COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 30.05.1997 
COM(97) 250 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
1 ' '' ! ?/! ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) NO 2137/92 
CONCERNING THE COMMUNITY SCALE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CARCASSES OF 
OVINE ANIMALS AND DETERMINING THE COMMUNITY STANDARD QUALITY OF FRESH 
OR CHILLED SHEEP CARCASSES AND EXTENDING REGULATION (EEC) NO 338/91 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION ŒCÏ 
('6 F \^tV^ 
' t ' '} '? 
11 *4V '•,:' amending Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 determining the Community standard 
quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 
concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals 
and determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses 
'•'ft.O 
'Â rl 
't,f-(presented by the Commission) 
" ^ 1." '^ 'is *. 
1 , •«-+•*• ', 
1 » »Vl ^ " 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) NO 2137/92 
CONCERNING THE COMMUNITY SCALE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION OF CARCASSES OF 
OVINE ANIMALS AND DETERMINING THE COMMUNITY STANDARD QUALITY OF FRESH 
OR CHILLED SHEEP CARCASSES AND EXTENDING REGULATION (EEC) NO 338/91 
1. INTRODUCTION 
The establishment of market prices in the sheep sector is of particular importance as 
the Community market price is a central element in the calculation of the annual ewe 
premium, Currently, these prices are recorded weekly at Member State level 
according to a Community definition of standard quality of sheep carcasses agreed in 
1991 and set to apply until the end of 1997 marketing year. They are then translated 
into the Community average market price. 
Conscious of the need to improve market transparency, the Council, in 1992, 
introduced a carcase classification system for sheep. This classification system is a 
voluntary at Community level. It provides a method of grading carcases according 
to set criteria and thus establishes the possibility for producers to be paid according 
to these criteria. At this stage, except in Finland and Sweden, prices recorded in 
accordance with this classification system are not used in the calculation of the 
Community average market price. 
Among the long term objectives for the Community carcase classification scheme 
was that it should provide the basis for a new definition of standard quality of sheep 
carcases. 
With this in mind, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 concerning the Community 
scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals and determining the 
Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and extending 
Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 determining the Community standard quality of fresh 
or chilled sheep carcasses, requires the Commission (Article 9) to submit a report to 
the Council on its implementation by 31 December 1996 at the latest. 
The scope of this report, therefore, concerns the carcase classification of ovine 
animals and also to what extent the definition of standard quality for price reporting 
which is currently in place until the end of the 1997 marketing year, could be 
improved at the light of experience in carcase classification. 
Subject to the conclusions of the report, the Council set itself the goal of making the 
use of the Community grid compulsory for all Community slaughterhouses approved 
for intra-Community trade, if possible during the 1999 marketing year and in any 
event before 1 January 2000, without prejudice to the possibility of excluding small 
slaughterhouses situated in regions where the impact on the market price produced 
by the volume slaughtered in such slaughterhouses is negligible. 
The accompanying proposals respond to the conclusions of the report. 
2-
2. STANDARD QUALITY 
The current definition of standard quality contained in Council Regulation (EEC) No 
338/91 reads 
"lamb of less than one year old at slaughter of acceptable fat level with a carcase 
weight or estimated carcase weight of at least 12 kg." 
This definition, introduced following the 1989 reform unifying the regime, has 
applied from the 1991 to the 1997 marketing years for the purposes of price 
formation and premium calculation. 
The practical implementation, of this definition involved the elimination, from price 
reporting, of lightweight carcasses of between 9 and 11.9 kg in Spain, Italy, Greece 
and Portugal. Furthermore, the Commission implementing provisions interpreted the 
phrase "acceptable fat level", in the absence of carcase classification standards, by 
the application of different upper weight limits for carcases reflecting Member State 
production practices. These limits are 16 kg in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal, 
21.5 kg in Great Britain, Ireland and Northern Ireland, 22 kg in France and Austria 
and 23 kg in Denmark, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland and Sweden. 
Since its introduction in May 1991, price reporting based on standard quality has 
worked well insofar as its practical operation is concerned (Commission Regulation 
(EEC) No 1481/86). Except in respect of Italy in 1991 where prices had to be 
adjusted to align them to standard quality, prices for the lamb weight categories 
included in it have been recorded without difficulty. 
The graph in Annex 1 shows the trend in Member State prices since 1981 and the 
notable convergence which occurred on the introduction of price reporting based on 
standard quality in 1991. 
rj 
Nevertheless, there are still significant differences between prices in the different 
Member States. These differences arise mainly from variations in production and 
consumption patterns, seasonality of supply and degree of self-sufficiency between 
Member States together with qualitative differences in terms of carcase weights, 
conformation and fat levels. In addition, there appears to be some consumer 
preference in "importing" Member States for domestic lamb rather than for lamb 
brought in from another Member State. •o* 
In effect, then, even within standard quality there are some qualitative price 
differences between Member States. Elimination of these qualitative differences 
through the reporting of prices of the same qualities of carcase would increase the 
transparency of prices reported under standard quality. 
