y and any price cut 
in the future years depends on such estimates. 
8. The Committee therefore agrees with the basic 
approach underlying the Commission's proposal under 
whichadefimti^e hardest estimate made beforel^viarch in 
theyear following thehar^estwilldetermme whether a 
price cut will be applied and whether any correction to the 
additional coDresponsibihty le^y already paid will be 
required. 
9. Onder the mechanisms proposed by the Commission 
any o^er or under payment of additional coDresponsibihty 
le^y would be made good through adjustment of the basic 
le^y in the following year.This would in effect tie the basic 
le^y to the stabilisers. 
10. In the Committee's ^iew it should bepossible to 
de^iseamechanism which woulddispensewiththe need 
foraprehmmary hardest estimate which would not tie the 
basic le^y to the stabilisers. 
11. R is forthis reason thatthe Committee welcomes the 
decision of the Council on ^Ol^o^ember under which the 
additional coresponsibihty le^y will, from the 1990 
hardest onwards, be charged initially at 1,^^,any under 
oro^erpaymentsmthehghtof definitive crop estimates 
being made good inthe subsequent hardest year. 
ne unendorsing the basic approach of the Commission 
the Committee must emphasise that when the current 
stabiliser and le^y arrangements come up for review each 
constituent part will ha^e to be reviewed separately and on 
12. 3.. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 62/11 
its own merits. Even if the stabilizer mechanism continues 
in one form or another, it does not necessarily follow that 
the co-responsibility levy arrangements should be con­
tinued. The arrangements, for example, lower the returns 
to growers without encouraging consumers to use more 
grain. 
13. The Committee wishes to emphasize that since 
cereal substitutes are exempt from levy the arrangements 
Done at Brussels, 19 December 1989. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The introduction to the 18th Report on competition 
policy states that Community competition policy is at a 
crossroads. The favourable short-term economic situation 
has led economic operators to incorporate increasingly in 
their planning the need to adapt to the new market 
conditions expected for 1993. The strategic planning 
implemented by firms leads them to overcome the 
Community's internal economic barriers by conducting a 
variety of transnational operations. 
1.2. On these general grounds, the Committee has 
thought it best to divide the Opinion into two specific parts. 
1.2.1. Part I will be a critical review — both positive and 
negative — of the 18th Report. 
1.2.2. Part II will formulate suggestions for certain 
guidelines for Community competition policy in the run-up 
to the Single Market. act as a further incentive to switch from EC cereals to 
imported substitutes. 
14. We may now be witnessing fundamental changes in 
the world supply and demand situation for food which may 
make the stabilizer arrangements redundant. However, 
should structural surpluses continue to be a threat, a 
balance is unlikely to be achieved through the stabilizer 
arrangements as they stand. More direct action on supply 
and demand would then become essential. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
1.3. These suggestions will take account not only of 
competition conditions within the EEC but also of those 
associated with commercial transactions with third 
countries. 
2. Opinion on the 18th Report proper 
2.1. General Comments 
2.1.1. The long wait for a Regulation on the control 
of mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures 
2.1.1.1. Chapter I of the fourth part of the 18th Report 
makes an instructive assessment of the progress in links 
between firms. These data are not exhaustive, and are not 
based on official, systematic statistics, but on general 
information. Opinion on the 18th Report on competition policy 
(90/C 62/07) 
On 1 December 1989 the Commission decided, under Article 198 of the Treaty setting up the 
European Economic Community, to consult the Economic and Social Committee on the 18th 
Report on competition policy. 
The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the matter, adopted its Opinion on 29 November 1989. The Rapporteur was 
Mr Mourgues. 
At its 272nd Plenary Session (sitting of 19 December 1989) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously (apart from one abstention):