COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
COM(94) 643 final 
Brussels, 16.12.1994 
94/0329 (CNS) 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
94/0329 (CNS) 
amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 
on the common organization of the market 
in sheepmeat and goatmeat 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) 
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 defining lambs 
fattened as heavy carcases 
(presented by the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 
Introduction 
The Council, in agreeing the 1994/95 price package, invited the 
Commission to examine, with a view to making them applicable from 1995, 
measures appropriate to : 
Italian and Greek problems linked to the establishment of premium 
rights due to the base year for premium rights being a transition 
year for them, 
the definition of the producer, in order to simplify the management 
of the premium regime for producer groups without undermining 
obligations on transfers without the transfer of the holding, in so 
far as the siphon is concerned, and 
a simplified control system for the rules governing the fattening 
of certain light lambs into heavy carcases in certains areas of 
Portugal and Spain. 
1. Italian and Greek problems linked to the introduction of premium 
quota rights. 
The 1989 reform of the sheep sector provided for the unification of the 
premium regime through the gradual elimination of regionally based 
premia. This gradual elimination was foreseen for the period 1990 to 
1992. 
Prior to 1990, for the then Region 1 (Italy and Greece) , although 
provision was made for the calculation of a regional premium, the level 
of the market price ensured that no premium was, in fact, payable. 
However, the premium payable in Region 2 (France) was payable, in a 
forfaitaire manner, on ewes in Region 1, on condition that producers 
could show to the satisfaction of the competent authority that the 
lambs born of these ewes would not be slaughtered before two months of 
age. This premium was also payable on female goats in Italy and Greece 
at the reduced rate of 70% under the same condition. 
The provision introduced by the 198 9 reform allowed Italy and Greece 
(now Region 3), to receive the premium calculated for the new region 2 
(North of the Community except Great Britain) in 1990, under the same 
forfaitaire condition as before. 
However, although they provided for Italy and Greece to join the rest 
of the Community, except Great Britain, for regional premium 
calculation purposes from 1991 onwards, they also allowed both Italy 
and Greece to opt for the 1990 system for premium calculation both in 
1991 and 1992. 
Italy, however, opted to join the other Member States for premium 
calculation and payment purposes from 1991 onwards, while Greece 
followed this option in 1992. This meant that, for Italy, from 1991 a 
premium differentiated only between meat and milk producing ewes was 
payable on all eligible ewes and at a reduced rate on all eligible 
goats. For Greece this situation took effect in 1992. 
Italy contends that, as it was the first year in which all ewes and 
female goats were both eligible for and certain to be in receipt of a 
premium, 1991 should be considered a transitional year. As both the 
administration and certain producers were applying new regulations for 
the first time, a considerable number of producers were either not in a 
position to apply or did not apply for premium. 
Greece also contends that 1991 was not a normal year and indeed that it 
did not make the transition to the common premium system until 1992. 
The extent to which producers with ewes entitled to premium in Italy 
and in Greece in 1991 were not paid premium, has been investigated by 
the Commission. This investigation has been on the basis in particular 
of a comparison at regional level of claims paid in 1991 and 1992. 
The result of these investigations can be summarized as follows : 
In Italy the change in the regime took place at the same time as a 
change in the timing of the application period for the premium. 
Because of this producers were obliged to make two applications for 
premium between January and March 1991, the first referring to the 1990 
campaign (old regime) and the second to 1991 (new regime) . This 
introduced an element of confusion among some producers and among 
administrations in certain regions and resulted in the non presentation 
of some applications in respect of 1991. The main regions concerned 
are Campania Molise and Calabria'1' and in total up to 140,000 Rights 
were lost for this reason. 
In addition, the competent authorities in Sardinia made a serious error 
in their interpretation of the new Community regulations and in fact 
applied a "rule" that premium applications are systematically reduced 
in size in most cases by 20%. This "rule" which does not form part of 
the Community legislation was deleted in 1992 and , as a result, the 
number of premia paid in 1992 to each producer on average rose by 15%. 
However, its application in 1991 led to a loss of up to 460,000 rights 
in Sardinia. 
In Greece in respect of 1991, although the new regime was not yet 
applicable, premium payments should have been representative of animals 
eligible for premium under the new regime. In fact, in addition to 
applications for the region 2 (Northern Europe) premium, the 
possibility for applications for premium for other ewes (autonomous 
premium) was added in April 1991 due to the development of the market 
price in Greece at that time. However, very few producers made this 
complementary application (9 000 applicants for 106,000 animals) in 
comparison to producers for the region 2 premium (153,000 applicants 
for 10,267,000 animals). 
(1) In Campania, in 1992, premium applications increased by 60% in 
comparison to 1991. 2 
The reasons for the poor uptake of the second applications were as 
follows : 
Producers practicing transhumance (12% of producers) had already 
left their own holdings in April 1991. 
The complementary application for the autonomous premium generally 
involved a small percentage of animals eligible for premium 
(estimated at about 10%) and a low premium level of about 2 ECU per 
head^. However, it did double the retention period for flocks 
from 100 to 2 00 days and led many producers not to apply for the 
autonomous premium. 
Administrative authorities in certain areas ("nomos") refused to 
take the necessary steps for the issue of applications for the 
autonomous premium. 
It is difficult to estimate the additional number of premium 
applications which would have been made had the negative factors 
outlined above not come into play. However, observation of the 
difference in animals numbers paid premium between 1991 and 1992 
(600,000 head) provides a reasonable indication given that the census 
figures supplied to the Commission remained virtually unchanged between 
1991 and 1992. 
As a result of the investigations the Commission now proposes that a 
special maximum amount of 600,000 rights for Italy and 600,000 rights 
for Greece be created to enable these Member States distribute new 
rights to producers entrapped by the coincidence of the change in the 
arrangements for premium eligibility and the introduction of the 
premium rights regime based on premia granted to individual producers. 
In this context, the Commission proposes that the identification of the 
new rights created should be made before the end of the 1995 marketing 
year and that, subject to verification by the Commission services of 
the procedures involved, particularly in the main regions concerned, 
the actual number of new rights created which could be lower than the 
special amounts mentioned above, be subsequently added to the national 
reserve of the two Member States concerned. 
This measure requires the amendment of Article 5(c) 1 of Regulation 
(EEC) No 3013/89. 
(2) Increased in LFAs by 2.8 to 4 ECU per head in LFAs due to the rural 
world premium. ^, 
2. Definition of the producer 
In the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector both the producer and the producer 
group are defined. 
The producer may be a natural or legal person, a definition rather more 
restrictive than in the beef sector where, in addition, a producer may 
be a group whatever its internal composition. 
A producer group in the sheepmeat and goatmeat sector is any form of 
group, association or cooperation involving reciprocal rights and 
obligations between producers. 
Producer groups as such never attrach premium rights. 
Producer group applications for premium must be accompanied by a 
breakdown of the number of premia applied for by each member and must 
be signed by each member. Where sanctions are applied, all members are 
subject to them. 
Transfers of premium rights between members of a producer group are 
subject to the siphon on transfers in the normal way. 
This requirement to apply the siphon is seen as harsh by the United 
Kingdom, particularly when such transfers occur within family 
partnerships. The adjustment of rights between producers in these and 
similar partnerships is seen as the normal progression of a business. 
It does not entail the removal of rights from the group but rather 
their transfer within it. 
Other Member States have overcome this problem by providing for within 
family type transfers to be accomodated via an automatic mechanism 
within the national reserve. 
However, in order to avoid recourse to this type of mechanism and to 
broaden the possibility of allowing transfers between producers within 
producer groups, without the automatic triggering of the siphoning 
mechanism, it will be necessary to decide on a set of conditions to 
apply to such transfers within producer groups. These conditions, which 
should be determined via the Management Committee, should include a 
time scale for membership of the group together with provision for 
supplementary national measures to protect the siphon. 