3. CARCASE CLASSIFICATION 
3.1 Regulatory aspects 
Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 establishes the provisions concerning the 
Community scale for the classification of sheep carcasses including, in 
particular, the definition of the carcase, the criteria for classification, price 
reporting and inspections. It establishes two classification systems: 
3 
- a system which describes both conformation and degree of fat cover, 
normally referred to as the "SEUROP grid", 
- a system which may apply only to lambs under 13 kg and which describes 
weight, meat colour and fat cover, normally referred to as the "A grid". 
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 461/93 laying down detailed rules for the 
Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals entered 
into force on 6 March 1993 with provision for price reporting based on 
classification with effect from 8 April 1993. 
At the beginning of 1995 the Office for Official Publications of the European 
Communities published brochures issued, in all Community languages except 
Swedish and Finnish, by the Commission explaining the Community scales for 
the classification of sheep and of light lambs. These brochures are available 
from the office : Ref : SEUROP : CM-84-94-694; A grid : CM 84-94-703. 
Since its introduction, both carcase classification and price reporting thereon 
have been voluntary at slaughterhouse level. 
In accordance with the regulations, control visits have been made to all 
Member States applying the grids in the period 1993-1995 with a view 
initially to align grading standards among Member State experts and to 
ensure that these standards were adhered to in the slaughterhouses visited. 
3.2 Implementation at Member State level (See Annex 2 for details for each 
Member State) 
Carcase classification based on the "SEUROP grid" is compulsory in Finland, 
France, Sweden and Germany. In addition, some classification also takes 
place in Denmark, Ireland and, to a much lesser extent, in the UK and Greece 
under this grid. 
Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece all indicated their intention to classify 
carcasses of lambs less than 13 kg weight via the "A grid". To date, however, 
classification under this grid has taken place to a limited extent only in Spain, 
Portugal and Greece. 
Virtually no progress has been made in the implementation of carcase 
classification in Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Italy. 
Several reasons have been put forward for the slow progress in the 
implementation of carcase classification. Among these are: 
- in many Member States, producers sell their lambs live in livestock 
markets or directly off farms to slaughterhouse owners or traders and have 
no further interest in them. The transaction and payment is on live lambs. 
In the UK and Spain up to 80% of trade takes place in this form; 
- where producers do sell directly to slaughterhouses they often sell their 
lambs in lots based on an agreed price per kg carcase weight. Thus, the 
producer's interest, with the exception of certain producer groups, in 
grading may be academic rather than financial; 
T 
- in some Member States, slaughterhouses are municipal rather than 
privately/co-operatively owned so that grading facilities or personnel may 
not be present; 
- slaughterers' and wholesalers sometimes suggest that the Community 
classification system is not relevant in dealings at the wholesale/retail side 
of their businesses where a simple grading into first/second/third quality 
tends to be the norm; 
- disagreement between slaughterhouses and producers as to who carries 
out and who pays for the classification; 
- virtual absence of a. strong slaughter sector in Member States from which 
there is a traditional important live export trade. 
However, it is recalled that many producers, and in particular producer 
groups, are keenly interested in classification, even if occasionally they are 
reluctant to have payment based upon it. They generally consider that 
classification, and the rewards relating to payment on good quality lamb, is a 
useful tool in achieving improvements in the quality of the product sold both 
for the domestic and export market. In that sense, classification, could in the 
longer term lead to better producer prices and quality more in line with 
consumer demand. 
4. PRICES AND QUALITY OF PRICE REPORTING BASED ON CLASSIFICATION 
In Annex 3, price tables for 1995 and 1996 and graphs comparing grid prices and 
prices based on standard quality and including different grid qualities for 1996 are 
set down. However, the quality of the prices reported by Member States where 
classification take place is variable due to several factors. 
Only prices in Sweden and Finland, where classification is compulsory and where 
price reporting according to the grid covers most or all lamb production can be 
considered satisfactory. Indeed, these prices are used in the calculation of the 
Community weekly market price (Regulation (EEC) No 1841/86) which in turn is 
used for premium calculation purposes. 
In France, where classification is compulsory, eight slaughterhouses representing 
10% of national production have agreed to report prices paid according to the grid 
in the framework of a national observatory. 
Elsewhere the representativity of prices and the geographic representativity of the 
slaughterhouses concerned is open to question. 
In Germany, although 14 slaughterhouses take part in price reporting according to 
classification, only 3% of total German production is concerned. 
In Ireland., although 20% of total national throughput is classified, only two 
slaughterhouses are involved. 
