31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/67 
endeavour' be replaced by the word 'undertakes'. It 
also proposes that the words 'promoting and financing 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The Committee adopted on 29 February 1990 an 
Opinion I1) on the Commission's proposal that farmers 
participating in the set-aside scheme should under cer­
tain conditions be allowed to produce cereals for non­
food use. 
1.2. The proposal was attached to a report which 
Council had requested on the 'Use of Agricultural Com­
modities in the Non-food Sector' (COM(89) 597 final). 
Given the very short time available, the Committee in 
its Opinion concentrated on the detailed proposals, 
giving notice that it wished to state its view on the 
more general aspects of the report in an additional 
Opinion. The Opinion was to be drawn up in the 
Opinion on increasing the use of agricultural and for­
estry resources in the non-food industrial and energy 
sectors: prospects opened up by research and techno­
logical innovation, which was adopted on 29 March 
1990 (2). 
(!) OJ No C 112, 7. 5. 1990, p. 13. 
(2) OJ No C 124, 21. 5. 1990, p. 13. all necessary publicity' be added at the end of the 
sentence. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
1.3. In the event the above mentioned Opinion went 
far beyond research and technology, covering also many 
of the specific and general aspects raised in the Com­
mission's report. It is therefore only necessary to issue 
a brief additional Opinion, principally conforming the 
conclusions of the earlier Opinion. 
2. General 
2.1. The search for non-food uses of agricultural 
commodities in the Community stems from the inexor­
able increases in yields per hectare and per animal 
which far outweigh the rise in effective demand for 
food. Unless therefore the upward trend in yields is 
stemmed, or other new markets for farm produce can 
be found, progressively less land will be required to 
supply the Community's demand for food and to pro­
vide for normal export needs. The Commission has 
estimated that 11-13 million hectares, or some 10 per 
cent of the Community's total farming area will have 
to be taken out of production to eradicate surplus 
output. This is bound to lead to rural depopulation. Additional Opinion on the use of agricultural commodities in the non-food sector 
(90/C 332/20) 
On 27 February 1990 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the third paragraph 
of Article 20 of its Rules of Procedure, decided to draw up an additional Opinion on the use 
of agricultural commodities in the non-food sector (report from the Commission to the 
Council). 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 6 September 1990. The Rapporteur 
was Mr Strauss. 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 September 1990), the Economic and Social 
Committee adopted the following additional Opinion with no votes against and 3 abstentions. 
No C 332/68 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
As has already been witnessed in parts of the Com­
munity abandonment of farm land is associated with a 
marked deterioration of the countryside. What's more, 
Europe will be unevenly affected by land loss, the 
less fertile areas, which are also amongst the poorest, 
suffering most. The rural housing stock and infrastruc­
ture will be run down and neglected, and even greater 
pressure will be exerted on urban housing and social 
services. The deleterious repercussions from this land 
loss on the environment, the rural economy and ulti­
mately on the social fabric of the Community as a 
whole can therefore not be over-emphasized. 
2.2. In the Committee's view even greater attention 
will in future have to be given as to how agricultural 
land loss can be minimized. A package of measures will 
be required in which the promotion of soundly based 
non-food uses could play an important role. 
2.3. Many of the possible non-food uses are unlikely 
to be economically viable without recourse either to 
additional subsidies or legislation affecting consumer 
choice. The Commission's view that all these issues 
must be covered in a proper cost-benefit analysis is to 
be welcomed, particularly as it is recognized that such 
a study would have to include a weighing up of all the 
environmental factors. 
2.4. International trade developments will also have 
be taken into account. A successful conclusion to the 
Uruguay Round would lower European farm prices in 
real terms. This would raise the competitiveness of EC 
farm produce for European manufacturers and pro­
cessors. Nevertheless, if the loss of Community farm 
land is to be minimized it will be necessary to ensure 
that manufacturers use agricultural raw materials of 
domestic origin. 
The problems of agricultural land loss and protecting 
the environment are world wide. It may therefore 
become necessary to revise the rules of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) governing 
international trade in agricultural produce to ensure 
that adequate support can be extended by all countries 
to crops produced essentially for environmental 
reasons. Indeed, if the Uruguay Round is to succeed it 
is vitally important to take some of the pressure off 
world agricultural markets by giving greater encour­
agement in Europe to agricultural production for non­
food purposes. 
