No C 81/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 3. 83 
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 (1983/84) 
The text referred to the Committee has been published in Official Journal of the European 
Communities No C 32 of 7 February 1983, pages 1 to 78. 
A. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE OPINION 
On 12 January 1983 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 
205th plenary session held in Brussels on 23 and 24 February 1983. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, and in particular 
Articles 47 and 198 thereof, 
Having regard to the request made by the Council of 
the European Communities on 20 January 1983 for 
an opinion on the Commission proposals on the 
fixing of prices for certain agricultural products and 
on certain related measures (1983/84) (Council 
decision of 12 January 1983), 
Having regard to the decision taken by its Committee 
Bureau on 25 January 1983 instructing the Section 
for Agriculture to draw up an opinion on the matter, 
Having regard to its previous opinions on the same 
topic, 
Having regard to the opinion adopted by the Section 
for Agriculture at its 241st meeting, held on 14 and 
15 February 1983, 
Having regard to the report submitted by the 
rapporteur, Mr Schnieders, 
Having regard to the discussions at its 205th plenary 
session, held on 23 and 24 February 1983 (meeting of 
23 February 1983), by 72 votes to 30 with 11 abstentions: 
1. General comments 
1.1. Economic and social context 
1.1.1. The Committee acknowledges that the 
European Community is in a difficult position. High 
unemployment of around 12 million, inflation rates 
which vary from 5 to 23 % in the Member States, 
low economic growth, the stagnation or fall in most 
consumer incomes, the large external trade deficit of 
most Member States are causing considerable 
difficulties for all the EEC countries. 
1.1.2. It is clear that such an economic and social 
situation is bound to affect the implementation of a 
common policy as integrated as the CAP. 
1.1.3. The Committee would point out that the 
agricultural sector too has been particularly hard hit 
by the economic and monetary difficulties. In 
particular this is reflected in the continuing exodus 
from the land in several Member States despite high 
general unemployment, in the sharp fall in agri­
cultural investment and in the heavy indebtedness of 
farms. 
24. 3. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 81/7 
1.1.4. The Commission documents show that since 
1975 both the level and trend in incomes have on 
average been less favourable in agriculture than in the 
economy as a whole. In 1982, however, the situation 
improved due to the fact that the prices fixed by the 
Council were well above those proposed by the 
Commission and thanks to favourable weather 
conditions (except for southern Italy which has 
suffered a serious drought). In addition, over the 
same period there was a slowdown in the increase in 
production costs in some countries. 
This halt in the decline of farm incomes has not, 
however, closed the considerable gap with incomes in 
the economy as a whole. 
1.1.5. The Commission notes that the recovery in 
Community agriculture in 1982 has had positive 
effects for the industries which supply the requisites 
of agriculture. It also notes that the agri-food sector 
is one of the most important sectors in the 
Community in terms of turnover and employment (cf. 
COM(82) 650 fin., Volume I, point 70). 
1.2. Basis for the Commission's proposals 
1.2.1. The Commission also notes that as the 
Community has increasingly faced major problems in 
agriculture for a number of years, it is necessary to 
re-orient the market organizations in such a way as 
to bring supply and demand into better balance and 
to ensure the most efficient use of the Community's 
economic and financial resources (see COM(82) 650 
fin., Part I, paragraph 10). 
1.2.2. Furthermore, this year, as last, the 
Commission points out that its proposals for the 
1983/84 prices are based on its memorandum of 
October 1981 on guidelines for European agriculture. 
1.2.3. The Commission further acknowledges that 
it has ceased to regard the results of the calculations 
carried out by the objective method as the main basis 
for its 1983/84 price proposals. 
The Committee recalls that it has always stressed the 
need for the Commission to have precise economic 
indicators to back up its proposals; it believes that the 
objective method is one of the essential indicators. 
In fixing farm prices, it is necessary to consider the 
Commission study on the effects of differing rates of 
inflation. The Committee also insists that the results taken from 
the FADN and other indicators are at least used as a 
starting point. 