In Great Britain, only two slaughterhouses representing less than 1% of national 
slaughterings provide prices. 
Indeed, the representativity of the throughput in these slaughterhouses in 
comparison to the national throughput is open to question. It appears that individual 
producers may sell their better lambs using classification as a payment basis. In 
addition, there is a tendency for producer groups, normally containing the more 
quality oriented producers, to use classification. 
In relation to the "A grid", a similar pattern emerges. In Spain six volunteer 
slaughterhouses provide prices. In Portugal three slaughterhouses provided 
information in 1995 but the number of animals classified was small while in Greece 
just one slaughterhouse provides information. 
5. CONCLUSIONS 
The lack of progress in several Member States in implementing carcase classification 
and price reporting based thereon over the past four years is disappointing. 
Carcase classification is widely developed only in Finland, Sweden and France. 
Elsewhere, with the exception of Germany, it is dependent on the goodwill of 
producers and slaughterers. For different reasons, including a preference for live 
markets and for selling lambs to slaughterers at a fixed price per kg, a majority of 
producers seem to be reluctant to sell lamb via the classification system. 
Slaughterers, too, seem to be reluctant given the relatively few volunteers in several 
Member States. 
This lack of progress raises the question not just as to whether the Council should 
continue to pursue its goal of making use of the Community grid compulsory before 
January 2000 but whether it should pursue any such goal at all. It could be argued 
that, if such a widespread lack of interest in classification exists, then the need for a 
Community classification scheme is itself questionable. 
Nevertheless, the Commission points out that, unlike in most other sectors, prices in 
the sheep sector have a direct bearing on the level of the annual premium and hence 
on the amount of Community expenditure devoted to the sheep sector each year. 
Thus, it is essential that transparency be evident in reported prices. Such 
transparency is greatly increased when qualitative differences are removed from price 
comparisons. 
The Commission believes that the goal set itself by the Council of making use of the 
grid compulsory is not feasible. However, It does not feel that non use of 
classification, at this stage, in some Member States, should lead to its abandonment. 
The positive aspects of classification with regard to price transparency and indeed 
the improvement carcase quality lead the Commission to conclude that classification 
is of value to the sector and that's its use should be developed. The Commission, 
therefore, concludes that the inclusion of prices of classified carcasses within price 
reporting for the establishment of the Community average market price and hence 
premium calculation is desirable. 
With regard to standard quality, it is clear, as indicated, that it has worked well in so 
far as its practical operation is concerned but that important price differences still 
exist between Member States with part of those differences relating to qualitative 
factors. 
6. PROPOSALS 
With regard to carcase classification, the Commission proposes that the Council set 
aside the goal it set itself subject to the conclusions of this report of making the use 
of the Community grid compulsory for all Community slaughterhouses approved for 
intra Community trade, if possible during the 1999 marketing year and in any event 
before 1 January 2000. 
In effect, this means that carcase classification would remain a voluntary tool at 
Community level to be used Where it is seen to have a benefit for the sheep industry. 
Against this background, the Commission proposes that the current definition of 
standard quality be left unchanged in the future. 
However, the Commission does wish to see carcase classification incorporated into 
the price reporting mechanism for standard quality in accordance with progress with 
its implementation in the various Member States and intends within the framework of 
its own competence to pursue this aim. It believes that this step will assist in making 
prices more transparent and in explaining differences between market prices in 
different Member States. 
The Commission intend, therefore, where possible to include in the price reported for 
standard quality for each Member State a percentage reserved for prices established 
according to the Community classification grids. Thus, a relatively small and varying 
percentage between Member States inclusion of prices of classified carcases is 
envisaged. 
In order to achieve this aim, some modification of Commission Regulations (EEC) 
No 1481/86 on price reporting and (EEC) No 461/93 on the detailed rules for 
carcase classification will be required in order to incorporatcprice reporting under 
both classification grids to price reporting for the calculation of Member State and 
Community market prices used principally for the purposes of premium calculation. 
In addition, a technical modification of Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 will be 
required in order to permit the splitting of carcase category C in the A grid for price 
reporting purposes. 
Finally, the Commission signals its intention also of re-examining, within its own 
competence, the operation of the Community inspection group provided for in 
Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 with a view to making it more effective and less 
costly by reducing its size and by concentrating on Member States where reported 
prices include prices for classified animals. 
The Commission intends to finalise its amendments to the above mentioned 
Commission regulations after discussion of this report and the adoption of the 
accompanying draft regulation by the Council. 
The accompanying proposal entrains no financial consequences. 
Only the Union has power to act as regards the measures proposed. These proposals 
extend the duration of an existing regulation and modify to a second regulation. 
