No C 270/22 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 26. 11.75 
Opinion  on the stocktaking  of the common  agricultural  policy 
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 4 March  1975,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  subject  to the  Economic 
and Social  Committee  under  Articles  43 and  47 of the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  drew  up its Opinion  at its 132nd  plenary  session, 
held in Brussels  on 16 and  17 July  1975. 
The Opinion  is published  below: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community  and,  in particular, 
Articles  43 and  47 thereof; 
Having  regard  to the  request  by the Council  of the 
European  Communities  on 4 March  1975  for  an 
Opinion; 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
18 March  1975,  instructing  the  Section  for 
Agriculture  to prepare  the Committee's  work  on the 
matter; 
Having  regard  to its earlier  submissions  on this 
sector,  in particular  its Opinion  of 27 February  1974 
on the  Commission  Communication  to the  Council 
on Improvement  of  the  Common  Agricultural 
Policy  (x) and  its Study  of 28 November  1974  entitled 
'Progress  Report  on  the  Common  Agricultural 
Policy'; 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Bourel; 
Having  regard  to the Opinion  adopted  by the Section 
for Agriculture  at its meeting  on 3 July  1975; 
Having  regard  to the discussion  at its 132nd  plenary 
session  held  on 16 and  17 July  1975, 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
there  being  64 votes  for,  and  16 abstentions: 
i1) OJ No C 115,  28. 9. 1974. I. General  comments 
1. On  28  November  1974,  the  Economic  and 
Social  Committee  approved  a Study  entitled  'Progress 
Report  on the  Common  Agricultural  Policy'.  The 
Study  contained  some  observations  on  the 
progressive  establishment,  pursuant  to the Treaty,  of 
the common  agricultural  policy,  and  a series  of 
suggestions  as to how  to develop  and  improve  this 
policy. 
2. Even  before  that,  at its Plenary  Session  held  on 
27 February  1974,  the  Committee  had  issued  an 
Opinion  on  the  Commission's  Memorandum  of 
30 October  1973  on Improvement  of the  Common 
Agricultural  Policy. 
3. For  its part,  the  Commission  has  on several 
occasions  since  the  first  decisions  on agricultural 
matters,  called  upon  the Council  — and  the general 
public  — to consider  its observations  on the features 
and general  direction  of the  common  agricultural 
policy.  The  latest  in this  series  of submissions  have 
been  the  abovementioned  Memorandum  and  the 
recent  Communication  addressed  to the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  entitled  'Stocktaking  of 
the Common  Agricultural  Policy',  of 26 February 
1975. 
4. In  this  connection,  the  Committee  points  out 
that the  Council  did  not  in fact  discuss  the 
Memorandum  of 30 October  1973.  In particular,  it 
did not  adopt  a position  on  the  proposals  for 
improvements  which  the Commission  had  submitted. 
Clearly,  the Council  has always  preferred  to decide  on 
concrete  proposals  rather  than  to enter  into  a 
26.11.  75 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 270/23 
discussion  on the medium-  and long-term  direction  of 
the EEC's  agricultural  policy. 
5. It  is thus  not surprising  that,  having  been  asked 
by the Council,  at the suggestion  of one  or other  of 
the Member  States,  to produce  a stocktaking  of the 
common  agricultural  policy,  the  Commission  has 
deliberately  maintained  in the stocktaking  the line  of 
approach  pursued  in  the  earlier  observations, 
particularly  in the 1973  Memorandum. 
6. The  Committee  noted  that  a number  of 
Member  States  and  organizations  representing 
socio-economic  or indeed  political  interests,  have 
been  eager  to put forward  their  ideas  on the occasion 
of the publication  of the stocktaking  report.  In the 
Committee's  view,  such  a widespread  debate  enabling 
a re-assessment  of the  Community's  agricultural 
policy  to take  place  is to be  welcomed.  The 
Committee  sees  it at the very  least  as a sign  of the 
importance  attached  to the dynamic  role  which  the 
policy  has been  playing  during  the past  decade  in the 
difficult  progress  towards  a Community  constructed 
in accordance  with  the aims  set out in the Treaty  of 
Rome. 