The Committee would point to the advantages of the 
objective method: it is based on reliable scientific and 
economic data and has hitherto been regarded by the 
Commission and the ESC if not as the sole, then at 
least as the key indicator for an evaluation of the 
annual adjustments of the common agricultural 
prices; moreover, it is necessary if the incomes of 
farmers on modern farms are to move in line with 
comparable non-agricultural incomes. 
The Committee urges that this method be 
reintroduced, possibly supplemented by other more 
suitable indicators as they become available. 
1.3. Common prices and the consumer 
The Committee notes that, according to the 
Commission, the proposed increases would result in 
'an increase of less than 2 % on average in consumer 
prices for food in the Community (expenditure on 
food was estimated at 226 milliard ECU for 1980). 
This corresponds to an increase of about 0,3 % on 
the cost of living.' (cf. COM(82) 650 fin., Volume I, 
point 77). In the Committee's view such an approach 
to the effects of the price proposals for the consumer 
has little point and, particularly by being presented in 
isolation, is even misleading in some respects. An 
increase in farm prices is automatically reflected in 
other consumer price components. From the 
consumers' point of view it is far more important to 
establish the correlation between the policy and the 
consumer price trend. The Committee urges that this 
figure of 0,3 % be compared in a year's time with the 
actual trend in each Member State. 
The Committee further notes that again this year, and 
in spite of the regular requests it has made over 
recent years, the Commission takes into consideration 
only that part of food prices represented by the 
remuneration of the farmer or first processor. Yet the 
Commission itself points out that farm-gate and first 
processing prices represent only a third of the cost 
of food to the consumer (cf. COM(82) 650 fin., 
Volume I, point 79). 
The Commission notes in paragraph 77 that 'in the 
period 1978 to 1982 food prices in the Community 
rose at an average yearly rate of 11,6%, while 
consumer prices in general rose at a rate of 12,3 %. 
No C 81/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 3. 83 
The Committee is anxious to ensure that supplies 
continue to reach the consumer at reasonable prices 
and would therefore once again urge the Commission 
to study all the cost components which go to make up 
the selling price of food to the final consumer. 
It would ask the Commission to provide it with the 
results of an investigation to be carried out on this 
subject. 
1.4. Average level of common prices 
1.4.1. Having regard to the criteria used for the 
Commission's proposal and the economic indicators 
subsequently published, the Committee considers that 
the average price increase should be that proposed by 
the Commission. However, the Committee urges that 
there be a more appropriate relationship between the 
prices of the various products, although this should 
not entail any increases in the prices of products in 
surplus. 
1.4.2. The Committee fears that, despite the 
favourable situation with respect to farm incomes in 
1982, pricing policy will not ensure that they are 
maintained at an adequate level unless there is 
massive support from the CAP to bring structures up 
to scratch, bring the factors market back into balance 
and increase productivity in the light of Community 
production targets. 
1.4.3. Furthermore, the small price rises proposed 
would not enable the reduction envisaged by the 
Commission to be made in the positive MCAs 
without cutting the income of the farmers concerned. 
Clearly this is out of the question. 
1.4.4. The Committee would support complete 
dismantling of the current negative MCAs. It 
endorses the Commission view that the present im­
balances between regions, products and farms cannot 
be righted by pricing policy. It is therefore greatly 
surprised at the inadequacy of the 'related measures' 
proposed by the Commission. The Committee 
therefore believes that specific measures to protect the 
incomes of the weakest farms and develop farming in 
the most disadvantaged regions should be adopted at 
the same time as the new common prices. In addition, 
allowance must be made for the special situation of 
certain Member States, particularly Ireland and Italy, 
by laying down temporary measures (e.g. interest 
rebates) in their favour. The Committee considers 
that for a lasting solution to this problem it will be 
necessary to strengthen and align other policies, par­ticularly economic and monetary policies and agri­
cultural structure policy. 
In this connection, the Committee is appalled that the 
Commission has still not presented the proposals for 
its 'Mediterranean programmes', although it was 
obliged to do so by the end of 1982. 