Annexes 
Prix de la viande ovine - Prices of sheepmeat - Preise fur Schaf-Fleisch 
650 
00 550 
o o 
3 
O 450 LU 
<D 
i 
a) 350 
> 
3 
O 
250 
150 • B 
+ DK 
BGR 
• Irl 
• I 
+ NL 
OO 
• P 
^ FIN 
• S 
* UK 
- UE 0) 
3 
3 
X 
(D 
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 
ANNEX 2 
IMPLEMENTATION OF SHEEP CLASSIFICATION SCALES BY MEMBER STATES 
Summary of statements made at meetings of working party up to and including 2 
February 1996 together with updated information provided bv Member States 
in December 1996. 
BELGIUM 
- Classification is not compulsory and no slaughterhouses are systematically 
classifying. One slaughterhouse may classify on a very limited basis in 1996. 
- Limited use in promotion campaigns. Some live grading based on carcase 
classification scale. 
- Direct sales by producer to consumer make up 50% of total sales. 
DENMARK 
- Objective : to extend classification in accordance with the scale to all 
slaughterhouses but classification is not compulsory. 
- Producers favourable. 
- Grid operational (27.2 % of national slaughterings). 
- One company paying on classification. Classifiers paid by slaughterhouse. 
- 22.6 % of payments based on classification. 
- Classification done by slaughterhouse staff with control by the Danish 
Classification Board. 
- Presentational difference (removal of kidney and kidney fat) being eliminated by a 
corrective factor. 
GERMANY 
- Classification is compulsory in slaughterhouses with a through put of more than 
50 lambs per week. 
- Only 3% of national production paid on the basis of the grid (60,000 lambs). 
Producers reticent (lack of confidence vis-a-vis the slaughterhouse and clear 
preference for flat-rate payment per head or kilogram of carcase). 
Fourteen volunteer slaughterhouses now involved in classification but 
slaughterhouses unhappy at extra costs involved under national law (65 DM per 
hour for independent graders). Only 23.4 % of their production (3 % of national 
production) is paid on the basis of the grid alone. 
Direct sales by producer to consumer make up 50% of total sales. 
GREECE 
- Classification is not compulsary 
- Little interest in SEUROP grid, some interest in BIS grid. 
- One volunteer slaughterhouse classifies carcases with 2 other slaughterhouses 
now showing some interest (100,000 lambs classified in 1995). 
- Price differences mainly determined by weight. 
- Problems in presentation of carcases. 
- Problems due to small slaughterhouses. 
- Problems due to low level of direct sales by producers to slaughterhouses. 
- Classifiers paid by the State. 
SPAIN 
- Classification is not compulsory and the SEUROP grid is not suitable. 
- Bis grid : six volunteer slaughterhouses which provide prices regularly (good 
geographical distribution) with interest growing. 
- 20 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse. As trade is in live animals the 
live price is the most important. 
FRANCE 
- Carcase classification is mandatory since 1977. 
- Grid operational (85 % of national production). 
- Price collection system by OFIVAL (8 correspondents accounting for 10% of 
national production) on SEUROP grid. 
- Payment on SEUROP grid on 617,000 lamb carcases in 1995 especially to better 
producers (producer groups). 
- 70 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse. 
- Classification done by abattoir staff. 
- The criteria for the former National grid (EUROP) used for price reporting under 
Regulation No 1481/86. 
- Total payments on classification amount to 50% of national production. 
IRELAND 
- Classification not compulsory but this option being considered. 
- Good progress on use of SEUROP grid for grading with 5 different and varying 
price levels based on joined grid positions to be operated. 
- Two slaughterhouses with 20% of national throughput now operating and paying 
on classification (still some payment problems at certain times of year in one of 
them) 440,000 lambs classified in 1995. 
- Classification done by abattoir staff under technical supervision of Department of 
Agr. 
ITALY 
- Classification not compulsory and littleJ enthusiasm by slaughterhouses or 
producers. 
- SEUROP grid not relevant. Bis grid is relevant. 
- Difficulties in working out price paid to producer (lambs are sold in batches). 
- Producers reticent (they fear that the price will be lower). 
- 35 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse. 
- Seasonality problems (peak sales, in October-April). 
- Training courses to be organized for slaughterhouses and producers. 
- Institution of an observatory envisaged for price collection. 
-M 
NETHERLANDS 
- Classification is not compulsory. 
- Little interest in slaughterhouses. One slaughterhouse participating with 1% of 
animals classified and producers paid on classification (4,000 lambs in 1995). 
- Particular interest in export of live animals 558,000 live exports in 1995 (50% of 
total production): one group classifies and purchases live animals in accordance 
with the scale (33,000 heads); cost of classification Dfl. 0.5 per animal. 
- 5 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse (estimate). 
- 90 % of lambs for slaughter or export are sold via a trader on the holding. 
- Bulking of lambs for sale from small producers with sheep as a secondary 
enterprise makes it difficult to pass classification information to small producers. 
