6. 5. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 114/1 
II 
(Preparatory Acts) 
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 
Opinion on the Commission proposals on the fixing of prices for certain agricultural 
products and on certain related measures 
The text referred to the Committee has not yet been published in the Official Journal of 
the European Communities. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 11 February 1982 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the 
Economic and Social Committee in accordance with Articles 47 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 
196th plenary session held in Brussels on 24 March 1982. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and in particular 
Articles 41 and 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of 
the European Communities on 11 February 1982 for 
an opinion on the Commission proposals on the 
fixing of prices for certain agricultural products and 
on certain related measures, 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Bureau on 
23 February 1982, instructing the Section for 
Agriculture to draw up an opinion on the matter, 
Having regard to its previous opinions on the 
matter, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Section 
for Agriculture at its 233rd meeting held on 18 March 
1982, Having regard to the oral report made by the 
rapporteur, Mr Schnieders, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 196th plenary 
session held on 24 March 1982, 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 60 votes to 50, with nine abstentions: 
1. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS 
1.1. The Commission points out that the proposed 
prices for the 1982/83 marketing year are based on 
the guidelines for agricultural policy set out in its 
report on the mandate (24 June 1981) and more 
particularly in its guidelines for European agriculture 
memorandum (23 October 1981). These proposals 
also take account of the Commission's 
communication and proposals concerning certain 
Mediterranean products — fruit and vegetables, 
No C 114/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 82 
citrus fruit, olive oil and wine — in the context of 
enlargement of the Community. 
As these Commission proposals have already been 
studied by the Economic and Social Committee, 
reference should be made to the relevant opinions, 
on: 
— agricultural aspects of the enlargement of the 
Community to include Spain (J), 
— reform of the common agricultural policy (2), 
— proposal for a Council Regulation amending 
Regulation (EEC) No 2511/69 laying down 
special measures for improving the production 
and marketing of Community citrus fruit, 
— proposal for a Council Regulation amending 
Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the common 
organization of the market in fruit and vegetables 
as regards producers' organizations, 
— proposal for a Council Regulation amending 
Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 on the common 
organization of the market in fruit and 
vegetables, 
— proposal for a Council Regulation amending 
Regulation (EEC) No 337/79 on the common 
organization of the market in wine. 
1.2. The Committee regrets that the Commission's 
proposed guidelines have not been discussed in 
depth by the Council, that no overall decision has 
been taken and that fragmentary decisions on each 
product may not have the desired coherence. 
2. GENERAL COMMENTS BY THE COMMITTEE 
2.1. Income situation in agriculture 
2.1.1. The Committee endorses the Commission's 
remarks on income trends in agriculture. The net 
value added per unit of labour is the indicator used 
by the Commission for per capita agricultural 
incomes. According to this indicator, agricultural 
incomes in France, Germany and Italy have failed to 
keep pace with inflation and thus decreased in real 
terms for the third successive year. Taking the EEC as 
a whole, in 1979 the drop in real terms was 3 %, in 
1980 it was as much as 7 % and in 1981 it was still 2 % 
despite the improvement in prices (Table 1). 
(•) OJ No C 310, 30. 11. 1981, p. 36. 
(2) OJ No C 348, 31. 12. 1981, p. 27. Incomes in agriculture thus continue to lag behind 
incomes in the economy as a whole. Between 1974 
and 1981 they fell by 12 % in real terms, compared 
with a 10% rise in real terms for incomes in the 
economy as a whole. 
2.1.2. The figures in Table 1 show that the 
experience has been very different in the different 
Member States, especially in 1981. The Committee 
would request the Commission to investigate the 
reasons for this and adapt its proposals to this 
situation as far as possible, as farm prices have 
differing effects on farmers' incomes in the different 
Member States. They are neither the sole cause of an 
inadequate income nor the sole means of increasing 
such an income. 
2.1.3. The figures given by the Commission's farm 
accountancy data network (FADN) also confirm the 
decline in incomes revealed by the aggregate 
statistics. Despite large differences in income levels 
and income trends between farms — according to 
region, size and type of production — overall there 
has been a real fall in income. 
2.1.4. The cause of this adverse trend in producers' 
incomes has been the deterioration in cost/price 
ratios (Table 2) and the slowdown in structural 
change. In recent years the price increases decided on 
by the EEC Council of Ministers have consistently 
fallen short of the rise in costs. 
2.2. Consumer prices 
2.2.1. According to Commission estimates, the 
impact of the Council's farm price decisions on 
consumer prices will be about one-third (for 
example, if producer prices are increased by 10% 
consumer prices will go up about 3-3 %) (see Table 3). 
The EEC Treaty stipulates that one of the objectives 
of agricultural policy is to ensure that supplies reach 
consumers at reasonable prices, i.e. that retail prices 
are reasonable. Farmers' remuneration (and in some 
cases the very first processing stage) is the only price 
component for which the Commission has made 
proposals. However, consumer food prices are also 
determined by other cost factors. 
2.2.2. The Committee would once again point out 
that agriculture has made an important contribution 
to curbing inflation in recent years. The Commission 
states that between 1978 and 1981 the average annual 
6. 5. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 114/3 
increase in farm prices was 8-7 %, while food prices 
rose at an annual rate of 10-1 % and consumer prices 
in general by 12-2 %. 
2.3. EAGGF expenditure (cf. Table 5) 
2.3.1. According to Commission data, the rise in 
EAGGF expenditure has slowed down appreciably. 
The increase in actual spending between 1980 and 
1981 was only 2-6%, compared with a rise in the 
European Community's own resources of 17 %. 
Savings have therefore been made in relation to 
budget adopted. 
2.4. Structural change 
2.4.1. The agricultural sector is also feeling the 
effects of unemployment. Because of the lack of job 
opportunities elsewhere, fewer farmers were able to 
give up farming in 1981. Consequently, there was less 
scope for an improvement in agricultural incomes 
through people moving out of farming and 
productivity rising as a result (Table 4). The 
employment situation in the Community suggests 
that these conditions will still be with us in 
1982/83. 
