7. 5. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 112/33 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) 
No 797/85 on improving the efficiency of farm structures (l) 
(90/C 112/13) 
On 6 February 1990 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 Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 21 February. The rapporteur was 
Mr Luchetti. 
At its 274th plenary session (meeting of 28 February 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. The Committee considers that the aims and con­
tent of the Commission proposal require substantial 
revision, for the following reasons: out the production, on land which has not been 'set 
aside', of varieties grown under the 'agro-industrial 
fallow system', 
The proposal does not fully meet the request made 
by the European Council on 11 and 12 February 
1988 to investigate all possible ways of increasing 
the use of agricultural commodities in the non­
food sector. Yet the Commission itself states in 
its explanatory memorandum that 'the new system 
should encourage more farmers to apply for set-
aside'^) in an attempt to achieve greater take-up 
of a measure which producers have not hitherto 
found attractive. 
The proposal rests inter alia on the consideration 
that 'possibilities for non-food use are sufficiently 
advanced, technically and economically, in the case 
of cereals' (2). The Committee considers this an ove­
r-optimistic view of the situation. 
If the proposal's aim is to 'contribute towards help­
ing farmers adapt to the new market reality and 
towards alleviating the effects which the new market 
and prices policy may have, in particular, on agricul­
tural income' (3), it is unacceptable to include 
amounts produced for non-food use in the calcu­
lation of the maximum guaranteed quantities. 
In the Committee's view: 
— the system must be open to both traditional and 
new crops, particularly the latter. It should not rule the amounts produced must not be included in 
quotas and maximum guaranteed quantities, 
the producer premium must be set at the same level 
and applied in the same way in all Member States, 
production potential being equal, 
provision must be made, if necessary, for appropri­
ate incentives for users; the user is crucial to the 
success of attempts to develop non-food agricultural 
production. 
3. The Committee notes that the present proposal is 
preceded by a Report from the Commission to the 
Council on the use of agricultural commodities in the 
non-food sector. 
3.1. The Commission sees this report as responding 
to the European Council's request to it on 11 and 
12 February 1988 to investigate, on the basis of an 
examination of the present situation and future pros­
pects, 'all possibilities of increasing the utilization of 
agricultural commodities in the non-food sector and to 
submit proposals to that effect' (4). 
3.2. Given the importance of this subject, the Com­
mittee intends to state its views on the matter in an 
additional Opinion to be drawn up in the light of 
(!) OJNoC31, 9. 2. 1990, p. 7. 
(2) Third recital of the proposal for a Regulation. 
(3) First recital of the proposal for a Regulation. (4) Brussels European Council (Overall compromise—Annex II, 
SN/517/88). 
No C 112/34 Official Journal of the European Communities ' 7. 5. 90 
the findings of the Opinion on increasing the use of 
agricultural and forestry resources in the non-food industrial and energy sectors: prospects opened up by 
research and technological innovation. 
Done at Brussels, 28 February 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Opinion on the Commission proposals on the prices for agricultural products and on related 
measures (1990/1991) (*) 
(90/C 112/14) 
On 16 January 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned Commission proposals. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 21 February 1990. The rapporteur was 
Mr Fresi. 
At its 274th plenary session (meeting of 1 March 1990) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion by 72 votes to 8 with 5 abstentions. 
1. Preliminary comments 
1.1. In presenting its farm price proposals to the 
Council, the Commission stresses that: 
'prices and incomes confirm a generally very satis­
factory trend for Community agriculture' (!) 
and that 
'the measures adopted in recent years in the context 
of the reform of the common agricultural policy 
(quotas, stabilizers, ...) have started to produce 
results' I1). 
Drops in production and in stocks held by intervention 
agencies have been accompanied by rises in producer 
prices. Hence, in the Commission's view: 
'The main thrust of the 1990/1991 price proposals 
is to continue the current trend in prices and to 
strengthen the action in favour of the structurally 
weaker family farms, especially in the less favoured 
areas' (*). 
(!) OJ No C 49, 28. 2. 1990. 1.2. The Commission thus considers that: 
'for the great majority of products it is desirable 
to propose the continued application of 1989/1990 
prices, subject to the effects of the application of 
the stabilizer mechanisms. The few exceptions to 
this rule concern sectors in which a very specific 
market situation applies'^). 
1.3. The Commission's aim is to continue a policy 
aimed at balancing supply and demand while encourag­
ing Community farmers in their efforts towards ration­
alization. Such a path is vital, in the Commission's 
view, if Community agriculture is to remain viable in 
an increasingly competitive international context. The 
Commission goes on: 
'It is necessary therefore, to continue and to acceler­
ate the efforts which are being made to improve the 
competitivity of Community agriculture. This is the 
objective of a price policy which remains close to 
market realities and a socio-structural policy which 
is endowed with greater resources and is better 
adapted to a Community reality which involves 
great differences at regional level' (!).