- Classification done by indépendant company which charges slaughterhouse 
(207 FL/day plus VAT) or producer (live animals). 
PORTUGAL 
- Classification not compulsory. 
- Producers interested in bis grid. SEUROP grid not relevant. . 
- Three volunteer slaughterhouses but small numbers of animals classified and paid 
according to grid at present (5% of total). 
- Classification done by regional body of Ministry of Agriculture with centralized 
checking. 
- Weight rather than quality determines price level. 
- Large percentage of production sold by producers to traders. 
UNITED KINGDOM 
- Classification is not compulsory. 
- Two volunteer slaughterhouses in Great Britain paying according to grid (out of 
approximately 400) (less than 1% of total slaughterings) (44,000 lambs in 1995). 
- Two volunteer slaughterhouses in Northern Ireland (10% of total slaughterings) 
(148,000 lambs in 1995). 
- Classification done by MLC (paid by slaughterhouse) or by slaughterhouse. 
Control by MAFF rarely. 
u 
- Three problems : 
1. Slaughterhouses not interested in payment on classification (see no 
benefit). 
2. Slaughterhouse owners are not convinced that notifying prices paid to 
producers is in their interest (in particular vis-a-vis their main competitors and 
commercial contacts). 
3. Lack of cooperation between slaughterhouses and the Ministry mainly for 
commercial reasons. 
- 20 %direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse, the rest sold mainly via auction 
markets. .„ 
- Continuing efforts to find volunteer slaughterhouses but little success. 
SWEDEN 
- Classification compulsory, producers paid on classification (2.1001 in 1995). 
- Direct trade from farm to slaughterhouse (producers favourable). 
- Classification done by slaughterhouse staff with control by Board of Agriculture. 
- Classification according to the grid. The Class S is not used. 
- Presentational difference (removal of kidney and kidney fat) being eliminated by a 
corrective factor. 
- The grid is the basis for the carcase trade. Q 
FINLAND 
- Classification is compulsory. 
- Classification done by slaughterhouse staff with control by Ministry. 
- All sheep classified with no distinction between categories (ewes, lambs, rams). 
- Presentational difference (removal of kidney and kidney fat) being eliminated by a 
corrective factor. 
- Classification of over 90% of all animals with prices paid and reported on them. 
1% 
AUSTRIA 
- Classification is not compulsory. 
- Direct marketing of sheep at live markets. 
- Slaughterhouses small with only 14% of total slaughterings (287,000) going 
through the 30 slaughterhouses in Austria. 
- Direct sales between producers and consumers account for; 80 - 90 % of total 
production. 
1+ 
Annexe 3 
Prix selon la grille de classement et selon la qualité type pour 1995 et 1996 
et graphiques comparatifs entre les prix selon la grille et selon la qualité type 
pour 1996. 
Classification grid and standard quality prices for 1995 and 1996 
and comparative graphs between classification grid and standard 
quality prices for 1996. 
Preise 1995 und 1996 gemâss Handelsklassenschema und 
Standardqualitâtspreisen sowie Grafiken zum Vergleich der Preise 
gemass Handelsklassenschema mit den Preisen der 
Standardqualitât fur 1996. 
r* 
isas. 
Prix - Prices - Preise 
E 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
U 1 
2 
3 
4 
S 
R 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
O 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
P 1 
2 
3 
. 4 
5 DK 
402,0 
374,3 
339,2 
342,9 
295,3 
302,8 
247,2 
273.8 
137,4 
128.9 D 
386.9 
391.0 
388.6 
361.6 
338.1 
388,7 
386,1 
381.1 
360,5 
339.0 
371.7 
378.5 
370,3 
349.8 
314.1 
356,4 
364,8 
364.7 
343.0 
320,6 
266,5 
272.0 
245.0 F 
511.7 
484,3 
398,9 
363,1 
355.5 
471.7 
457.3 
368.3 
335.9 
348,5 
443.6 
420,2 
344.6 
325,2 
317.4 
369.8 
386.1 
327.6 
302,4 
294.9 
330,8 
315.6 IRL 
318.1 
333.9 
322.6 
324,6 
304,0 
272,6 
332.4 
317.7 
322.5 
307.3 
303,4 
313.0 
319.0 
302.5 
248.7 
278,4 
290,4 
314.6 
299,8 
277.1 
237,8 Fin 
291,3 
242,2 
250,9 
229,7 
186,3 
207.7 
229,3 
183,4 
145.3 
124,4 
188.6 
198,4 
168.6 
127.4 
134.2 
130.6 
96.6 
76.6 
43.1 S 
289.1 
428.7 
308,9 
402,3 
367,1 
243.9 
175.7 
303.1 
335.4 
307.9 
207.6 
151.8 
229,0 
287,4 
279.6 
182.5 
143.6 
115,5 
146,6 
139.9 GB 
348.9 
275.7 
311.8 
VW4btO 
274,1 
319,9 
296,7 
299.1 
271,8 -
259.9 
290.8 
271.6 eCU/100 kg 
IRLN 
331.6 
304,3 
325,4 
322,8 
305,3 
269.6 
328.0 
326,0 
304.4 
281,9 
270.9 
323.5 
293.7 
Quantités en % • Quantity in % - Mengein% 0 SEUROP 
304,8 364,5 421,5 
0 Qualité typa - Standard quality - Standardqualititt 
270,6 358,6 380,2 314,1 
308,4 186,3 
186,3 289,6 
289,6 295,3 
336,7 318,2 
310,1 
E 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
U 1 
2 
3 
4 
6 
R 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
P 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 DK 
0.0 
0,6 
2,1 
0,0 
0.0 
0,0 
4.9 
19.9 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
15.2 
38,5 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
11.7 
6.9 
0.0 
'•"* 0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 0 
0.3 
0.6 
1.2 
0,2 
0.1. 