3. Forestry 
3.1. In its Opinion on Community forestry strat­
egy (*) the Committee emphasized that the EC forestry 
programme should be vigorously pursued. There is the 
(!) OJ No C 139/15, 5. 6. 1989. need for publicy funded research and development to 
encourage the growth of a sector which can make a 
major contribution to environmental conservation. Not 
only do forests protect water resources, soil and wildli­
fe, but by absording more carbon dioxide than other 
plants, trees have a major role to play in preventing 
global warming. Replanting is urgently required 
because of depletion of existing forests by disease and 
fire. 
3.2. The Community is highly dependent on imports 
of timber and the world's stock of quality woods is 
shrinking. There is an urgent need for increased pro­
duction of many types of timber for such purposes as 
furniture manufacture. At the same time there is likely 
to be an increasing demand for lower value woods to 
replace plastic materials and for pulping. 
3.3. The labour requirements of established forests 
are only a fraction of those in farming. To protect 
employment in rural areas encouragement should be 
given to small and medium-sized processing enterprises 
in their regions. Provided quality timber can be grown 
on less fertile soil the Community's forestry programme 
should focus on such land rather than on arable land. 
Plantings in the past have concentrated too much on 
conifers where, for example, oak and chestnut could 
be grown. 
4. Fibres and oilseeds 
4.1. It will be necessary to make every effort to 
maintain and extend the cultivation of non-edible crops 
such as silk, flax, hemp and cotton as well as of new 
crops like bitter lupins, kenaf and elephant grass pro­
vided this does not call in question the objectives of the 
reform of the common agricultural policy (CAP). 
4.2. Higher incomes and a greater perception of the 
merits of natural fibres are likely to lead to an increase 
in demand for cotton and linen. There is urgent need 
to develop more modern technology to ensure that 
production and processing costs are cut. In particular 
industrial processing of flax, hemp and kenaf has still 
not been mastered. 
4.3. Certain corps, such as rapeseed, have food and 
non-food uses. The Committee shares the Com­
mission's view that rapeseed with a high erucic acid 
content should continue within the scope of the Com­
mon Market organization to meet industrial demand. 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/69 
5. Biofuels 
5.1. Non-food use of agricultural commodities could 
make its greatest contribution to stabilizing the agricul­
tural economy if a much greater proportion of cereals, 
sugar beet and potatoes could be used in industrial 
manufacturing processes. Here a major potential is in 
the manufacture of bio-ethanol or its derivatives as a 
substitute or additive for non-renewable petroleum. 
However, profitable bio-ethanol production will need 
a change in taxation policy, the development of better 
adapted new varieties of crops as well as improvements 
in fermentation and processing techniques. 
5.2. In Opinion 380/90 it is suggested that bio-etha­
nol might now be used on a Community-wide basis as 
an oxygenate additive in mineral fuel, possibly up to 
5 %. Again, the question of competitivity arises as other 
additives can be derived from petroleum based com­
pounds. 
5.3. Given the vast quantities of farm produce that 
might be used in the manufacture of bio-ethanol the 
Committee reiterates the need to coordinate and finance 
R&D so that its production will become a viable prop­
osition. It is important that the Community should 
soon be in a position to commit itself to giving financial 
encouragement for a substantial volume of agricultural 
production for non-food uses. 
6. Bio-degradable plastics 
6.1. For plastic materials the Community faces 
severe disposal problems. Bio-degradable plastics are 
not the complete answer as they are not sufficiently 
durable for heavy uses. However, particularly for pack­
ing and wrapping materials their use should be encour­
aged through legislation even if their costs of production 
are higher than similar materials of mineral origin. 
Consumers would have to pay slightly more for some 
goods but this would be fully justified on the polluter 
pays principle. Some Member States have already taken 
legislative measures. It is now time for the Community 
as a whole to act. As the Commission is the initiator 
of Community legislation it could itself materially effect 
the market for this non-food use. 
6.2. Further developments in the production of other 
environmentally friendly goods should also be encour­
aged. Detergents of agricultural origin are a major 
example. 