1.5. The contribution of farmers to balancing the 
markets 
1.5.1. The Committee accepts that the upward 
trend in production of commodities in structural 
surplus will have to be arrested. The Committee 
reiterates its acceptance of the principle that 
producers should bear some degree of financial 
responsibility for controlling production and restoring 
balance between supply and demand. It wishes, 
however, to stress that the problem of surpluses 
cannot be solved by Community farmers in isolation 
and that concerted action at international level is 
required. This action is particularly urgent if a 
damaging trade war is to be avoided. 
The Committee wishes to stress that responsibility for 
correcting market imbalances must be shared with 
producers in other parts of the world who have also 
increased their output. 
1.5.2. Accordingly the Committee has in the past 
endorsed the system of co-responsibility proposed for 
the dairy sector as well as Commission proposals for 
the introduction of production thresholds for some 
products in structural surplus. 
1.5.3. However, under the Commission's present 
proposals farmers who have not increased their 
production or have even cut it back will have to 
continue to pay the co-responsibility levy. The 
Committee would therefore ask the Commission to 
look for a better solution which takes greater account 
of the situation of particular farms and regions. 
1.5.4. The Committee would also ask the 
Commission to reply to the questions which it has 
raised (in its opinion on the 1981/82 farm prices, 
Chapter III, points 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 (*)) concerning the 
implementation of the principle of producer co-
responsibility. 
O OJ No C 159, 29. 6. 1981, p. 27. 
24. 3. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 81/9 
1.6. Coordination of CAP and general economic 
objectives of the Community 
The Committee would once again ask the 
Commission to adjust its policy, as regards refunds in 
particular, so that the surpluses which have to be 
disposed of on third country markets are more often 
exported in the form of processed products incor­
porating the maximum possible value added. The 
CAP cannot disregard the efforts made to defend and 
promote employment. It calls on the Commission to draw up a specific 
overall report on the possibilities in this area. 
2. Comments on specific products 
The Committee reserves the right to draw up an 
additional opinion at its next plenary session in 
March 1983 on the Commission's proposals 
concerning the various agricultural products. 
Done at Brussels, 23 February 1983. 
The Chairman 
of the 
Economic and Social Committee 
Francois CEYRAC 
ANNEX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
I. Voting 
A voting roll-call was taken on the opinion as a whole. The following members, present or 
represented, voted for the opinion: 
Mr Amato, Mr Antonsen, Mr Bagliano, Mr Beretta, Mr Brassier, Mrs Bredima, Mr Breitenstein, 
Mr Briganti, Mr Broicher, Mr Cammann, Mr Carroll, Mr Cavazzuti, Mr Cremer, Mr Curlis, 
Mr Dassis, Mr Dassoulas, Mr d'Elia, Mr Delia Croce, Mr Delourme, Mr Dracos, Mr Drago, 
Mrs Engelen-Kefer, Mr Etty, Mr Friedrichs, Mr Glesener, Mr van Greunsven, Mr Hadjivassiliou, 
Mr Hilkens, Mr Jaschick, Mr Kamizolas, Mr Kenna, Mr Kirschen, Mr Kitsios, Mr Kiibler, 
Mr Lojewski, Mr Low, Mr Loughrey, Mr Marvier, Mr Masprone, Mr Masucci, Mr Meraviglia, 
Mr Mols Sorensen, Mr Mourgues, Mr Muhr, Mr Muller, Mr Murphy, Mr Nielsen B., Mrs Nielsen 
M., Mr Nielsen P., Mr Nierhaus, Mr Ognibene, Mr Pearson, Mr Pfeiffer, Mr Plank, Mr Pronk, 
Mrs Rangoni-Machiavelli, Mr Regaldo, Mr van Rens, Mr Romoli, Mr Roseingrave, Mr Rouzier, 
Mr Schneider, Mr Schoepges, Mr Spachos, Mr Stahlmann, Mr Staratzke, Mr Van Melckenbeke, 
Mr Vassilaras, Mr Vercellino, Mr Wagenmans, Mrs Weber, Mr Zoli. 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the opinion: 
Mr Bazianas, Mr Bernasconi, Mr Berns, Mr Boddy, Mr de Caffarelli, Mr Cashman, Mr Chalioris, 
Mr Chappie, Mr De Tavernier, Mr Drain, Mr Emo Capodilista, Mr Fortuyn, Mr Germozzi, Mr 
Goris, Mr Jakobsen, Mr Jenkins, Mr Kelly, Mr Lauga, Mr Laur, Mr Milne, Mr Morselli, Mr 
Querleux, Mr Rainero, Mr Schnieders, Mr Smith L. J., Mr Strauss, Mr Vasseur, Mr van der Veen, 
Mr Wick, Mr Yverneau. 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Mr Bornard, Mr De Bievre, Mr De Bruyn, Mr De Grave, Mr Dunet, Mr Houthuys, Mr Margot, 
Mr Ramaekers, Mr Tixier, Mr Van der Mensbrugghe, Mr Ventejol. 