0.7 
2.2 
4.7 
0,9 
0.1 
3.4 
10,3 
27.1 
7.5 
1,3 
6.5 
12.1 
16.0 
2.2 
0.1 
2.1 
0.4 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 F 
0.0 
0.1 
0,2 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
4.4 
17.2 
1.3 
0.0 
0.3 
15.6 
39.6 
3.9 
0.1 
0.6 
2,3 
13.2 
0.9 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 IRL . 
0.0 
0,0 
0.2 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
1.5 
17.7 
3.4 
0.2 
0.0 
8.9 
55,1 
3.1 
3,0 
0,0 
3,3 
2.5 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
0.9 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
100.0 FIN 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.3 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
6.2 
3.1 
0.2 
0.0 
2,6 
51,4 
9.5 
0.6 
0.0 
5.4 
17.1 
0.8 
0,0 
0.0 
97.7 S 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,2 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.5 
23,0 
13.0 
0.9 
0.0 
6.1 
43.6 
8.9 
0.4 
0.0 
1.7 
1.4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 GB 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
2.3 
21.4 
7.1 
0.1 
0.0 
6.4 
42.9 
13,0 
0,3 
0.0 
3,7 
2.9 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 
100.0 IRLN 
0,0 
0,0 
1.8 
0.2 
0.0 
0.0 
1.5 
15.9 
8.3 
0,7 
0.0 
6.1 
35.8 
14,0 
1.3 
0.0 
2.1 
11.4 
0.9 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 
/fc 
1995 
Prix - Prices - Preise 
E 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
U 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
R 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
P 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 OK 
325.0 
319.1 
303,0 
300,4 
255,5 
270,0 
229,7 
225,2 
211.7 
126.0 
100,6 D 
349,6 
351.1 
349,3 
334.0 
334.5 
349.1 
650.4 
348.8 
336.1 
316.3 
343.9 
340,6 
341.8 
327,5 
308.9 
338.4 
336.1 
337.1 
323,8 
308,5 
306,8 
312,8 
318,2 
354.0 
343.7 F 
441.4 
431.0 
326.6 
280.6 
351.2 
419.2 
409.7 
313.7 
292.7 
327.3 
388,4 
379.4 
280.8 
281.6 
260,2 
344.3 
350.8 
260.3 
265.1 
277.4 
320.1 
313.6 IRL 
250.9 
277.2 
236.0 
275.6 
280.7 
270.7 
272.1 
255.4 
265.4 
"277,1 
250.9 
269,7 
224,0 
263,3 
261.7 
294.5 
218.4 
242.6 
250.2 S 
226.9 
286.1 
360,0 
339,5 
295.0 
318.8 
283,8 
176,9 
95,4 
237.6 
276.2 
256.6 
° 157.9 
93.2 
137.0 
142.0 
108,2 
15.6 GB 
327.8 
267.2 
263.5 
253,7 
218.7 
267.0 
264,9 
262.5 
224,2 
247.6 
248.1 
288.3 ecu/100 kg 
IRLN 
280.4 
245.1 
273.1 
270.3 
252.7 
216,9 
274.0 
273,0 
252.9 
•225.0 
233.1 
262.8 
240,1 
216,6 
Quantités en % - Quantity in % - Menge in % 
E 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
U 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
R 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
0 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
P 1 
2 
3 
4 
5 DK 
0.0 
0.1 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
3.3 
10,4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
17.1 
38.3 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
18.4 
12.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.3 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 D 
0.2 
0,7 
1.1 
0.2 
0,1 
0.7 
2.0 
4.7 
1.1 
0.4 
3.1 
12.9 
26.3 
8.2 
2.9 
4.1 
8.7 
16.2 
3.8 
0.9 
0.8 
0.8 
0.2 
0,0 
0.0 
100.0 F 
0.0 
0.2 
0.2 
0.0 
0,0 
0.1 
5.2 
15.4 
1.3 
0.0 
0,8 
12,4 
40.5 
4.6 
0.1 
0.6 
1.7-
15.9 
0.9 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
100.0 IRL 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