2.4.2. The drop in the purchasing power of farmers' 
incomes, which was exacerbated by very high interest 
rates, led in 1980 and 1981 to a considerable fall in 
the volume of investment (40 to 60% in some 
countries over this period). In a number of countries 
the volume of bought-in agricultural inputs (goods 
and services) also dropped. This will not only restrict 
the scope for improvements in productivity in the 
years ahead, but will also affect some of the jobs of 
the 20 million people employed in agriculture and in 
the many upstream and downstream sectors. 
2.4.3. At a time when there are more than 10 million 
unemployed in the Community, the Committee calls 
on the Council to do everything in its power to 
safeguard existing jobs and create as many new jobs 
as possible. Agriculture is a vital source of 
employment in many rural areas. It also makes an 
indispensable contribution towards economic 
prosperity, employment and the security of every 
Community citizen. A thriving farm industry must be 
preserved if Europe is to be able to use its extremely 
rich agricultural resources to meet most of the food 
needs of the Community's 270 million consumers on 
a secure and stable basis, improve the Community's 
balance of payments and contribute towards 
alleviating hunger in the world. 2.5. The level of farm prices 
2.5.1. It is generally recognized that there is a need 
to give agricultural policy a new slant. The main 
features of this are set out in the Commission report 
on the mandate of 30 May 1980 and the Commission 
memorandum entitled 'Guidelines for European 
agriculture'. This being so, the Committee takes the 
view that the Commission farm price proposals are 
acceptable. In reaching this assessment of the farm 
price proposals, the Committee also took account of 
(a) cost trends in agriculture and (b) the gloomy 
general economic situation and the resultant decline 
in incomes in all sectors of the economy. 
2.5.2. It would seem important to refer again here to 
the purpose of the objective method. Because it 
establishes the average rise in agricultural and 
horticultural production costs in the EEC over the 
period concerned (last three years, after which the 
price rises in the last two years and increased 
productivity are deducted), the outcome of the 
objective method gives a fair indication of the overall 
cost trend in agriculture as a whole. The objective 
method introduced by the Commission can, 
however, only be one criterion for the adjustment of 
prices. Account must also be taken of other factors, 
particularly the trend on the markets for agricultural 
products. 
2.5.3. The Committee would urge that new ways be 
sought for arriving at a suitable incomes policy in 
agriculture that on the one hand accords better with 
the justified wishes of all farmers and on the other 
hand does not pose a constant threat to market 
equilibrium in the various agricultural sectors. The 
Committee considers the Commission's proposals 
here to be too limited. 
2.6. Monetary compensatory amounts 
2.6.1. The Committee is of the view that it is 
necessary to restore the unity of prices as soon as 
possible. In recent years this has been threatened by 
the divergences in the economic and financial 
policies of the Member States. However, it wonders 
whether the conditions are currently right for such a 
step, since: 
— there are widely diverging inflation rates, 
— conflicting trends in farm incomes, 
— the national economic situations differ. 
In particular, it is necessary to adapt the relationships 
between the 'green' rates of the national currencies in 
the light of the widely diverging trends in cost/price 
ratios. 
No C 114/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 82 
2.7. Quality controls 
2.7.1. In the Committee's view, moves to improve 
product quality are an appropriate way to 
permanently safeguard or increase sales. The 
Commission's proposals should, however, be 
thoroughly reviewed. The Commission should 
confine itself to an inspection service. This inspection 
service should ensure that the quality controls are 
carried out in the same way in all the Member States. 
The quality controls themselves should be carried out 
on the industry's own responsibility. These quality 
controls and rules must not, however, result in the 
better qualities of produce being forced into 
intervention and the poorer qualities being pushed 
onto the market. 
2.8. Production targets 
2.8.1. The Committee considers it desirable that the 
policy should be geared more to the restoration of 
market equilibrium; in this context it would also be 
possible to restrict the growth of EEC agricultural 
expenditure, which is the Commission's prime aim. 
This calls for a combination of measures: 
— to promote sales in the Community, 
— to expand exports, 
— to promote adequate food aid, 
— to adjust production, particularly through 
incentives for those spheres of production in 
which the Community has a deficit (vegetable 
proteins and forestry in areas less suitable for 
agriculture). 
The Committee considers that the proposed 
introduction of purely formal trigger mechanisms is 
not enough. What is needed is a comprehensive 
policy for regulating the volume of production and 
consumption. The Council has the legal means for 
this without making changes to the basic Regulations 
in the case of milk, cereals and colza seed. 
3. COMMENTS ON THE PRODUCT MARKETS 
Introductory comment 
The Committee is aware that the further development 
of the common agricultural market regimes is not 
possible without compromises being made. On the 
other hand, farmers' incomes and consumer prices 
may be affected by any changes made to these market 
regimes. The Committee would point out that it is confining itself to particular comments on some of 
the market regime products, with the aim of inducing 
the Commission to review its proposals. 
3.1. Milk 
3.1.1. The Committee recognizes the Commission's 
steps to restore balance to the milk market. These 
steps have helped to alleviate considerably the 
problems on the milk market. Milk deliveries to 
dairies in 1981 were only 0-2% up on the previous 
year, whereas they had risen by as much as 2-6 % in 
1980. The small increase in milk production was 
accompanied by a rise in domestic sales and exports 
of milk products. Because of the stable world market, 
it was possible to cut the refunds for milk products by 
one half. These developments meant that in 1981 the 
cost of the milk market dropped by about 16% 
(approximately 795 million ECU) compared with 
1980. 
3.1.2. The idea that producers should share in the 
cost of controlling the volume of production in order 
to restore a balance between supply and demand has 
been supported by the Committee in several opinions 
and on various occasions. To this extent the 
Committee agrees with the payment of a co-
responsibility levy by producers. 