No C 81/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 3. 83 
II. Amendments or changes made to the text during discussion 
A. Rejected amendments 
The following amendments, drawn up on the basis of the Section opinion and tabled in accordance 
with the Rules of Procedure, were defeated during the discussion: 
— New point 1.1.1 (a) 
Add the following point 1.1.1 (a): 
'Against the background of a doubling of unemployment in the Community since 1979 the 
Commission has recommended that real incomes be reduced by not indexing wages fully to the 
rise in prices. Various Member States have acted on this recommendation and have adopted a 
policy of reducing real incomes by a considerable degree, including the incomes of farm 
workers. In 1982 this policy was added to other factors giving rise to considerable cuts in the 
incomes of wage-earners, such as incomplete indexing of tax scales, increase in numbers wholly 
unemployed or on short time, higher social security contributions and a fall in benefits. 
At the same time the Community adopted farm prices and rates of compensatory amounts which 
considerably increased farmers' incomes in 1982, and also in 1981 in some Member States.' 
Result of vote: 
For: 42. Against: 48. Abstentions: 19. 
— Point 1.1.2 
Add the following: 
'But it is precisely because the CAP is the only real Community policy that it should be 
protected. 
However, the Commission, although it has introduced "co-responsibility", "guarantee 
thresholds", "quotas" and other penalties without a minimum of social justice, has not put 
forward any proposal to correct the serious imbalance in protection, which places producers in 
high-inflation countries at a disadvantage. 
All this increases the risk of Member States resorting to national aid, which will progressively 
lead to the destruction of the Community heritage.' 
Result of vote: 
For: 31. Against: 75. Abstentions: 7. 
— Point 1.2.3 
Replace this point in its entirety by the following: 
'The Committee notes that in drawing up its 1983/84 price proposals the Commission has not 
calculated the figures which would be given by the "objective" method. It believes that the 
Commission must take account of numerous economic, social and political criteria when formu­
lating these proposals and not base itself solely on the objective method. The Committee notes 
that every year more and more economic and social data are available in the statistics and in 
particular in the annual report on the Agricultural Situation which the Commission has just 
published. But the overall interpretation of these data, for the purpose of determining what the 
average price increase should be, remains difficult and cannot be based on partial figures 
indicating a specific level of prices which in the public mind might be regarded as the only one 
which would be objectively justified.' 
Result of vote: 
For: 46. Against: 51. Abstentions: 23. 
— Point 1.3 
(a) Add the following after the second sentence of the first paragraph: 
'The Committee regards as erroneous the Commission's conclusion that the average farm-
price increase it is proposing will only increase the cost of living by 0,3 %. The Committee 
cites the following reasons: 
— these calculations are not based on actual farmgate prices but inter alia on intervention 
prices which apply only in so far as there is a surplus, 
24. 3. 83 Official Journal of the European Communities N0C8I/H 
— these calculations do not take account of the fact that the GAP increases the prices of 
certain imported agricultural products, 
— if all the components of the cost of living rose by 5,5 %, i.e. the average price rise 
proposed for agricultural products, the average cost of living index for the Community 
would increase by 5,5 %, 
— these are mechanical calculations which do not take into account the impact — in some 
cases a multiplier impact — on other prices influencing the cost of living index, 
— they do not take account of the variations in exchange rates and varying inflation rates 
which will occur during the period under consideration.' 
(b) Delete the last sentence of the first paragraph. 
Result of vote: 
For: 42. Against: 53. Abstentions: 21. 
— Point 1.4 
Reword to read: 
Average level of common prices 
'The Committee considers that the new CAP guidelines published by the Commission 
(guidelines for the European agricultural policy, COM(81) 608 fin.) should provide the starting 
point for farm prices in the coming farm year. 
The Committee accordingly considers that the prices proposed by the Commission for the 1983 
and 1984 farm years, and the associated proposal with respect to MCAs, are acceptable. 
In assessing the proposed farm prices the Committee has also considered the continuing de­
terioration in the economic situation, the recent improvement in farm incomes, the price levels 
which the economy can bear and the trend of food prices.' 
Reasons 
The Commission proposal to increase farm prices by an average of 5,5 % is really on the high 
side, given recent farm-income trends and the market situation for a number of important 
products. 
It is certainly on the high side if the particularly poor general economic situation is considered. 
In such a situation it is advisable to keep in mind the trend of prices for food, which is a 
necessity of life. 
In assessing the price proposals account should really also be taken of the fact that new data on 
the agricultural situation have become available since the Commission took its decisions. For 
instance, the increase in milk production — and hence also in producers' incomes — is higher 
than originally anticipated and changes have also taken place in a number of currency parities. 
These developments have altered the basis on which the proposals and in themselves leave 
hardly any scope for price increases for products in structural surplus. 
Nevertheless, the Committee could accept the price increases proposed by the Commission if 
they are a genuine maximum which is not exceeded in practice, and if the measures with respect 
to MCAs are fully accepted. 
Result of vote: 
For: 40. Against: 49. Abstentions: 16. 
— Point 1.4 
Replace by the following: 
'The Committee is in favour of an average increase in farm prices which, in addition to 
Community averages, pays close attention to trends in the specific incomes of farmers as wage-
earners in the Member States, notably when determining compensatory amounts. 
Such increases must go hand in hand with a maintenance of workers' and the socially insured's 
real incomes and an increase for the low-paid, so as not to choke off internal consumption.' 
Result of vote: 
For: 16. Against: 62. Abstentions: 29. 
No C 81/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 24.3.83 
— Point 1.4.2 
(a) Replace by the following: 
'The Committee favours the total abolition of MCAs in the short term,- with a view to 
eliminating the current distortions in trade within the Community. However, even accepting 
that the process will be a gradual one, the Committee does not consider, the measures 
proposed by the Commission to be adequate.' 
(b) Delete the first sentence of point 1.4.4. 
Result of vote: 
For: 41. Against: 49. Abstentions: 30. 
— Point 1.5.2 
Delete. 
Result of vote: 
For: 6. Against: 60. Abstentions: 24. 
— Point 1.5.4 
Add the following: 
'In the meantime, the Committee considers that the present co-responsibility system should 
be provisionally retained as it is the most suitable way of alleviating structural surpluses of 
agricultural products.' 
Result of vote: 
For: 18. Against: 66. Abstentions: 15. 
B. The following part of the Section opinion was replaced by amendments approved during the debate 
— Point 1.4.1 
'In view of the foreseeable trend in the Community's inflation rate, the Section fears that the 
average increase proposed by the Commission will not be enough to sustain the level of farm 
incomes in 1983, especially if harvests are below those of 1982.' 
Result of vote: 
For: 55. Against: 38. Abstentions: 23. 
C. The following parts of the Section opinion were withdrawn as a result of the amendments adopted 
during the debate 
— Point 1.4.3 
'The Section accordingly asks for a more appropriate price increase.' 