1.0 
16.5 
1.5 
0.0 
0.0 
5.6 
58.2 
1.1 
6,6 
0,0 
5.4 
3.8 
0.0 
0.0 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 S 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.2 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.5 
23.0 
14.0 
1.0 
0.0 
4.9 
42.2 
11.1 
0.6 
0.0 
1.2 
1.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 GB 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
2,8 
10.5 
10.3 
0.0 
0.0 
9.7 
39.9 
15.9 
0.0 
0.0 
6.0 
4.7 
0.2 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 IRLN 
0,0 
0.0 
1.3 
0.1 
0,0 
0.0 
1.7 
18.6 
8.9 
0.6 
0.0 
6.6 
37.3 
12.0 
0.7 
0.0 
1.8 
10.1 
0,2 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
100.0 0*SEUROP 
256,2 343,2 374,5 
0 Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualltât 
256,4 335,0 328,6 273,2 
257,1 277,2 
277,2 254,4 
284,4 265,9 
258,2 

«> R3 
1995 
520 
t 
480 
440 
400 
o 360 o 
g 320 
280 
240 
200 
160 + Dk 
_. D 
• F 
-A-(ri 
«S 
• GB 
_ IrIN 
_i_i_.1.J_l_Li_ J J-J_L _.1_ t_l_.LJ_t._LJ_l_l_L_Ui_ J_L_L I M 1 I I I 1 I I l_I_.t_J-J._J-
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 46 51 

520 
480 02 
1995 
_ o o 
O 
LU 440 
400 
360 
320 
280 
240 
200 
160 + Dk 
• D 
*F 
• Irl 
• S 
• GB 
• IrIN 
LI I I I l_l-J-J_L 
21 26 31 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 
500 
400 
CO 
__ o o 
D 
O 
LU 
300 
200 Danmark 
1996 
Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitat 
Grille - Grid - Schema 
L_Jl_J_J I—I LLJ... LJ-J .J-J-l—LL—-L_._LJ I I_LJ._LJ_.LJ_L1_LL.LJ. J_ 
6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen .J_.J._Ll...i_l_J_.L_L 
46 51 
500 
400 
(s* CO 
_: o o 
3 
O 
LU 
300 
200 Deutschland 
1996 
Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitat 
Grille - Grid - Schema 
iii i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I I I LL 
11 16 21 26 31 36 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 41 46 51 
500 
400 
£ CO _£ 
O 
O 
D 
O 
LU 
300 h France 
1996 
Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât 
Grille - Grid - Schema 
200 i i i i i i i i i i i i J i i i i i i i i i l_L_LJ_i.J_ 
11 16 21 26 31 36 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen _L_ J_ 1_ L J_ - J-J _ J_L.LL 
41 46 ' 51 
500 
400 
CO 
_ o o 
3 
O 
LU 
300 
200 
6 11 Ireland 
1996 
mm Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât 
— Grille - Grid - Schema 
16 _J-LJ-J-I I I I I I I I I I-I I I I I I I I I J_LLJJ._LLJ._L_L 
21 26 31 36 41 46 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 51 
Finland/Suomi 
1996 
*4> 500 
400 
CO 
_: o o 
3 
O 
LU 
300 
/>r^u.p 
!'""' Sverige 
1996 
w *%». .^r^l Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât 
Grille - Grid - Schema 
\,*^ 
£\ 
200 ±_l_l_i. ±_LJ-i_.-.LlJ.J_LJ—L-L-LJ I I——_l I I I I.. I I I I I I J.J.J..J_J_J„.J_ I_L.I 
16 21 26 31 36 41 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen _L_L_LJ_ 
11 46 51 
Great Britain 
1996 
500 
400 Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitat 
Grille - Grid - Schema 
N ^ CO 
_: 
o o 
3 
O 
LU 
300 
200 I I l_L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 
11 16 21 26 31 36 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 41 46 51 
£ 500 
400 h 
co 
._ o o 
3 
o 
LU 
300 Northern Ireland 
1996 
Qualité type - Standard quality - StandardqualitSt 
Grille - Grid - Schema 
200 i i i i i i i i-J _LJ._LJ_LJ._l_J_J_L_l_J_L 
11 16 21 I I I J—L l I I I I J_l I I I 1-L. 