7. Demonstration projects 
7.1. The Committee agrees that additional financial 
encouragement should be given so that new techniques can be tested on a wide enough scale to attract the 
interest of a significant number of farmers. The Com­
mission suggests that collaboration between farmers 
and processors is insufficiently developed. The Com­
mittee believes that the consumer too must play an 
integral part in this collaboration, particularly as to be 
successful the final products must be demand led. Care­
ful arrangements will have to be worked out so that 
processors are assured of guaranteed supplies of raw 
materials and farmers are interested in selling to non­
food outlets. The decision to allow groups of farmers 
to enter jointly into a contract with a processor is 
therefore welcomed. 
8. Commission set-aside proposals 
8.1. Problems could arise from the fact that, at least 
for the foreseeable future, EC institutional prices for 
cereals will be above the price industrial processors 
can pay if their product is to be competitive. The 
Commission plans to make producer non-food cereal 
prices up through area payments. The Committee is 
not opposed to this approach. However, as long as 
these payments are determined by Member States at 
different levels the demonstration projects are likely to 
develop where payments are highest. Uneven payments 
will lead to market distortions. In the Committee's view 
therefore the Commission should set the area payments 
at a uniform rate. Moreover, unless they are set at the 
upper end of the present permissible rate, farmers will 
not be encouraged to contract with processors. 
8.2. The Committee considers that the inclusion of 
production for non-food uses within maximum guaran­
teed quantities will become a major problem as such 
uses develop. 
9. Structural implications 
9.1. The Committee endorses the Commission's 
view that diversification to non-food uses of agricul­
tural products could contribute to the development of 
backward regions (objective 1) and help farmers to 
adapt to CAP changes (objective 5b). The Committee 
believes that action arising from forestry could be par­
ticularly appropriate for backward regions. But the 
processing of crops such as cereals, sugar beet and 
oilseeds into non-food products is likely to take place 
close to where they are produced i.e. mainly in the 
arable regions of the Community. This would also 
encourage farmers themselves, either directly or 
through their cooperatives, to participate in the manu­
facturing process. 
No C 332/70 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 90 
10. The framework for Community initiatives 
10.1. To encourage the development of non-food 
uses of agricultural commodities the Commission lists 
three possible approaches. These are not mutually 
exclusive. The Committee Opinion CES 380/90 has 
already strongly supported the first approach that tech­
nical developments which would make a given agricul­
tural product, or transformation process, more com­
petitive should be speeded up. 
10.2. Under the second approach one would bring 
forward, through pump priming, the commercialization 
of a new product or process which was very close to 
becoming competitive. The Committee believes that 
production aids, possibly in the form of deficiency 
payments, and investment grants for processors would 
be appropriate instruments. This approach would also 
be suitable where likely legislation (degradable plastic, 
restricted use of oil-based fuels in inland waterways) 
would make a process viable. 
10.3. In the third approach one would subsidize pro­
duction or transformation processes even though there 
was no prospect of economic viability in the foreseeable 
future. The Committee believes that, until there have 
been new technical break throughs, one would have to 
resort to this approach if agricultural produce is to be 
transformed into products which would have to com­
pete with mineral oil. 
10.4. The Committee supports the Commission's 
view that permanent aid for processors or producers 
should only be envisaged in specific and justified cases, 
such as in the case of sugar or starches, or where 
strategic or environmental considerations are of over­
riding importance. 
10.5. As regards the use of co-responsability funds 
the Committee has already in its Opinion CES 221/90 
recommended that the existing levies should be phased 
out. Such levies should not be used to finance the non­
food use of agricultural production. 
11. The definition of priorities 
11.1. The Committee shares the view that, in decid­
ing which research and demonstration project should 
be launched, all the issues involved should be covered 
in a proper cost-benefit analysis. This Opinion has 
already stressed the importance which the Committee 
attaches to the environmental implications. 