7. This  background  was  essential  to enable  the 
present  Opinion  to be seen  in its proper  context.  The 
Committee  feels  it would  not  be appropriate  to 
repeat  all the remarks  made  in its 'Progress  Report' 
Study,  and this  it would  be compelled  to do if it gave 
its detailed  reactions  to the various  points  made  in 
the Commission's  stocktaking.  This,  in short,  is why 
the Committee  thinks  it preferable  to make  a number 
of general  judgements  on  the  stocktaking  and 
afterwards  to reiterate  the  basic  principles  which 
must  be followed  in adapting  the agricultural  policy 
in the light  of the  lessons  learnt  over  the past  10 
years  and  the situations  and  problems  we face  today 
and those  we will  face  tomorrow. 
8. Accordingly,  the Committee  would  state  right 
away  its intention  to give  its views  at a later  date  on 
the proposals  concerning  particular  products, 
proposals  which  the Commission  has  announced  in 
its stocktaking. 
II. The  Commission's  'Stocktaking  of the Common 
Agricultural  Policy' 
9. As  it has indicated  above,  the Committee  does 
not propose  to carry  out a systematic  and methodical 
comparison  of the Commission's  Stocktaking  Report 
and the Study  which  emerged  from  its discussion  on 
the subject.  The  Committee  feels,  however,  that  since 
the stocktaking,  being  intended  for  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council,  has  political 
implications,  it would  have  been  better  to preface  its discussion  of technical  aspects  with  a number  of 
political  considerations.  In  particular,  it was 
definitely  incumbent  on the Commission  to bring  out 
clearly  the role  played  by the agricultural  policy  in 
the process  of Community  construction  as well  as the 
need  to carry  out  the  appropriate  adjustment  and 
strengthening  measures  so that  the 'common  capital' 
which  has been  built  up in this  sector  over  the years 
is not lost.  The  Committee  shares  the view  that  the 
operation  of the  agricultural  policy  must  have  the 
necessary  changes  made  to it, but  it would  again 
insist  that  the decisions  which  may  be taken  in future 
in the  agricultural  sphere  will  continue  to carry 
political  importance. 
10. The  Committee  notes  that  the  approach 
adopted  by the Commission  for its examination  of 
the conclusions  to be drawn  from  10 years  of 
common  agricultural  policy  was  the  same  as that 
which  the  Committee  itself  had  used,  namely, 
consideration  of the objectives  set out in Article  39 of 
the Treaty  of Rome.  The  Commission  lists  some  of 
the main  events  in the history  of the establishment  of 
the policy,  and  often  gives  the impression  of wishing 
first of all to justify  its own  conduct  in the face  of the 
situations  with  which  it had  to deal.  The  Committee 
can understand  this  attitude  since,  when  the 
Commission  received  instructions  to draw  up the 
Stocktaking  Report  in October  1974,  it might  easily 
have  felt under  direct  attack. 
11. On  the other  hand,  this  defensive  attitude  has 
not been  without  noticeable  effects  on  the 
Stocktaking  Report.  In the  Committee's  view,  the 
Commission  is not on trial  in the stocktaking  debate. 
It would  stress,  as it has  done  many  times  before, 
that the  responsibility  for  what  seem  to it to be 
mistakes,  or at least  inadequacies,  in the policy  is 
largely  shared  between  the  Community's  Executive 
and the Member  States.  It must  be borne  in mind 
that management  of the common  agricultural  policy 
was placed  jointly  in the hands  of the Commission 
and the Member  States.  The  Commission's  document 
would  have  been  clearer  from  the point  of view  of 
arriving  at political  judgements  if it had  brought  out 
the individual  responsibilities  better. 
12. As  the Commission's  document  is divided  into 
two main  parts,  namely,  an account  of the past  10 
years  and  proposals  for  improvements,  the 
Committee  thinks  it best  to follow  the same  pattern 
in its  comments.  However,  it attaches  more 
importance  to the second  aspect  than  to the  first, 
firstly  because  the Committee  has already  declared  its 
views  on the  stocktaking  as such,  and  secondly 
because  what  are important  now  are the prospects  for 
the future. 