The ESC feels that the cyclical improvement in the 
financing of the imbalance of the milk market has not 
redressed the structural imbalances, which are 
becoming increasingly pronounced in this sector. 
Since the sector offers no alternative proposals which 
would allow the imbalance to be corrected 
progressively at an acceptable cost, the ESC endorses 
the Commission's policy and proposals. 
3.1.3. The funds accruing from the co-responsibility 
levy should only be used to boost sales in the milk 
sector. Hence it must also be ensured that funds left 
over in one year's budget can be carried forward to 
the following year and made available for the 
measures agreed on with representatives of the 
farmers and the milk industry. 
3.1.4. The Committee would point out to the 
Commission that producers will not agree to 
constructive participation in the restoration of 
market equilibrium unless: 
(a) the planned solutions are long-term and provide 
guidance for individual producers' decision­
making; 
(b) the unused funds are recycled in full to 
producers. 
6. 5. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 114/5 
3.1.5. The Committee repeats its call for the use of 
an indicator to ensure that powdered milk intended 
for animal consumption is not (as is frequently the 
case) improperly used for human consumption, now 
that indicators of this kind have been scientifically 
tested and approved. 
3.2. Cereals 
3.2.1. The Committee is of the view that the 
situation on the cereals market is influenced by the 
import of cereal substitutes. Imports of tapioca (4-5 
million tonnes in 1980), maize gluten feed (2-9 
million tonnes in 1980) and sweet potatoes (324 000 
tonnes in 1980) are overburdening the Community's 
cereal market. The Committee therefore welcomes 
the Commission's initial moves which consist of 
setting up voluntary restraint agreements and 
increasing the levy on brans. The Committee hopes 
that these will continue so as to help to improve the 
balance on the feedstuffs market. The Committee 
calls on the Council to look for ways of subjecting 
cereal substitutes to the same import levy provisions 
as cereals, if it does not prove possible to conclude 
voluntary restraint agreements with the export 
countries in question. 
As long as no progress is made in this direction the 
Committee thinks that the introduction of 
production targets for cereals is unjustified, 
especially as by the time the Council of Ministers 
reaches its decision, farmers will have already sown 
their cereal crops. In addition, the farmer cannot 
influence fluctuations in the harvest caused by the 
weather. The Committee also wonders whether it is 
defensible to introduce production targets for 
products such as cereals which are so important for 
the world's food requirements. Moreover, the nature 
of the production targets proposed by the 
Commission hits producers who carry no blame for 
any excess production just as hard as it hits those who 
may be ruthlessly exploiting the cereals market 
regime. 
The Committee accepts the Commission's view that a 
method must be found for limiting the growth of 
cereals production, if the burden of financing the 
export of surpluses is not to become altogether 
excessive. But it wonders whether the method 
proposed by the Commission of a price cut in the 
following season will be sufficiently effective. 
3.2.2. The Committee approves of the proposed 
increase for cereals being slightly less than the 
average, so as: 
— to limit recourse to substitute products, 
— not to penalize breeders, — to enable the incomes of cereal and milk 
producers to converge. 
3.2.3. The Committee considers the increase in the 
monthly increments to be inadequate. The proposed 
increase does not come anywhere near to 
compensating for the higher interest charges. 
Management of stocks is the key to a smoothly 
functioning market and is the sole guarantee that the 
market will be kept evenly supplied. 
3.2.4. Considerable problems are posed by the 
proposed limiting of the durum wheat aid to the 
first 10 hectares produced. Firstly, it is difficult to 
check the aid's application, and secondly, the crop 
area selected needs to be reviewed, for it is scarcely 
commensurate with the farm size targets set in 
Directive 159/72/EEC on the structural 
improvement of agricultural holdings. Community 
preference and the cereals market regime's impact on 
producers' incomes are considerably weakened by 
this proposal. The Committee therefore thinks that in 
these not very favoured regions where durum wheat 
is grown, it is especially necessary to increase the aid 
— as a supplement to producers' incomes — in 
accordance with the rise in production costs. 
3.3. Sugar 
The Commission points out in its explanatory 
memorandum that the new basic Regulation restricts 
the price and marketing guarantee to production 
quotas and that producers themselves are to bear the 
full cost of finding outlets for surplus Community 
production. Hence there are no costs to be met by the 
EAGGF on the sugar market. 
The Committee would stress that allowance should 
be made for this special aspect of the sugar market 
when prices are fixed. 
Because of the record production in the Community 
in 1981/82, producers will have to pay high levies in 
1982/83 or will be obliged to limit the areas they 
sow. 
The high production was due to a combination of two 
factors: firstly, the area under sugar beet was 
increased because of the world shortage in 1980/81, 
which led to world prices being well above 
Community prices at sowing time: and secondly, 
there were exceptionally high yields per hectare. 
Therefore, the net prices for the production quotas in 
the 1981/82 marketing year will be down 
appreciably, and an increase in sugar beet prices by 
at least the average percentage is thus warranted. 
NoC 114/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 82 
3.4. Wine 
The Committee would refer to the Committee's 
opinion of 25 February 1982. 
3.5. Olive oil 
3.5.1. The Committee welcomes the proposal to set 
up an olive cultivation register. This measure should 
be implemented as soon as possible and steps should 
be taken to ensure that the register is kept up-to-date. 
This instrument is essential for monitoring 
production and producer aids and is also of 
fundamental importance for the requisite structural 
measures. However, it is not acceptable that the cost 
of monitoring should be deducted from the aid for 
olive growers. 
3.5.2. The Committee would stress that the 
production costs for olive oil have risen sharply. 