Result of vote: 
For: 58. Against: 46. Abstentions: 14. 
24.3.83 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 81/13 
— Point 1.5.4, last sentence 
'At any event, bearing in mind the limited results obtained with such an instrument, the Section 
feels that action at the level of guarantees would be more effective and asks that the co-
responsibility scheme be abolished and the intervention price reduced accordingly.' 
Result of vote: 
For: 47. Against: 33. Abstentions: 21. 
III. Minority statement 
Following the recorded vote on the full text of the opinion, the members of the farmers' category 
who voted against the opinion issued the following minority statement: 
'In voting against the ESC opinion, the members representing agriculture, having noted that, 
despite the 1982 increase, farm incomes are still approximately 20 % lower in real terms than 
the average for 1973 to 1975, categorically reject the Commission proposals on the common 
agricultural prices and related measures for 1983/84 as being unacceptable to Community 
farmers. 
They deplore the fact that the Commission of the European Communities, which declares that 
its proposals for the related measures are based on the guidelines for European agriculture 
supplementing its report on the 30 May 1980 mandate, has merely taken up the restrictive 
aspects of this report — i.e. the reduction of prices linked to the guarantee thresholds and 
alignment of EEC prices on the prices of competing countries — and does not heed key 
elements of this report such as adherence to the principles underlying the CAP and the 
necessity to develop an active exports policy in order to safeguard the position of European 
farming on the world markets. 
These members representing agriculture on the Economic and Social Committee urge that the 
7 % average increase resulting from the objective method be really considered as a minimum 
increase to be applied to the common target and intervention prices and to the aids and 
premiums currently in force under the market regimes. 
However, they note that the fixing of prices on the basis of the objective method does not 
enable the income gap to be closed. It does not permit an adequate reduction in positive MCAs 
without thwarting a fair increase in farmers' incomes in the countries in question and does not 
meet the needs of countries with a high inflation rate. 
They also think that existing negative MCAs must be completely abolished. In addition, they 
call for the strict observance of Community preference in all sectors of production, the main­
tenance of the market regime mechanisms and the improvement of these mechanisms for some 
products (including Mediterranean products) so as to provide levels of support and guarantees 
with equivalent effect for all products, bearing in mind their specific characteristics. They also 
call for an improvement in the management of the markets and an adequate adjustment 
forthwith of processing, marketing and storage aids and margins. 
They are aware that the increase in the general level of the common agricultural prices in 
ECUs which they are calling for is not high enough for farmers in Community countries where 
particularly high inflation and interest rates have caused very serious financial problems. 
Further harmonization of Member States' economic and monetary policies should allow this 
situation to be remedied in the long term. 
As far as the 1983/84 prices are concerned, they call on the Community to take specific 
transitional measures compatible with the basic principles of the CAP to remedy this 
exceptional situation, in particular: 
— interest rebates on short-term loans for current operations, and a stepping up of existing 
Community measures for structural improvements in agriculture, 
No C 81/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 24. 3. 83 
— the extention, and updating in line with the incomes situation, of the premiums and specific 
measures in force in Ireland and the introduction of additional measures to ease the 
particularly difficult incomes position of Irish farmers, 
— a further adjustment of the current aids and premiums under the market regimes, in 
particular for Mediterranean products, in line with the increase in production costs, 
— alignment of Greek farm prices on the common farm prices and a reduction of the 
transitional period for certain aids and premiums received by Greek farmers to enable them 
to cope, at least partially, with the steep increase in costs in Greece. 
They urge that the 1983/84 farm prices be fixed in accordance with their wishes in time for 
implementation as of 1 April 1983.' 
Mr Bazianas, Mr Berns, Mr de Caffarelli, Mr Cashmann, Mr Chalioris, Mr De Tavernier, 
Mr Emo Capodilista, Mr Jakobsen, Mr Kelly, Mr Lauga, Mr Laur, Mr Morselli, Mr Rainero, 
Mr Strauss, Mr van der Veen, Mr Vasseur, Mr Schnieders, Mr Wick, Mr Yverneau.