In proposing these conditions, the Commission will be mindful of its 
responsibility to protect the siphon on transfers which is the prime 
means of feeding the national reserve. 
This measure requires the amendment of Article 5a (4b) of Regulation 
(EEC) No 3013/89. 
3. Simplified control for the fattening of certain breeds of lambs as 
heavy carcases in certain areas of Spain and Portugal 
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 establishes the definition of lambs 
from milk producing ewes, fattened into heavy carcases. 
Producers, more than 40% of whose lambs are fattened into heavy 
carcases, may be granted the premium for ewes producing heavy lambs on 
the ewes concerned, although these ewes are kept primarily for milk 
rather than meat production. 
This regulation also derogates from the definition in so far as the 
weaning of lambs is concerned in respect of certain breeds of sheep 
more orientated towards meat production in geographically limited parts 
of Spain and Portugal, where it is common practice to raise lambs with 
their ewes and after weaning of the lambs to milk the ewes for a 
limited period for the purpose of cheese production. 
Experience of the operation of the fattening of these lambs now shows 
that the administrative requirements in relation to the control of 
their fattening, outweigh the benefits accruing for the receipt of the 
extra amount of premium. In practice, these lambs are normally 
slaughtered at a carcase weight of 18-20 kg, which is considerably 
greater than the liveweight requirement of 25 kg at the end of the 
fattening period. 
Against this background, the Commission proposes that the derogation 
already in place with regard to these sheep, should be extended to 
cover the other elements required by the Council Regulation. 
Subsequent to the Council adopting this measure, the Commission, via 
the Management Committee, will propose the modification of Commission 
Regulation (EEC) No 2814/90, laying down the detailed rules for the 
definition of lambs fattened as heavy carcases in order to ensure 
adequate control is emplaced to ensure the correct application of the 
measure. 
4. Financial implications 
The financial implications arising from the granting of extra premium 
rights in Italy and Greece, are forecast at 2 9 MECU per marketing year, 
but at 4 MECU in 1995 and 29 MECU in 1996 and subsequent years. 
The measures relating to the definition of the producer and the 
fattening of lambs into heavy carcases, do not entrain any extra 
expenditure on the sector. 
Small and meidum enterprises. No implications. 
Only the Union has power to act as regards the measures proposed. These 
proposals modify two existing regulations. 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 
amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 94/0329 (CNS) 
on the common organization of the market 
in sheepmeat and goatmeat 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in 
particular Article 43 thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission(*), 
Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament^) f 
Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee(^), 
Whereas by Regulation (EEC) No 2069/92 of 30 June 1992<4) amending 
Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89(5), the Council imposed, with effect from the 
1993 marketing year, an individual limit per producer in respect of the 
grant of the ewe and goat premiums; 
Whereas the grant of an individual limit per producer for obtaining the 
right to the premium has given rise to administrative difficulties in the 
case of certain groups of producers, in particular family groups, during the 
transfer of premium rights between members of the said groups; whereas, 
therefore, for reasons of correct administration, provision should be made 
for certain groups to be exempted, under certain conditions, from payment to 
the national reserve of the percentage of rights provided for in the case of 
a transfer of rights without transfer of holding; whereas that provision 
must not lead to an increase in individual rights currently allocated in 
each Member State, nor give rise to the formation of new producer groups 
created with the sole aim of avoiding payment to the national reserve of the 
percentage of rights provided for in the case of a transfer of rights 
without transfer of holding; 
(1) OJ No L 
(2) OJ No L 
(3) OJ No L 
(4) OJ No L 215, 30.7.1992, p. 59. 
(5) OJ No L 289, 7.10.19 89, p. 1. Regulation last amended by Regulation 
(EEC) No 1886/94 (OJ No L 197, 30.7.1994, p. 30). 