More often than not olives are grown by small 
producers in poor farming areas, where it is not 
possible to grow other crops. Moreover, the 
Committee feels that measures which penalize high-
quality oils such as extra virgin oils are counter­
productive, and it hopes that the Commission will 
take suitable action to encourage sales on both the 
internal and the international market. The 
Committee would point out that it dealt in detail with 
the problems of the olive oil market in its opinion of 
23 September 1981 on the agricultural aspects of 
Spanish accession to the Community. The 
Committee would reiterate its call for restructuring 
and conversion measures in the areas where olives 
are grown. However, since a long time is needed for 
such restructuring measures to take effect, the 
Committee would ask the Council to examine 
whether the price increase for olive oil ought not to 
be similar to that proposed for sunflower seeds 
(12%). 
3.6. Rice 
3.6.1. Maize can often be cultivated in place of rice 
in the traditional rice-growing areas. However, the 
Community is interested in the production of a 
certain quantity of rice. So as not to jeopardize the 
profitability of European rice-growing, a rice/maize 
price ratio of 1-6:1 should be aimed at. The 
Commission has submitted proposals slanted in this 
direction. The Committee thinks that the price 
increase for rice should be somewhat higher. 3.6.2. The gap between the target price which 
applies to rice imports from third countries and the 
intervention price applicable in the production areas 
of the Community has a decisive influence on the 
flows of produce between rice-growing areas and the 
main areas of consumption. The Commission has 
proposed that the gap between the target and 
intervention prices be narrowed. The Committee 
fears that this could disrupt the European rice 
market, and therefore proposes a uniform increase in 
the target and intervention prices for rice. 
3.7. Tobacco 
3.7.1. Although the degree of Community self-
sufficiency in tobacco is extremely low, certain 
varieties of Oriental tobacco and black tobacco 
(Paraguay) are affected by a serious crisis, which can 
only be solved by a special long-term conversion and 
restructuring programme. Since tobacco is a very 
labour-intensive product, it is traditionally grown on 
small farms. The Committee advocates that greater 
allowance be made for the higher labour costs in 
fixing tobacco prices. 
3.7.2. The Committee welcomes the Commission's 
efforts towards diverting production from the 
oriental and black tobacco varieties for which there is 
an adequate demand. 
The Commission's price proposals do not take 
sufficient account of the high level of co-
responsibility to which tobacco growers are subject, 
nor of production costs in the various areas where the 
different varieties are cultivated, nor of the price 
differentiation needed to encourage production of 
the new varieties that are in demand. 
3.7.3. In addition, tobacco is heavily penalized by 
the non-observance of Community preference. Many 
'generalized preference' concessions are made to 
third countries, and in the end the cost of all this has 
an adverse effect on the survival prospects of 
Community production. Community preference 
should therefore be observed more strictly. 
3.8. Fruit and vegetables 
3.8.1. The Committee would refer to its opinion of 
25 February 1982. The incomes of fruit and vegetable 
growers can only be improved if there is a balance 
between supply and demand on the market. 
Community action to improve market balance — 
especially through a consistent policy on quality and 
effective steps to guarantee observance of 
Community preference — is therefore of particular 
6. 5. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 114/7 
urgency. Even if basic and buying-in prices are 
increased by 8 to 10%, the sums received for 
products withdrawn from the market through 
intervention will still be well below normal market 
prices. 
3.8.2. Marketing premiums for citrus fruit have 
been granted for years now as compensation for the 
fact that the Community has not adjusted reference 
prices to protect EEC citrus fruit against third-
country imports. 
3.8.3. The Commission has repeatedly announced 
that it intends to submit proposals for improving the 
monitoring of the application of Community 
regulations and it expected that these proposals will 
now finally be submitted. The first requirement — if 
the market regime for fruit and vegetables is to 
operate more effectively — is rigorous enforcement 
of the common quality rules on domestic markets, 
too, up to the retail stage. All Member States have in 
fact been committed to such a course since 1967. 
Steps must be taken once and for all to ensure that 
only fruit and vegetables which meet these quality 
standards and current market requirements may be 
placed on the market. The resultant easing of 
pressure on the markets, together with better 
regulation of competition from third countries, 
would not only drastically reduce intervention costs 
in the fruit and vegetables sector but also 
significantly improve producer prices for quality 
produce. 
3.8.4. Since there have been no arrangements 
governing trade with third countries, producer aids 
have been granted since 1978 for products processed 
from certain types of fruit and vegetables, the aim of 
such aids being to increase the competitiveness of 
Community production and guarantee producers an 
income for their primary products. Limiting such 
aids to specific quantities is bound to lead 
to a weakening of Community preference, unless 
imports of competing third-country products are 
simultaneously subjected to quantitative 
restrictions. 
3.8.5. Fruit and vegetables are largely grown on 
small to very small holdings without production 
alternatives. The Committee therefore considers that 
the introduction of production targets for tomatoes 
in particular should be linked with a structural 
programme for these growing areas. 
The Committee therefore rejects the Commission 
proposals that limits be set on the quantities of 
processed tomatoes eligible for aid, and that the 
present restriction of the aid for pears and cherries in 
syrup be retained. What is urgently needed is the 
introduction of supplementary provisions to the 
existing EEC rules on aid for cherries so as to 
forestall difficulties in implementing Community legislation and prevent developments that would 
adversely affect producers. 
3.9. Protein products 
3.9.1. EEC agriculture has become heavily 
dependent on imported protein feedingstuffs 
(approximately 20 % of overall requirements). This 
applies in particular to protein concentrates, 
approximately 95 % of which are imported (mainly 
soya beans and soya meal from the United States). 
Given the current low protein production levels in 
the Ten and the sharp rise in livestock production, 
Community agriculture has become extremely 
vulnerable to supply and price fluctuations on the 
world markets. 
3.9.2. The Committee considers that the 
Community should take steps to stabilize protein 
requirements. This would ease the EEC support 
policy's budget cost situation and would help to 
improve the balance on the Community market. The 
Committee therefore proposes that support be given 
to the investigation and promotion of all protein 
sources — including cereals, grasses and other 
fodder crops with a fairly high protein content as well 
as the production and preservation of grasses, 
legumes and oil seeds, research on new varieties, the 
production of single-cell proteins and urea, the better 
utilization of feeding straw and the wider use of 
skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder. The 
Committee urges the Commission to report regularly 
on the latest research findings and to hold 
discussions with the relevant organizations about the 
objectives to be pursued in new research projects. 