No C 270/24 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 26.11.75 
III. Account  of the past  10 years  IV.  Proposals  for the future 
13. The  Commission  traces  fairly  accurately  the 
successive  stages  in the introduction  of the common 
agricultural  policy.  A distinct  darkening  of the 
picture  took  place,  the  Committee  feels,  from  the 
moment  monetary  difficulties  began  to  make 
themselves  felt in the EEC.  If there  had  been  a deeper 
analysis  of the situations  which  existed  in what  was 
loosely  called  'European  agriculture',  situations 
which  in fact  varied  widely,  it would  probably  have 
been  possible  to take  the necessary  action  before  the 
problems  had  accumulated.  From  this  moment,  the 
absence  of progress  in other  fields  such  as regional, 
social  and  economic  policy  also  became  strikingly 
apparent. 
14. It  seems  to the Committee  that  the Commission 
was under  the  pressure  of political  and  economic 
difficulties  when  it wrote  its Stocktaking  Report.  For 
it explains  how  it managed  the markets  in accordance 
with  the  Treaty;  how  this  market  management, 
coupled  with  the price  policy  pursued  by the Council, 
helped  to raise  the overall  standard  of living  of the 
farming  community,  though  it failed  to resolve  the 
income  disparities  between  the latter  and  other  major 
social  groups  and  between  different  branches  within 
agriculture;  how  this  market  management  helped  to 
ensure  consumers'  food  supplies;  how  it attempted  to 
persuade  the  Member  States  to  introduce  a 
socio-structural  policy,  etc.  Basically,  the 
Commission's  document  gives  the  impression  that 
disasters  were  avoided  in spite  of the  fact  that  the 
conditions  for  some  of these  to occur  obtained. 
However,  the  Commission's  concern  to justify  its 
action  leaves  one  with  the  impression  that  the 
Community  (the  Commission  and  the  Member 
States)  reverted  to a purely  'administrative'  approach 
to agricultural  policy  to the detriment  of a creative 
and imaginative  action  which  might  point  the way  to 
solution  of the problems  agriculture  faces  as a result 
of outside  events. 
15. The  Commission's  report,  if it is examined 
from  the point  of view  of broad  issues,  has a certain 
number  of affinities  with  the assessments  made  by the 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  in its  Study. 
However,  it must  be emphasized  that  on a number  of 
important  issues  — such  as productivity,  the standard 
of living,  structural  policy  and  market  management 
— the Committee  considers  that  it has  carried  out  a 
more  exhaustive  and  objective  examination  of the 
present  situation  and  of the solutions  put forward  by 
the Community.  The  Committee  continues  to believe 
that any  effort  at improvement  must  be preceded  by 
a clear  analysis  of the difficulties  to be faced  and  of 
how the Community  is to react  to them. 16. In  consequence  of the above  observations,  the 
Committee  ought,  quite  naturally,  to direct  its 
attention  towards  the  'proposals  for  improvements' 
submitted  by the Commission.  In fact,  at this  point, 
the Committee  is unable  to hide  its disappointment  in 
the Commission's  document.  As has  already  been 
stated  the aim  of the Commission  clearly  appears  to 
have  been  to justify  its earlier  standpoint.  In the 
Committee's  view,  however,  it would  have  been  more 
meaningful  not  only  to have  set  out  the  main 
guidelines  for the agricultural  policy  in the future  but 
also to have  determined  the conditions  which,  in new 
circumstances,  would  be  essential  in both  the 
agricultural  and  non-agricultural  spheres,  to the 
pursuit  of  the  common  agricultural  policy's 
objectives.  The  Committee  observes  that  the  few 
proposals  which  are  contained  in the  document 
concern  short-term  policy,  lack  breadth  and 
perspective,  and,  above  all,  are  not  based  on  a 
sufficiently  thorough  analysis  of the  economic  and 
political  background  against  which  the  agricultural 
policy  of the EEC  must  henceforth  operate. 
17. From  a general  point  of view,  the Committee 
feels  that  the time  has  come  for an appraisal  to be 
made  of the  common  agricultural  policy  and  for 
decisions  to be taken  which  reflect  a new  and  realistic 
viewpoint  based  on a moderate  assessment  of the 
future.  If a number  of basic  and  essential  elements  of 
the agricultural  policy  are  to be safeguarded,  then 
there  must  be a realization  that  circumstances  have 
irreversibly  changed.  The  basic  questions  now  are: 
Why  have  a European  agriculture  and  what  are  its 
foundations  to be?  What  will  be the  future  of 
Europe's  rural  society  and  how  will  its structures 
evolve?  How  can  agriculture  in the  EEC  make  an 
effective  contribution  towards  the  internal  and 
external  development  of the  Community?  What 
means  must  it be given  in order  to fulfil  this  role 
under  the  most  favourable  conditions?  These  are 
basic  questions  which  are of great  importance  for the 
whole  social,  economic  and  political  balance  of the 
Community.  And  answers  will  not  be found  simply 
by trying  to find  ways  in which  the EAGGF  can save, 
in theory,  a few  thousand  units  of account. 
18. The  Committee  regrets  that  the  Commission 
has not availed  itself  of the opportunity  — provided 
by the  brief  which  it received  from  the Council  to 
draw  up an inventory  — to express  its views  in this 
field  and  to present  public  opinion  with  proposed 
guidelines.  Of  course,  the  fate  which  the 
26.11.  75 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 270/25 
Commission's  earlier  proposals  on this  matter  met  at 
the hands  of the Council  could  hardly  be regarded  as 
an encouragement  to  further  endeavours. 
Nevertheless,  the general  situation  in the Community 
makes  it very  clearly  necessary  to try to find  ways  of 
adjusting  the  agricultural  policy,  however  difficult 
this may  be. 
19. For  its part,  the Committee  feels  it appropriate 
to indicate  the principles  which  it had  hoped  to find 
incorporated  in  an  overall  concept  in  the 
Commission's  document.  These  principles  will  be 
considered  individually. 
(a) The  common  agricultural  policy  should  be seen 
against  an international  background 
20. The  Commission  document  refers  to the  fact 
that the Community  is the world's  leading  importer 
of food  and  is in second  place  in the world  table  of 
food  exporters.  The  Committee  believes  that  these 
two facts  clearly  symbolize  the  problems  which 
common  agricultural  policy  will  have  to face. 
21. On  the  one  hand,  the  Community  is under 
pressure  from  all sides  to increase  its imports.  These 
pressures  come  from  both  developed  countries  (USA, 
Canada)  and  developing  countries.  This  can  be 
demonstrated  by the present  situation:  the beginning 
of the  Tokyo  Round,  the  Lome  Agreements, 
generalized  preferences,  the endeavours  being  made 
to seek  agreements  with  the Mediterranean  countries 
and so on. These  pressures  will  increase.  Furthermore 
the Community  is continually  faced  with  the risk  of 
its supplies  of certain  basic  farm  products  being  cut 
off unilaterally.  Such  elements,  together  with  their 
consequences,  must  be analysed. 
22. On  the  other  hand,  its status  as an exporter 
points  to the fact  that  the Community  is called  upon 
to export  agricultural  products,  food,  etc.,  not only  to 
solvent  countries  but also  to help  those  countries  for 
whom  food  aid  is essential  and  who  require 
Community  assistance  to achieve  overall  economic 
take-off  in terms  of agriculture,  foodstuffs,  etc. Is the 
Community  conducting  a genuine  policy  with  regard 
to exports  (external  markets  policy,  refunds  policy, 
etc.) which  is likely  to increase  its capacities  in this 
field?  Does  the  Community  have  an overall  and 
consistent  policy  with  regard  to food  aid?  Does  the 
Community  intend  to tailor  its pursuit  of such  a 
policy  to certain  socio-structural  conditions  of the 
farming  population  in its own  depressed  areas? 
23. The  Committee  feels  that  it is now  essential, 
first of all,  to take  such  an international  view  of agriculture  and,  in any  event,  to press  on with  the 
drive  to conclude  world  agricultural  agreements. 
Efforts  must  be made  to analyse  in detail  the effects 
of the international  situation  and  the pressures  which 
it exerts  on the  agricultural  policy.  Only  this  will 
enable  the situation  to be brought  once  more  into  a 
state  of equilibrium,  because  Community  preference, 
which  is a cornerstone  of the  common  agricultural 
policy,  will  be able  to play  its part  fully.  Politically 
unavoidable  concessions  must  be  assessed  and 
points  of resistance  identified.  If this  is not  done, 
there  is a risk  that  the  Community's  agricultural 
policy  will  be watered  down  until  it becomes  a vast 
free-trade  area  which  would  herald  the  end  of the 
single  European  agricultural  market  and  the financial 
solidarity  which  underpins  it. 