Whereas the individual limit was established on the basis of the total 
amount of premiums granted for the 1991 marketing year for each producer; 
whereas in Italy and in Greece, because that marketing year was a year of 
transition between two different premium systems, a number of producers were 
not able to submit an application for a premium for the 1991 marketing year 
for the number of eligible animals they held; whereas, in order to remedy 
this situation, special reserves should be created for Italy and for Greece 
corresponding to the estimated maximum number of rights which the producers 
concerned were unable to claim; whereas the competent authorities of those 
two Member States should initially be allowed to grant new rights up to the 
limit of the special reserve referred to above and then, subject to 
verification by the Commission of the correct allocation of the rights 
granted, in particular in the regions most affected, the national reserves 
will be increased for Italy and Greece by the sum of the rights newly 
granted with effect from the 1995 marketing year; 
Whereas it is therefore necessary to amend Regulation (EEC) No 3 013/8 9, 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
1. In Article 5a(4) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89, the following 
subparagraph is hereby added: 
"However, with effect from the 1995 marketing year the previous 
paragraph shall not apply to groups of producers, in the case of a 
transfer of rights between members, meeting conditions to be determined 
by the Commission in accordance with the procedure provided for in 
Article 30." 
2. In Article 5b(1), the following subparagraphs are hereby added: 
"In addition, for Italy and Greece a special reserve of 600,000 rights 
for each of those two Member States shall be established to permit the 
granting of additional rights to producers affected by the fact that 
the changes in the conditions of eligibility of animals for the premium 
and the introduction of individual limits on the guarantee per producer 
based on the number of premiums paid for the marketing year both 
occured in 1991. 
After having cleary identified the producers affected by the situation 
referred to above, each of the two Member States concerned shall grant 
additional premium rights before the end of the 1995 marketing year up 
to the limit of the special reserve referred to above. Subject to 
verification by the Commission, particularly in the regions principally 
affected, that the allocation of additional rights has been limited to 
the producers affected and that those producers do not obtain more 
rights than would have been granted them if the situation referred to 
above had not occured, the national reserve established pursuant to 
this Article shall be increased by an amount corresponding to the sum 
of the rights newly granted; that increase shall not affect the 
additional reserve referred to in paragraph 3." 
Article 2 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its 
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. 
It shall apply from the 1995 marketing year. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in 
all Member States. 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
FINANCIAL STATEMENT 
BUDGET HEADING: 
Item 2220 
Item 3805 APPROPRIATIONS: 
ECU 1 261 million 
ECU 328 million 
Letter of amendment to 1995 PDB 
2. TITLE: 
Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 on the common organization of the market 
in sheepmeat and goatmeat 
LEGAL BASIS: Article 43 of the Treaty 
AIMS: 
(1) To make provision, under certain circumstances, whereby producer groups may be exempt from the requirement to 
transfer a percentage of their rights to the national reserve in cases where rights are transferred without transfer of a 
holding. 
(2) To create for Italy and Greece a special reserve containing a maximum number of potential rights which did not go 
to the producers concerned because the reference year (1991) was a transitional year for these Member States. 
5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: PERIOD OF 12 
MONTHS 
(ECU million) CURRENT 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR 
(95) 
(ECU million) FOLLOWING 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR 
(96) 
(ECU million) 
5.0. EXPENDITURE 
- CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET 
(REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) 
- NATIONAL AUTHORITIES 
- OTHER 29 29 
1997 
5.0.1. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 
5.1.1. ESTIMATED REVENUE ECU 29 m 1998 
ECU 29 m 1999 
ECU 29 m 2000 
ECU 29 m 
5.2. METHOD OF CALCULATION: 
1995 marketing year (light ewes) 
Item 2220 Greece: 600 000 head x ECU 20.917/head x 0.8 x 1.207 = 
Italy: 600 000 head x ECU 20.917/head x 0.8 x 1.207 = 
An assumption is made that Italy will pay an advance of 30% in 1995, 
Item 3805 Greece: 480 000 head x ECU 3.8/head x 1.207 = 
Italy: 480 000 head x ECU 3.8/head x 1.207 = 
An assumption is made that neither Italy nor Greece will pay in 1995. 