3.10. Livestock and meat 
3.10.1. The Committee observes that the 
Community market for beef and veal is being 
adversely affected by high imports enjoying special 
conditions. In 1981, for example, about 400000 
tonnes of beef and veal was imported free of levies. 
These imports resulted in pressure on prices in the 
Community and a loss of levy revenue of about 700 
million ECU. 
The Committee therefore considers that it must 
remain the function of the present market regime to 
safeguard Community preference. The measures 
proposed by the Commission confining intervention 
buying to meat from male animals and the restriction 
of intervention to certain parts of the carcass weaken 
Community preference. 
3.10.2. The Committee is critical of the two-stage 
price increase for beef and veal. This proposal would 
be detrimental particularly to high-quality summer 
fattening areas. Furthermore there would be hardly 
any price improvements in the first stage in the 
No C 114/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 82 
Member States whose monetary compensatory 
amounts are reduced. 
3.10.3. Retention of the suckler cow premium is 
warranted in order to ensure a good balance between 
beef and veal production and milk production. The 
proposed restriction of EAGGF financing here is as 
Done at Brussels, 24 March 1982. 
Tomas ROSEINGRAVE 
TABLE 1 
Real income in agriculture since '1974' 
(based on the index of net value-added at factor cost 
in agriculture in real terms per person engaged in farming) 
'1974' — 100 (three-year average for 1973, 1974 and 1975) 
Member State 
Germany 
France 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Belgium 
Luxembourg 
United Kingdom 
Ireland 
Denmark 
EUR 9 
Greece 1975 
100 
90 
103 
98 
95 
99 
94 
106 
87 
97 
100 5 
2 
4 
4 
1 
7 
0 
9 
7 
2 
5 1976 
104 
89 
100 
106 
107 
83 
101 
103 
92 
98 
107 7 
5 
7 
9 
7 
1 
9 
0 
4 
8 
3 1977 
98-7 
890 
103-9 
101 1 
890 
103-3 
93-4 
127-6 
106-5 
97-5 
106-3 1978 
99 
90 
108 
99 
98 
102 
90 
131 
113 
99 
117 1 
1 
9 
7 
2 
7 
0 
0 
6 
4 
9 1979 
85 
93 
114 
90 
90 
100 
84 
103 
97 
96 
113 1 
4 
1 
8 
3 
8 
9 
2 
4 
7 
2 1980 
81 
81 
110 
89 
92 
93 
77 
84 
92 
90 
121 2 
3 
9 
1 
7 
0 
8 
1 
5 
2 
5 1981 
78 
75 
103 
104 
104 
98 
78 
84 
107 6 
8 
2 
4 
8 
9 
1 
4 
0 
TABLE 2 
Annual rate of change in the cost/price ratio (*) since 1975 
Member State 
Germany 
France 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Belgium 
Luxembourg 
United Kingdom 
Ireland 
Denmark 
EUR 9 
Greece 
EUR 10 1975 
6 
1 
- 1 
9 
10 
1 
9 
0 
5 
4 
- 7 
3 7 
0 
5 
5 
6 
9 
3 
5 
3 
5 
5 
8 1976 
0 
6 
4 
2 
1 
- 0 
6 
8 
4 
3 
8 
3 9 
0 
1 
6 
5 
7 
5 
3 
6 
0 
0 
3 1977 
- 3 
- 6 
2 
- 3 
- 7 
- 0 
-10 
3 
- 3 
- 2 
5 
- 2 8 
6 
2 
5 
4 
4 
4 
4 
2 
8 
5 
5 1978 
0 
4 
5 
- 0 
2 
- 0 
- 1 
4 
9 
1 
3 
1 5 
5 
5 
8 
1 
4 
9 
9 
1 
2 
2 
2 1979 
- 2 
- 3 
0 
- 6 
- 4 
1 
- 0 
- 4 
- 5 
- 2 
- 4 
- 2 9 
2 
3 
5 
1 
7 
5 
5 
0 
7 
4 
7 1980 
- 2 
- 8 
- 4 
- 3 
- 3 
- 4 
- 6 
-13 
- 4 
- 4 
- 8 
- 5 5 
0 
3 
4 
1 
6 
3 
6 
8 
8 
7 
0 
(') Relationship between the development of the implicit price of final agricultural production and 
that of intermediate consumption. little conducive to this goal as the fact that the 
premium was not increased in 1981. The Committee 
is likewise in favour of retention of the calf birth 
premium in Italy, which is an incentive similar to the 
suckler cow premium, and of continuation of the 
variable slaughter premium in the United 
Kingdom. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
6. 5. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 114/9 
TABLE 3 
Producer and consumer prices 
(% change from 1979 to 1980) 
Member State 
Germany 
France 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Belgium 
Luxembourg 
United Kingdom 
Ireland 
Denmark 
Greece 
EUR 10 Producer prices 
(agricultural products) 
2-4 
5-6 
13-4 
41 
31 
4-7 
5-6 
2-3 
11 -2 
160 
7-9 Consumer prices 
(foodstuffs) 
4-4 
9 
15 
3 
3 
8 
11 
9 
10 
15 
11 7 
7 
8 
8 
0 
8 
3 
0 
0 
0 
TABLE 4 
Employment in agriculture (*) 
1 
Germany 
France (2) 
Italy 
Netherlands 
Belgium 
Luxembourg 
United Kingdom 
Ireland 
Denmark 
EUR 9 
Greece 
EUR 10 % TAV 
1979 
'1968' 
2 
-40 
-4 
-3 
-2 
-4 
-3 
-2 
-3 
-3 3 
3 
1 
7 
1 
0 
1 
0 
— 
— 
— 1979 
1575 
3 
-2-9 
-3-4 
-2-2 
-1-6 
-3-8 
-2-4 
-11 
-2-7 
-3-1 
— 
-2-3 
— 1979 
1975 
4 
-3-5 
-2 
-2 
-1 
-1 
-1 
-1 
-4 
0 8 
7 
5 
7 
0 
3 
0 
0 
— 
-2-8 
— 1980 
T975 
5 
-1-4 
-1 
-2 
-1 
-5 
-1 
-1 
-1 
-3 6 
9 
3 
1 
0 
5 
3 
8 
— 
-0-5 
— 
(1) Excluding labour employed in forestry and fisheries. Figures are calculated from national 
estimates drawn from the sector income index. The series has been used for the calculation of 
graph 13. 