Such,  an analysis  of the  international  situation  is a 
prerequisite  for  the  pursuit  of  Community 
agricultural  policy  objectives. 
(b) Laying  down  of overall  production  guidelines 
24. The  Committee  believes  that  the  prominence 
of the  international  situation  and  the  internal 
problems  of agricultural  development  now  make  it 
absolutely  essential  for guidelines  to be laid  down  for 
agricultural  production  in the  EEC.  In its Study, 
the Progress  Report  on the CAP,  the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  came  out in favour  of laying  down 
overall  production  objectives.  This  does  not  mean 
setting  strict  quantities  but  rather  assessing 
reasonable  sales  potential  on  the  internal  and 
external  markets  using  the instruments  which  modern 
economies  have  at their  disposal.  In its own  farmers' 
interests,  the Community  can  no longer  allow  itself 
to be without  overall  production  guidelines.  From 
such  guidelines,  the  Community  authorities  ought 
and will  be able  to deduce  how,  for example,  prices 
policy  or market  management  will  be affected.  In 
addition,  farmers  will  be able  to deduce  effects  on 
desirable  product  specialization  or  structural 
initiatives. 
25. Obviously,  the  analysis  of demand  for  food 
products,  as regards  both  quality  and  quantity,  has to 
occupy  a particular  place  among  the parameters  to be 
taken  into  consideration  when  framing  these  overall 
guidelines.  Inadequate  communication  between 
consumers  and  those  responsible  for  agricultural 
policy  has  played  a major  role  in feeding  consumers' 
concern.  With  a view  to influencing  public  opinion  in 
the future,  the Community  will  have  to deal  in detail 
with  all consumer-policy  aspects  of the  agricultural 
policy. 
26. After  consulting  all the interests  concerned  — 
which  is vital  — the Commission  should,  as a matter 
No C 270/26 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 26.11.75 
of urgency,  disclose  the main  lines  of its agricultural 
policy  for  Europe  in the  years  to come,  bearing  in 
mind  in particular  the  factors  which  we  have 
already  mentioned. 
(c) The  combining  of  policies  for  prices,  market 
management  and  structures  in the  light  of the 
above  guidelines 
27. The  necessary  guidelines  must  be motivated  by 
the need,  already  expressed  by the  Economic  and 
Social  Committee,  to integrate  a modern  agricultural 
sector  into  a modern  economy  by guaranteeing  it the 
relative  importance  and  adjustments  which  are 
necessary  in order  to achieve  an equitable  balance 
between  all the components  of growth. 
Under  these  conditions,  price  policy  must  play  a role; 
it must  enable  farms  which  are  properly  run  and 
properly  structured  to draw  their  income  from  the 
market  within  the  meaning  of Directive  No  159, 
while  at the same  time  seeking  to ensure  maximum 
market  equilibrium,  this  having  already  been  worked 
out. — as we  have  said  —  from  the  general 
production  guidelines.  In any  case,  a price  policy 
must,  in the future,  take  account  of the urgent  need 
to promote  a policy  of product  quality,  which  is 
called  for by both  consumers  with  respect  to their 
direct  needs  and  by the  processing  industry  with 
respect  to its supplies.  The  price  policy  must  be 
supplemented  by a whole  system  of aids  other  than 
prices,  selected  and  adjusted  in the  light  of the 
specific  situations  which  they  are  to alleviate,  and 
classified  according  to the  persons,  regions  or types 
of production  involved. 
28. Market  management  will  be improved  because 
its objectives  will  have  become  clearer  to everyone, 
both  inside  and  outside  the Community.  It will  have 
to encompass  all production  sectors  but in a different 
way,  according  to each  of the situations  involved.  It 
should  bring  about  greater  liaison  between  national 
and Community  bodies,  so that  coordination  is 
considerably  improved  and  Community  decisions 
respected  more  in all cases.  What  is more,  it will  be 
highly  desirable  if the  interests  concerned  were 
consulted  more  often  and  to a greater  extent,  such  as 
through  the  consultative  committee,  subject  to the 
operation  of these  bodies  being  improved. 
29. Here  the Committee  would  refer  to the views 
it has  already  expressed  with  regard  to  the 
Commission's  proposal  that  producers  be held  jointly 
responsible  for any  structural  surpluses  which  occur. 