26 31 36 41 i 
46 51 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 
lu 
o 850 
800 
750 
700 
650 
co _? 600 
o o 
550 
3 
S 500 
450 
400 
350 
300 
250 Elias 
1996 
m Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât 
a-i Grille bis - A Grid - Schema a 
ii i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 
6 11 16 21 26 31 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 36 41 46 51 

Prix - Prices - Preise 
Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitàt 
1° 
UJ O) 
_: 
g 320 
240 
200 
160 
Jan Fév Mars Avril Mai Juin Juil Août Sep Oct Nov Dec • DK 
-é-D 
e Gr 
*7 E 
A FIN 
• F 
• Irl 
• S 
• UK 
• U.E 
1996 
Prix - Prices - Preise 
Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitàt 
435 
Vu O) 
I 335 
D 
O 
UJ 
•o 
5 
I 1 235 o c 
< 
135 
Jan Fév Mars l__ 
Avril _L 520 
480 
440 
400 
360 O 
tu 
3 0) 
320 £ 
0) 
280 | 
3 O 
240 
200 
160 
Mai Juin Juil Août Sep Oct Nov Dec 
1995 • DK 
*D 
B Gr 
* E 
-h FIN 
• F 
• M 
• S 
« UK 
• U.E 
Proposal for a 
COUNCIL REGULATION ŒO 
amending Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 determining the Community standard 
quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 
concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals 
and determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses 
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 ', as last amended by 
Regulation (EC) No 1589/96 2, and in particular Article 4 (2) thereof, 
Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 
Whereas Council Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 of 5 February 1991, determining the 
Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses 3, as last amended by 
Regulation (EC) No 1278/94 4, applies until the end of the 1997 marketing year, pending 
the setting up of Community carcase classification standards; Whereas sufficient progress 
has not been made to permit the replacement of the current Community standard quality 
by the standards in question; whereas the current standard quality should therefore be 
retained; 
Whereas in view of the conclusions of the Commission report on the implementation of 
Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 5, as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1278/94 the 
goal set itself by the Council of making the use of the Community grid compulsory for all 
Community slaughterhouses approved for intra-Community trade, if possible during the 
1999 marketing year and in any event before 1 January 2000 without prejudice to the 
possibility of excluding small slaughterhouses situated in regions where the impact on the 
market price produced by the volume slaughtered in such slaughterhouses is negligible, 
should no longer be pursued. 
Whereas in order to facilitate price reporting, Member States should be authorised to 
subdivide category C in Annex III of Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 into two 
subcategories; 
1 OJ No L 289, 7.10.1989, p. I 
2 OJ No L 206, 16.8.1996, p. 25 
3 OJNoL41, 14.2.1991, p. 1 
4 OJ No L 140, 3.6.1994, p. 5 
5 OJ No L 214, 30.7.1992, p. 1 2</-
VI-D-2 
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION : 
Article 1 
The second subparagraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 shall be deleted. 
Article 2 
Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 is hereby amended as follows : 
1. The following subparagraph is added to Article 3 (3) 
"Member States making use of the classification system provided for in Annex III 
shall be authorized to subdivide category C into two subcategories" 
2. Article 9 is deleted. 
Article 3 
This Regulation shall enter into force on the seventh day following its publication in the 
Official Journal of the European Communities. 
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable to all Member 
States. 
Done at Brussels, 
For the Council 
3S 
FINANCIAL STATEMENT 
DATE: 9.4.1997 
BUDGET HEADING: B1 -2220 APPROPRIATIONS: ECU 1 656.4m 
TITLE: Council Regulation amending Reg. 338/91 determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep 
carcases and Reg. 2137/92 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcases of ovine animals and the 
Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcases 
LEGAL BASIS: Art. 4 of Council Reg. 3013/89 
AIMS 
- To extend the definition of Community standard quality 
- To repeal Art. 9 of Reg. 2137/92 (compulsory application of Community scale) 
- To adapt the use of Annex m to Reg.2137/92 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS (in ECU million) PERIOD OF 12 
MONTHS CURRENT 
FINANCIAL YEAR 
(97) FOLLOWING 
FINANCIAL YEAR 
(98) 
5.0. EXPENDITURE CHARGED TO: 
-EC BUDGET 
(REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) 
- NATIONAL AUTHORITIES 
-OTHSR 
5.1. REVENUE 
- OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC 
- (LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) 
-NATIONAL 
5.0.1. ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 
5.1.1. ESTIMATED REVENUE 1999 2000 2001 2002 
5.2. METHOD OF CALCULATION: 
6.0. CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE RELEVANT 
CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? 
6.3. YES/NO 
6.1. CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF THE CURRENT YES/NO 
BUDGET? 
6.2. IS A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET NECESSARY? YES/NO 
WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS BE NECESSARY? YES/NO 
OBSERVATIONS: 
34 


ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 250 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-239-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-20153-7 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg 
if