(2) Employment in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. 
NoC 114/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 82 
(i) EUR 9. 
(2) EUR 10. TABLE 5 
Expenditure of the Guarantee Section as 
a °/o of the Community's gross domestic product 
a °/o of Community expenditure on food 
1 
1976 (1) 
1977 (0 
1978 (!) 
1979 (') 
1980 (») 
1981** (2) 
1982** (2) GDP in 
the EC 
(milliard 
ECU) 
2 
1269 
1415 
1569 
1763 
1998 
2 206 
2 472 Expendi­
ture 
on food 
in the EC 
(milliard 
ECU) 
3 
312 
331 
346 
370** 
400** 
420** 
445** EAGGF Guarantee Section 
million ECU 
Gross 
4 
5 587-0 
6 830-4 
8 672-7 
10440-7 
11314-9 
11570-5 
13 703-1 Net 
5 
4 414-0 
4 6920 
6 389-3 
8 297-2 
9312-5 
9 796-8 
110180 % of GDP 
Gross 
6 = 4/2 
0-44 
0-48 
0-55 
059 
0-57 
0-52 
0-55 in the EC 
Net 
7 = 5/2 
0-35 
0-33 
0-41 
0-47 
0-47 
0-44 
0-45 % of Community 
expenditure 
on food 
Gross 
8 - 4/3 
1-8 
2-1 
2-5 
2-8 
2-8 
2-8 
31 Net 
9 - 5/3 
1-4 
1-4 
1-8 
2-2 
2-3 
2-3 
2-5 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
I. VOTING 
A roll-call vote was taken on the opinion as a whole. The following members, present or 
represented, voted for the opinion: 
Mr 
Mrs 
Mr 
Mrs 
Mr Bagliano, 
Beretta, 
Bernaert, 
Broicher, 
van Campen, 
Cavazzuti, 
Clark, 
Cremer, 
Curlis, 
de Bievre, 
de Grave, 
Doble, 
Drain, 
Engelen-Kefer, 
Etty, 
Fredersdorf, 
Friedrichs, 
Gallacher, 
Glesener, 
van Greunsven, 
Hennig, 
Hilkens, 
Houthuys, 
Jaschick, 
Jenkins, 
Jonker, 
Kirschen, 
Leo, 
Masprone, 
Masucci, Mrs 
Mr 
Miss 
Mr 
Mrs 
Mr Meraviglia, 
Militello, 
Miller, 
Mills, 
Muhr, 
Neuman, 
Nielsen B., 
Nielsen M., 
Nielsen P., 
Nierhaus, 
Pfeiffer, 
Piga, 
Ramaekers, 
van Rens, 
Roberts, 
Romoli, 
Savini, 
Scalia, 
Scharrenbroich 
Schneider, 
Seydaack, 
Sorensen, 
Storm-Hansen, 
Strobel, 
Theisen, 
Vanni, 
Wagenmans, 
Williams, 
Zinkin, 
Zoli. 
6. 5. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 114/11 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the opinion 
rV4V Rome T onrro Mr 
Mrs 
Mr 
The following 
Mr Berns, 
Blamoutsis, 
Blasig, 
Bredima, 
Butler, 
de Caffarelli, 
Chabrol, 
Chronopoulos, 
Clavel, 
du Closel, 
Colymvas, 
Couture, 
Dassis, 
Daul, 
De Tavernier, 
Dunet, 
Emo Capodilista, 
Evain, 
Georgiou, 
Gingembre, 
Hall, 
Jakobsen, 
Karakitsos, 
Kenna, 
Lane, 
members, present or represented, abstained: 
Ammundsen, 
Arena, 
Breitenstein, 
Camman, 
Delourme, 
Hemmer, 
Kolbenschlag, 
Rollinger, 
Staratzke. Lauga, 
Laur, 
Laval, 
Leddy, 
Laughrey, 
Margot, 
Marvier, 
Massabiaux, 
Morselli, 
Ognibene, 
Paggi, 
Papadopoulos, 
Pearson, 
de Precigout, 
Rainero, 
Renaud, 
Rizos, 
Rouzier, 
Saitis, 
Schnieders, 
van der Veen, 
Ventejol, 
Wagner, 
Wick, 
Zunkler. 
II. AMENDMENTS REJECTED 
The following amendments, based on the Section's opinion and tabled in accordance with the 
Rules of Procedure, were rejected during the discussion. 
Point 2.3.1, third line: 
Delete: 
'... compared with a rise in the European Community's own resources of 17 %. Savings have 
therefore been made in relation to the budget adopted.' 
Reason: 
There is no organic link between the increase in agricultural expenditure and the Community's 
own resources, which are mainly derived from the 1 % of national VAT revenue which it receives 
from the Member States. 
Result of voting: 
For: 36, Against: 51, Abstentions: 14. 
At the end of point 2.5.1, insert a new point, as follows: 
'In the Committee's view, an increase in farm prices would be insufficient perse to safeguard 
farmers' real incomes, as opposed to the fictional parity of monetary incomes expressed in 
EUA. It therefore feels that a set of measures is needed to expand structural policy, channel 
aid directly to farms and offset production factors such as costs and credit.' 