Such  a proposal  cannot  take  the place  of a vigorous 
commercial  policy,  which  too  often  is lacking, because  it presupposes  the  definition  of 'structural 
surpluses'.  Obviously,  within  a policy  of overall 
production  guidance,  the  concept  of  structural 
surpluses  must  be reviewed. 
30. As  regards  long-term  contracts,  another 
suggestion  made  by the Commission,  the Committee 
considers  that  such  an idea  must  be gone  into  much 
more  thoroughly.  For  one  thing,  the  machinery 
covering  prices  and  refunds  does  not seem  to be quite 
adapted  to such  contracts  and  for  another,  it is 
questionable  whether  such  long-term  contracts  could 
be concluded  before  the  finalization  of the  world 
agreements  per  product  which  have  been  foreseen 
and to  which  the  Committee  has  given  its 
wholehearted  support.  The  Committee,  therefore, 
asks the Community  to take  a positive  line  in solving 
the problems  of stock  formation  and  management  at 
Community  and  international  level. 
31. Finally,  structures  policy,  whose  job  it is to 
enable  farmers  to make  the  most  of technical 
progress,  should  not  only  encourage  structures  to 
develop,  but  should  also  direct  them  on the basis  of 
the overall  guidelines  for  agricultural  production. 
This,  of course,  assumes  that  there  will  be a more 
active  policy  in this  field  through  increased  financial 
commitment  of the  EAGGF,  such  as to make  for a 
policy  which  is more  and  more  of a Community 
nature.  Otherwise,  there  is a risk  of running  into 
contradictions  which  are  even  more  harmful,  if not 
insoluble.  The  Committee  notes  that  the 
Commission's  document  contains  no new  outlook  on 
this point  and  no  prospect  of  there  being 
implemented  a social  policy  specifically  for  those 
employed  on the land. 
32. The  Committee  points  out that,  from  its point 
of view,  the combining  of the  instruments  which  it 
has just  mentioned,  which  must  really  cover  all these 
instruments  at the same  time,  must  enable  people  in 
farming  to be assured  of a fair  income.  Account  must 
be taken  of young  people  working  in agriculture, 
who must  be  secured  betterment  prospects 
comparable  with  those  obtaining  in other  social 
groups,  and  of hired  workers  in agriculture,  whose 
incomes  situation  raises  important  specific  problems. 
It is not enough  to touch  on such  problems  merely  in 
passing,  as is done  in the  Commission's  document. 
They  must  be analysed  in depth  and  appropriate 
solutions  to them  must  be found. 
(d) Draw  the financial  consequences 
33. The  Committee  holds  the  view  that  the 
Commission,  labouring  under  the pressure  exerted  by 
26.11.  75 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities No C 270/27 
the Member  States,  has  for  some  time  now  been 
creating  the  impression  that  it is subordinating  its 
policy  to the need  to cut down  EAGGF  expenditure. 
The Committee  would  stress  that  the financial  side  of 
the problem  is not  only  the  instrument  of market 
organization  policy  and  of agricultural  policy  in 
general,  but  also  the outcome  of the  way  in which 
the markets  are  managed  in the  light  of the  policy 
decided  on. The  level  of expenditure  is the result  of 
the policy  which  has  been  embarked  on and  of the 
way in which  this  policy  is implemented  in the light 
of market  conditions.  Therefore,  action  must 
concentrate  initially  on these  two  factors  if one  or 
other  financial  consequence  is to be attained,  and  it 
would  not be logical  to adopt  the opposite  approach. 
34. The  Committee  would  take  this  opportunity  to 
recall  the  position  adopted,  regarding  the Guidance 
Section  of the  EAGGF,  in the Committee's  Progress 
Report  Study  on the CAP. 
(e) Base  agricultural  policy  on related  policies 
35. The  Committee  regrets  that  the  Commission 
has not  expanded  on or, what  is more  important, 
provided  more  information  about  the  relationship 
between  agricultural  policy  and  other  policies.  It is a 
well-known  fact,  however,  that  the  Member  States 
rather  than  the  Commission  must  shoulder  much 
more  of the  responsibility  for  the  absence  of other 
Community  policies.  The  prospect  of European 
Union,  which  is to 'transform  relations  between 
Member  States',  is the  right  moment  for  clearly 
assigning  responsibilities  and  indicating  the 
unavoidable  interdependencies. 