Total for the measure in 1995 = ECU 28.6 million ECU 12.1 million (B) 
ECU 12.1 million (B) 
ECU 24.2 million (B) 
i.e. ECU 4 million 
ECU 2.2 million (B) 
ECU 2.2 million (B) 
ECU 4.4 million (B) 
6.0. CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT 
CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? YES 
6.1. CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT 
BUDGET? YES/NO 
6.2. WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY? YES/NO 
6.3. WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY? YES 
OBSERVATIONS (1) The letter of amendment to the 1995 PDB already takes on board ECU 4 million so as to take account 
of the Council Decision of July last to increase the national reserves of Italy and Greece. 
\0 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 
amending Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 defining lambs 
fattened as heavy carcases 
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September 1989 on 
the common organization of the market in sheepmeat and goatmeat^1', as last 
amended by Regulation (EC) No /94^2', and in particular Article 4(2) 
thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89^3^ establishes the definition 
of lambs fattened as heavy carcases which are produced by ewes producing 
milk; whereas that Regulation, which lays down the conditions under which 
the said definition applies, also lays down limited derogations with regard 
to weaning for lambs belonging to a limited number of meat breeds and raised 
in geographically well-defined areas; whereas experience obtained has shown 
that the fact that those lambs are subject to the other conditions laid down 
in that Regulation has resulted in the introduction of a control procedure 
out of proportion to the objective, that is to guarantee that the lambs 
achieve a sufficiently high weight at slaughter; whereas, therefore, 
provision should be made for the derogations, currently restricted to the 
weaning of the lambs, to be extended to other conditions to be determined, 
(1) OJ No L 289, 7.10.1989, p. 1. 
(2) OJ No L , , p. 
(3) OJ No L 375, 23.12.1989, p. 4 
It 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 
Article 1 
The second subparagraph of Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 is 
hereby replaced by the following: 
"However, derogations from the first subparagraph are possible for lambs 
belonging to a limited number of meat breeds and raised in geographically 
well-defined areas." 
Article 2 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its 
publication in the official Journal of the European Communities. 
It shall apply to the premiums to be paid for the 1995 and subsequent 
marketing years. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in 
all Member States. • 
Done at Brussels, For the Council 
11 
FINANCIAL STATEMENT 
1. BUDGET HEADING: 
Item 2220 h-
APPROPRIATIONS: 
ECU 1.261 million 
Letter of amendment to 1995 PDB 
2. TITLE: 
Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 3901/89 defining lambs fattened as heavy carcases 
3. LEGAL BASIS: 
Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3013/89 
4. AIMS: 
To extend the currently limited derogations as regards weaning lambs belonging to a limited number of meat breeds 
and raised in geographically well-defined areas to other circumstances, to be established on administrative grounds 
during the weight checks at slaughter 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: PERIOD OF 12 
MONTHS 
(ECU million) CURRENT 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR 
(95) 
(ECU million) FOLLOWING 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR 
(96) 
(ECU million) 
5.0. EXPENDITURE 
- CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET 
(REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) 
- NATIONAL AUTHORITIES 
- OTHER 
5.1. REVENUE 
- OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC 
(LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) 
- NATIONAL 
5.0.1. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 
5.1.1. ESTIMATED REVENUE 1997 1998 1999 2000 
5.2. METHOD OF CALCULATION: 
6.0. CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT 
CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? YES/NO 
6.1. CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT 
BUDGET? YES/NO 
6.2. WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY? YES/NO 
6.3. WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY? YES/NO 
OBSERVATIONS 
n 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM (94) 643 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-666-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-83907-4 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
it*.