11.2. The maintenance of farmers individual 
incomes must be an important factor in deciding which 
initiative should be given priority. However, due weight 
will also have to be given to all the other relevant 
factors including the effects on consumers, the environ­
ment and the economy as a whole. 11.3. The Committee shares the Commission's view 
that it is important that instruments used to promote 
the non-food use of farm products should not further 
stimulate structural surplusses. That does not, however, 
mean that non-food farm production should be tied to 
a set-aside scheme. Other production control schemes, 
including supply management and extensification might 
also be appropriate. 
12. Co-ordination and co-operation 
12.1. The Commission is proposing to set up a Com­
mittee to follow all relevant activity in the non-food 
area and to assist the Commission in developing further 
new initiatives. The ESC believes that this Committee 
should include representatives from producers, pro­
cessors, workers and ultimate consumers. 
13. Demonstration projects 
13.1. The Committee approves the list of commodi­
ties for which projects should be mounted. It also 
strongly supports the proposal that projects should be 
assisted by the granting of intervention stocks, when 
available, at advantageous prices. 
14. Participation of farmers 
14.1. The Committee shares the view that it is 
important to develop a direct collaboration between 
producers and processors. It believes that government 
advisory services and farm organizations have a crucial 
part to play in bringing the potential of non-food pro­
duction to the attention of farmers. The participation 
of farmer co-operatives may ensure that growers also 
benefit from the manufacture of the final product. 
15. Conclusion 
15.1. It is of very great importance to encourage the 
development of non-food uses so as to widen the market 
for agricultural produce. This is necessary to maintain 
the income of farmers and to preserve the rural econ­
omy and the environment of the Community. It is 
therefore important that the EC should as soon as 
praticable, commit itself to enlarge its financial encour­
agement to agricultural production for non-food pur­
poses. In the Committee's view encouragement to pro­
duce for the non-food market should be on a uniform 
basis across the entire Community. 
15.2. The Committee strongly supports the state­
ment in the Commission's report that 'Sometimes the 
incentive to use a given raw material or energy source 
... may come from a deliberate choice on the part of 
31. 12. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 332/71 
the public authorities, based on advantages that this 
choice holds for society as a whole. Choice of this type 
can be made, which would favour the use of agricultural 
raw materials, and in particular for environmental 
reasons.' 
Done at Brussels, 19 September 1990. 
1. The Economic and Social Committee fully sup­
ports the Commission's intention to take appropriate 
action in support of the international cooperation plan 
put forward by the Colombian government. 
1.1. The Committee also agrees that exceptional 
measures need to be extended to two other major drug-
producing countries in Latin America: Peru and Bolivia. 
2. Notwithstanding the reservations and suggestions 
which follow, the Committee particularly welcomes: 
2.1. The Commission's decision to increase financial 
support to Colombia by making 60 million ECU avail­
able, over a four-year period, from Articles 931 and 
9490 of the Community budget (!). 
(*) 931: Financial and technical cooperation with Latin American 
developing countries. 
9 490: North-South co-operation programme to combat 
drugs. 15.3. At the same time, unless there are overriding 
environmental or other policy considerations, pro­
motion of non-food usage of agricultural development 
will have to be consistent with the objectives of CAP 
reform. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
2.2. The draft Council Regulation extending to Col­
ombia, Bolivia and Peru the generalized system of pref­
erences (GSP) treatment accorded to the least developed 
countries (LDC). 
2.3. The draft Council Decision applying preferential 
treatment to Community imports of a number of ECSC 
products. 
2.4. The draft Council Resolution concerning the 
coordination of bilateral aid from the Member States 
and aid from the Community under Colombia's special 
cooperation plan. 
3. General comments 
3.1. Colombia's special cooperation plan deserves 
much more substantial support than that proposed by 
the Commission. Bolivia and Peru should also receive Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation extending to Bolivia, Colombia and Peru 
the generalized tariff preferences applied to certain products originating in the least-developed 
countries (LDC) and amending Regulation (EEC) Nos 3896/89, 3897/89 and 3898/89 of 18 
December 1989 
(90/C 332/21) 
On 5 July 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee on an 
optional basis on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for External Relations, Trade and Development Policy, which was responsible 
for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, drew up its Opinion on 3 September 
1990. (Rapporteur: Mr Cavazzuti). 
At its 279th plenary session (meeting of 19 Sepember 1990) the Economic and Social 
Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion.