No C 83/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 30. 3. 87 
fundamental need for much greater access for SMEs to long 
term patient money with preferential rates of interest for 
these businesses in order to inspire Confidence and certainty 
about the cash flow cost of the investment. It is vital to get 
away from the concept promoted by venture capitalists that 
it must be possible for an investment to be realized within 
four to seven years at a handsome gain if a business is to be 
regarded as successful and worth investment. Without a 
long term view of investment it will not be possible for 
SMEs to take full advantage in practice of innovation and 
technology transfer, which will be the basis of any 
significant recovery of the economies of the Community. 
The Commission should therefore consider the need for 
low cost long term loans (up to 160 000 ECUs) to 
encourage investment by SMEs in the latest technology — 
either by loans through the European Investment Bank 
raised in international capital markets at low rates of 
interest, or through NIC 4 moneys with an interest subsidy, 
channelled through to banks at Member State level. 
2.2.7. The Committee urges the Council to ensure that 
the Commission propose an effective independent evalu­
ation technique which is applicable to all existing and 
proposed areas of expenditure in the SPRINT programme. 
The Commission should be asked to use these techniques to 
determine the value to the Community obtained from the 
expenditure. 2.2.7.1. The Committee feels that such techniques must 
be established concurrently with the current programmes 
so that they may be built into the wider SPRINT II 
successor programme envisaged by the Commission. 
2.2.7.2. As an example the Committee suggests that 
known awareness evaluation techniques be applied to a 
cross section of Member State SMEs to establish the 
effectiveness of actions to disseminate information taken 
under this programme. 
2.2.7.3. In this respect the Committee welcomes the 
Commission proposal to carry out in each Member State an 
interim assessment of the actions taken so far under the 
Plan. 
2.2.8. The Committee commends the initiative of the 
Commission in preparing leaflets on the individual 
programmes of SPRINT in three languages together with a 
point of contact in the Commission for further inform­
ation. 
2.2.8.1. The Committee would like to see this mecha­
nism extended so that the Commission leaflets are 
distributed by appropriate organizations in each Member 
State and thereby reach the audience for which they are 
designed. 
Done at Brussels, 28 January 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting the European Community Action 
Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (Erasmus) 
(87/C 83/05) 
On 22 December 1986 the Council, acting in accordance with Article 198 of the Treaty setting up 
the European Economic Community, asked the Economic and Social Committee for an Opinion on 
the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Social, Family, Educational and Cultural Affairs was instructed to prepare the 
Committee's work on the matter. The Section adopted its Opinion on 15 January 1987 after 
hearing a report by Mr Pearson. 
30. 3. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 83/7 
At its 243rd Plenary Session (meeting of 28 January 1987) the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously: 
The Committee reaffirms its support, in precisely the same terms as set out in the previous 
Opinion (*), for the Erasmus proposal on promoting student mobility throughout the European 
Community, recognizing the flexible nature and effectiveness of the programme which directs the 
major proportion of funds to non-administrative activities. 
The Committee regrets the delay that arose in Council on this enlightened initiative and strongly 
urges the full adoption of the programme in its original form: budgetary coverage and levels of 
financial support to those students involved need to be implemented as quickly as possible in 
accordance with the general endorsement of the proposal expressed at the European Summit in 
London on 5/6 December 1986. 
(!) OJ No C 189, 28. 7. 1986. 
Done at Brussels, 28 January 1987. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) amending Regulation (EEC) No­
on the Common Organization of the Market in Wine 
(87/C 83/06) 
On 10 November 1986 the Council decided, in accordance with Articles 43 and 198 of the Treaty 
establishing the European Economic Community, to ask the Economic and Social Committee for 
an Opinion on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture, which was responsible for preparatory work, issued its Opinion on 8 
January 1987, in the light of an oral report from Mr Yverneau. 
At its 243rd Plenary Session, held on 28 and 29 January 1987 (meeting of 28 January) the Economic 
and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion with one vote against: 
1. Preliminary comments 
1.1. The Economic and Social Committee supports the 
Commission's proposal. 
1.2. The Committee notes that the main aim is to reduce 
the amount of wine being distilled by providing another 
outlet for grape must. 
1.3. The Committee is well aware that the wine 
distillation measures decided under the wine regulations 
are a costly way of absorbing wine surpluses and create in 
their turn alcohol surpluses; it is therefore in favour of 
seeking new uses for vine products. 
1.4. Such a search forms part of the measures laid down 
by Regulation (EEC) No 861/83, which provides finance for research having the general aim of finding more outlets 
for surpluses. 
1.5. But the Committee wonders whether the 'animal 
feed' outlet is really important, bearing in mind that one is 
still at the experimental stage. It would like experiments to 
continue concerning: 
— practical methods and techniques for using concen­
trated must in feed for different animals; 
— the nutritive qualities of concentrated must compared 
with other traditional ingredients in feed; 
— the comparative cost prices of different animal feeds; 
and 
— whether concentrated must is toxic or not when used for 
long periods.