No C 114/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 82 
Reasons: 
In view of the divergencies in inflation rates, production costs and the size of farm incomes that are 
currently apparent within the Community, an increase in common prices should preferably be 
backed by a set of other measures taking account of specific regional conditions. 
Result of voting: 
For: 43, Against: 47, Abstentions: 24. 
Point 2.8.1: 
Amend the second indent as follows: 
' — to expand profitable exports'. 
Result of voting: 
For: 29, Against: 47, Abstentions: 14. 
Point 2.8.1: 
Add the following after the third indent: 
'— to discourage surplus production, particularly that caused by factors which have nothing 
to do with the agricultural production cycle;' 
Reasons: 
A policy aimed at re-establishing market equilibrium must focus primarily on removing negative 
factors such as those indicated in the amendment. 
Result of voting: 
For: 29, Against: 31, Abstentions: 29. 
Point 3.1.2: 
Complete the last paragraph as follows: 
'The Committee feels that the long-term solution to the problems of small dairy producers is to 
be found not in differentiated co-responsibility levies, but in the adoption of social measures 
to assist the categories concerned.' 
Reason: 
This is clear from the above amendment. 
Result of voting: 
For: 26, Against: 38, Abstentions: 29. 
Point 3.1.3: 
Replace by: 
'The funds accruing from the co-responsibility levy should only be used for the rationalization 
of the milk sector.' 
Result of voting: 
For: 30, Against: 39, Abstentions: 20. 
Add a point 3.1.3b: 
'The Committee would like any new investment designed to increase milk production further 
to be discouraged.' 
Result of voting: 
For: 21, Against: 56, Abstentions: 27. 
Point 3.2.1, first paragraph: 
'The Committee considers that, in its treatment of cereal substitutes, the Commission has 
given inadequate consideration to the interests of the livestock farmer. Every increase in the 
cost of these substitutes is an increase in his costs which, particularly in pigs and poultry, he 
may well be unable to pass on to the consumer. 
6. 5. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 114/13 
The Committee believes, moreover, that the Commission somewhat exaggerates the extent to 
which some of these products are primarily substitutes for cereals. The energy-producers, 
manioc and sweet potatoes, obviously are, and the Committee considers some measure of 
restriction of them justified. But the value of maize gluten feed, for instance, is first of all for 
protein. 
The Committee considers bran, sharps and grain screenings for which the Commission now 
proposes a levy to be a more difficult case. They are largely for energy production. On the 
other hand, most of the supplies come from Community sources, imports have been 
reasonably stable and the deprived area of Northern Ireland is heavily dependent on them. 
The Committee therefore doubts the wisdom of the levy.' 
Reasons: 
These are given in the amendment. 
Result of voting: 
For: 48, Against: 53, Abstentions: 11. 
Point 3.2.1: 
Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph (The Section calls on the Council...). 
Reasons: 
Trade policy negotiations with the export countries in question should suffice to deal with the issue 
of cereal substitutes and in particular imports from third countries. An inflexible instrument like a 
levy is inappropriate here for reasons connected with a number of agricultural interests in EEC 
Member States (feedingstuffs situation) and because of trade policy advantages in other areas. 
Result of voting: 
For: 49, Against: 53, Abstentions: 10. 
Point 3.2.5: 
Delete this paragraph. 
Reasons: 
The special aid for durum wheat is given, as the text recognizes, largely for social reasons. There 
appears, therefore, to be no reason to give it to the farm of adequate size even if it has only become 
adequate through structural improvement. 
Result of voting: 
For: 29, Against: 60, Abstentions: 8. 
Point 3.5.2: 
Delete this paragraph. 
Reasons: 
There is no evidence that the production costs for olive oil have risen more sharply than for other 
products. Indeed, since the inputs bought from outside the farm for olive oil are lower than for 
many other crops this is highly unlikely. 
Olive oil is not in short supply in the Community, sunflower oil is. There is, therefore, no reason for 
an exceptional increase for olive oil. Indeed, given the pace at which sunflower production has 
been increasing, it is doubtful whether this increase is justified even for sunflower. 
Result of voting: 
For: 22, Against: 63, Abstentions: 12. 
No C 114/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 82 
Point 3.8.4, third paragraph: 
Delete this. 
There is no evidence that there is a demand for pears and cherries in syrup which is not satisfied 
because of the limitation on the quantity eligible for aid. 
The use of tomatoes for processing has increased in extraordinary degree since the aid was given 
(in the two-year period 1977 to 1979 from two and three-quarter million tonnes to over four and a 
quarter million tonnes) and if aid is not limited the Community will be faced with a major problem. 
Already the cost is 400 million ECU, and the aid covers 95 % of the value of the fresh 
tomatoes. 
Result of voting: 
For: 37, Against: 52, Abstentions: 15. 
A. THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE SECTION OPINION WERE REPLACED 
BY AMENDMENTS PASSED DURING THE DISCUSSIONS 
Point 2.1.1, third and fourth sentences: 
'According to this indicator, agricultural incomes have failed to keep pace with inflation and 
thus decreased in real terms for the third successive year. In 1979 the drop in real terms was 3 % 
and in 1980 it was 7%.' 
Result of voting: 
For: 50, Against: 44, Abstentions: 10. 
Point 2.5.1: 
'In view of the decline in farm incomes in recent years, and the repercussions of this on 
employment in agriculture and in upstream and downstream sectors, the Section considers the 
following essential: 
— an increase in farm prices which would allow a recovery in the situation in the farming 
sector; 
— observance of the 1 April deadline so that products whose prices should change on that 
date can benefit immediately from the price increase; 
— efficient management of the markets so that producers receive market prices 
corresponding to the rise in guaranteed prices; the key elements of this management 
are: 
— the market mechanisms, which must be made operational, 
— the principle of Community preference, which must be respected, 
— the policy on exports, which must be encouraged.' 