36. The  Committee  can  merely  reiterate  the points 
raised  in its Progress  Report.  No policy  on common 
prices  is possible  unless  marked  progress  is made 
towards  the  attainment  of monetary  union,  for the 
inevitable  prolongation  of compensatory  amounts 
hampers  such  a common  system.  No policy  on aids  is feasible  unless  it is part  of a suitable  and  widespread 
regional  policy.  No  effective  structural  policy  is 
possible  without  a social  policy,  a regional  policy  and 
an industrial  policy  (in  view  of the  close  links 
between  structural  policy  and  employment  policy), 
not forgetting  an environmental  policy.  The  common 
management  of the  markets  is out  of the  question 
without  a common  commercial  policy.  In this 
connection,  the  Committee  would  endorse  the 
Commission's  view  that  the  common  agricultural 
policy  — being  a sectoral  policy  — cannot  by itself 
settle  all the  economic  and  social  problems  facing 
agriculture. 
37. The  Committee  would  like  to point  out  what 
its aims  have  been  in this  Opinion.  It finds  that  the 
Commission's  stocktaking  exercise  reiterates  past 
problems  and  attitudes  in which  it feels  it should 
only make  a few  general  comments  in view  of 
previous  Economic  and  Social  Committee  work.  In 
addition,  the  Committee  has  embarked  on  new 
studies  on a number  of fundamental  points,  which 
will enable  it to be more  detailed  in its views.  This  is 
true in particular  of the method  used  for fixing  prices 
and the impact  of the compensatory  amounts  on the 
operation  of the common  agricultural  policy. 
38. However,  the Committee  has not found  in this 
stocktaking  document  the  outline  of a plan  for  the 
policy  in the years  to come.  This  is why  it thought  it 
should  map  out  the  points  which  it felt  to be of 
prime  importance  in such  a plan.  In this  connection, 
it has  stressed  that  the  international  context  should 
be given  priority  consideration,  for  it is from  this 
quarter  that  the Community  will  be forced  to make 
its agricultural  policy  consistent  with  its external 
policy.  The  Committee  thinks  that  the clarification  of 
this point,  on which  it may  hopefully  expound  its 
views,  is of capital  importance,  not  only  within  the 
narrower  context  of the  common  agricultural  policy 
but also  for the future  of the European  Community. 
Done  at Brussels,  17 July  1975. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Henri  CANONGE 
No C 270/28 Official  Journal  of the  European  Communities 26.11.  75 
ANNEX 
to the Opinion  of the Economic  and Social  Committee 
The following  amendment  was  rejected  during  the discussion. 
Item 29 
Add  the following  to the end  of paragraph  29: 
'The  Commission  is asked  to conduct  an enquiry  into  farm  surpluses  for the 1974/75  and 
1975/76  marketing  years  so that  the  effects  of such  surpluses  on consumer  prices  can  be 
assessed  and  any  appropriate  action  to protect  European  consumers  can  be taken.' 
Voting: 
For: 23, against:  35, abstentions:  11. 
for a Council  Directive  on the approximation  of the laws  of the Member  States  relating 
to appliances  using  gaseous  fuels,  to safety  and  control  devices  for these  appliances  and 
to methods  for inspecting  these  appliances 
for a Council  Directive  on the approximation  of the laws  of the Member  States  relating 
to appliances  using  gaseous  fuels  for the instantaneous  production  of hot  water  for 
sanitary  purposes 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  was  published  in the  Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 134  of 16 June  1975,  page  27. 
On 20 January  1975,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposals  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  under  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the  European 
Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  drew  up its Opinion  at its 132nd  plenary  session, 
held in Brussels  on 16 and 17 July  1975. 
The Opinion  is published  below: Opinions  on the proposals 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
28 January  1975,  instructing  the Section  for Industry, 
Commerce,  Crafts  and  Services  to draw  up  an 
Opinion  and  a report  on the matter; Having  regard  to the referral  on 20 January  1975  by 
the Council; 
Having  regard  to  Article  100  of the  Treaty  Having  regard  to the  report  submitted  by  the 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community;  Rapporteur,  Mr Clark;