Result of voting: 
For: 59, Against: 44, Abstentions: 10. 
Point 2.5.2, from sixth line: 
'... a fair indication of the required price adjustment. This method allows the required 
increase to be determined more precisely than with data on the trend in incomes; incomes are 
dependent also on more incidental factors such as price trends, especially where 'freer' 
products and volume trends are concerned, which in turn are influenced by the weather. It 
should also be noted that the problems of agro-monetary influences on the outcome of the 
objective method are largely eliminated if the method is used consistently (so-called three-year 
method as has already been used for a number of years).' 
Result of voting: 
For: 52, Against: 45, Abstentions: 7. 
Point 3.1.2, second and third paragraphs: 
'In view of the favourable trend on the milk market referred to above and the unfavourable 
incomes situation of farmers described in the general comments, the Section therefore 
6. 5. 82 Official Journal of the European Communities NoC 114/15 
considers that there are good grounds for reducing the co-responsibility levy from its present 
level of 2-5%. Although the Section agrees with the Commission that the milk market's 
problems have not yet been fundamentally solved, a lowering of the co-responsibility levy 
which does not impair the situation on the market would bring about a direct improvement in 
milk producers' earnings without adversely affecting consumer prices. 
The Section has taken note of the proposal made by the Commission in the meantime that one 
percentage point be deducted from the co-responsibility levy for the first 60000 litres delivered 
by each milk producer. It would, however, prefer (a) these first 60000 litres to be fully exempt 
from the co-responsibility levy in all cases, and (b) the rate for family farms producing not 
more than 140000 litres to be reduced to 0-5%.' 
Result of voting: 
For: 50, Against: 38, Abstentions: 4. 
Point 3.2.1, third sentence: 
'The Section therefore welcomes the Commission's moves to help improve the balance on the 
cereals market by means of voluntary restraint agreements and by increasing the levy on 
brans.' 
Result of voting: 
For: 57, Against: 25, Abstentions: 24. 
Point 3.2.2: 
'The proposed 6-58% price increase for cereals (intervention price for common wheat, barley 
and maize) is well below the Commission's average 9% increase. The Section therefore 
advocates that the increase for cereals be brought closer to the average increase, especially as 
production costs in the cereals sector in particular have been increased appreciably by the rise 
in the cost of energy and other inputs.' 
Result of voting: 
For: 58, Against: 37, Abstentions: 7. 
B. THE FOLLOWING PASSAGES FROM THE SECTION OPINION WERE REMOVED AS 
A RESULT OF AMENDMENTS ADOPTED DURING THE DISCUSSIONS 
Point 2.6.2: 
'An inadequate price increase could induce a number of Member States to resort to national 
measures without having regard to the consequences for the future of the Community. The 
Section considers that an appreciably higher price increase would make possible a 
considerable reduction in the positive compensatory amounts, assuming that such a reduction 
does not impede a suitable rise in farm incomes in the relevant Member States. This would not 
be possible with the Commission's proposals.' 
Result of voting: 
For: 45, Against: 26, Abstentions: 6. 
Point 3.2.4: 
'The quality standards for cereals have been improved considerably in recent years, and the 
Section therefore considers a further tightening-up to be unnecessary.' 
Result of voting: 
For: 39, Against: 37, Abstentions: 15. 
III. MINORITY STATEMENT 
After the voting by name on the opinion, the undersigned members representing agriculturalists 
who voted against it issued the following statement: 
No C 114/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 6. 5. 82 
"The Economic and Social Committee members representing agriculture supported the 
opinion issued by the Section for Agriculture, which took into account the need to reach 
overall agreement on a substantial rise in farm prices for 1982/83, and on allied measures. 
Following the plenary session's rejection of the compromise drawn up by the Section for 
Agriculture, the representatives of agriculturalists had no choice, considering the fundamental 
importance of the matter for the future of the farms and the standard of living of the 
communities involved, but to vote against the Committee opinion. 
Agriculturalists note that incomes in agriculture have plummeted 25% over the last three years. 
They feel that 1982/83 common agricultural prices, subsidies and premiums should be 
increased by 16-3% on average, in accordance with the 'objective method' and their 
allowances for transport, storage and processing should be adapted in line with the increase in 
costs. Such an increase ought to make it possible to reduce positive MCAs substantially as long 
as this does not hinder an equitable development of farm incomes in the Member States 
concerned. 
They categorically reject the Commission proposals which will exert additional pressure on 
farm incomes by: 
— the total inadequacy of the proposed price rise, 
— a short-sighted policy which aims at bringing Community prices into line with those of 
rival countries producing in totally different conditions, and ignores the serious 
consequences for agriculture and for the Community, 
— the introduction of production targets and the increase of producers' co-responsibility, 
— a weakening of the producer guarantees of the existing common regimes. 
Instead, they call for: 
— the strict observance of Community preference in all sectors of production, 
— the retention of the producers' guarantees of existing common regimes, and the 
strengthening of the guarantee system so as to give guarantees of equivalent effect to all 
sectors, including Mediterranean products; in the case of the latter, aids and premiums 
should be adjusted in line with the increase in production costs, 
— the immediate implementation of a genuine, dynamic and on-going export policy for food 
and other agricultural products. 
They also call for the immediate implementation of specific temporary Community measures 
in keeping with the fundamental principles of the CAP to compensate those farmers who have 
suffered inflation and interest rates far above the Community average, due to the lack of 
economic and monetary harmonization.' 
Mr Berns, Mr Butler, Mr de Caffarelli, Mr Chronopoulos, Mr Clavel, Mr Colymvas, Mr Daul, Mr 
de Tavernier, Mr Emo Capodilista, Mr Lane, Mr Lauga, Mr Laur, Mr Leddy, Mr Morselli, Mr 
Ognibene, Mr Paggi, Mr Rainero, Mr Schnieders, Mr van der Veen, Mr Wick.