ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES 
DE LA COMMISSION 
 
 
 
COLLECTION RELIEE DES 
DOCUMENTS "COM" 
 
 
 
 
COM (84) 034 
 
 
 
Vol. 1984/0 010 
  
 
Disclaimer  
Conformém ent au règlement (CEE, Euratom) n° 354/83 du Conseil du 1er février 1983 
concernant l'ouverture au public des archives historiques de la Communauté économique 
européenne et de la Communauté européenne de l'énergie atomique (JO L 43 du 15.2.1983, 
p. 1), tel que modifié par le règlement (CE, Euratom) n° 1700/2003 du 22 septembre 2003 
(JO L 243 du 27.9.2003, p. 1), ce dossier est ouvert au public. Le cas échéant, les documents 
classifiés présents dans ce dossier ont été déclassifiés conformément à l'article 5 dudit 
règlem ent. 
In accordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 354/83 of 1 February 1983 
concerning the openi ng to the public of the historical archives of the European Econom ic 
Community and the European Atomic Energy Communit y (OJ L 43, 15.2.1983, p. 1), as 
amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1700/2003 of 22 September 2003 (OJ L 243, 
27.9.2003, p. 1), this f ile is open to the public. Where necessary, classified documents in this 
file have been declassified in conformity with Article 5 of the aforementioned regulation.  
In Übereinstimmung mit der Verordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr. 354/83 des Rates vom  1. 
Februar 198 3 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen  
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft und der Europäischen Atomgem einschaft (ABI. L 43 vom  15.2.1983,  
S. 1), geändert durch die Verordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr. 1700/2003 vom 22. Septem ber 2003  
(ABI. L 243 vom 27 .9.2003, S. 1), ist diese Datei der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit  
erforderlich, wurden die Verschlusssachen in dieser Datei in Übereinstimmung mit Artikel 5  
der genannten Verordnung freigegeben.  
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(84) 34 final 
Brussels, 31 January 1984
COMMISSION-  REPORT TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
on the problems of intervention in fruit and vegetables
COM (84) 34 final

Commission Report  
to the European Parliament
on the problems of intervention in fruit and vegetables
At the European Parliament’s plenary session in April 1982, after the debate on the  
motion for a resolution on the Tenth Financial Report on the European Agricultural  
Guidance and Guarantee Fund - year 1980 - Guarantee Section - and food aid  
financing, tabled by the Committee on Budgetary Control on the basis of a report by  
Mr Wettig, the Commission was requested
- to report more clearly and in greater detail on expenditure in the fruit and  
vegetable sector as regards the various ways in which such produce was withdrawn  
from the market in the period under review;
- to give a comprehensive account of financial management in the fruit and  
vegetable sector and to indicate in particular whether the withdrawal of produce  
from the market entailed practices which are at variance with Community  
regulations, what difficulties exist in distributing and processing the produce  
withdrawn from the market and how the distribution system can be improved, what  
proposals it has submitted to date to tackle structural problems and with what  
success, and the cost-effectiveness of distillation to produce alcohol.
The Commission herewith transmits the attached report to Parliament in the  
confidence that it will answer the questions raised.
Drafting completed: 15 November 1983.

1
Introductory remarks
Before entering into a detailed discussion, the Commission would like to  
recapitulate a number of salient points which it believes provide a justification  
for the intervention system in the fruit and vegetable sector and for the financing  
of this policy by the Community.
It is worth recalling first of all that prior to 1962, when the cornerstone was  
laid for the gradual introduction of a common organization of the market in fruit  
and vegetables in the guise of Council Regulation Mo 23 of 4 April 1962 (1), a  
majority of the Member States operated restrictive policies on imports, among the  
instruments of which one ought to mention high tariffs, quotas of varying degrees  
of stringency, minimum-price rules, and dates between which certain imports were  
completely suspended.
With the gradual establishment of a common market all these restrictions in trade  
between the Member States were abolished by stages, with the result that some  
growers who had been sheltered by these barriers were faced not only with a larger  
market for their products but, more importantly, with much keener competition from  
producers elsewhere in the Community who may have enjoyed better climatic  
conditions or other advantages in the social, taxation or commercial fields.
The liberalization of intra-Community trade was followed by a liberalization of  
imports from non-Community countries as national arrangements were replaced. From  
1 March 1970, the imposition of charges equivalent to customs duties and all  
quantity restrictions or measures of equivalent effect were prohibited (2).
The only remaining restraints on completely free trade with other countries are
- the system of reference prices, confined to a small number of products and  
designed to prevent imports from non-Community countries at abnormally low  
prices;
- the continuation of some national restrictions on a few sensitive products at  
certain times of year;
- a safeguard option which can only be invoked in special circumstances when the  
market is exposed to disruption or the threat of disruption;
- and finally, of course, the levying of duty under the Common Customs Tariff.
(1> OJ No 30, 20.4.1962, p. 965 (English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 97>.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) Mo 2513/69 of 9 December 1969, OJ Mo L 318,
18,12,1969, p. 6 (Not translated for the English Special Edition).

-  2 -
This last item is worth looking at a little more closely.
The levels of duty in the CCT were originally set for most products at the  
arithmetic mean of the duties previously applied in the four customs territories  
making up the Community, thus reducing the protection for producers in those areas  
where duty had been higher than the average; these levels have been reduced over  
the years for some products in the various tariff rounds under the GATT, and a  
large number of concessions have been granted to countries round the Mediterranean, 
to countries part to the Lomé Convention and as part of the Scheme of Generalized  
Preferences. This has eroded the protection afforded by customs duties, even for  
products playing a major role in Community production such as citrus fruit, apples  
and pears.
This policy of liberalizing the Community’s internal and, above all, external trade  
has contributed in no small measure to expanding trade as a whole, but it could not  
have been carried out if there had been no system of interventions to ensure that  
Community farmers obtained a certain level of income from their most important  
products.
In his report, Mr Wettig recognizes that the quantity of fruit and vegetables  
involved in intervention measures is relatively small in relation to total  
Community output and even if, as he points out, "the amount spent on withdrawal  
measures in 1980 — 103 million ECU — is nevertheless sufficient reason not to  
underestimate the problem”,  it should also be noted that this figure is only about  
1% of all Guarantee Section expenditure.
It is also worth recalling that production of fruit and vegetables represents  
11-12% of the value of final agricultural output.

- 3 -
I.  INTERVENTION SPENDING IN THE FRUIT AND VEGETABLE SECTOR  
The amounts spent on withdrawals and free distribution are given in the table below.
:  Budget year Declared expenditure :
:  1976 165.905 million u.a. :
:  1977 104.506 million u.a. :
:  1978 23.702 million EUA :
:  1979 84.239 million EUA :
:  1980 91.335 million ECU :
:  1981 106.034 million ECU :
:  1982 192.079 million ECU :
:  1983 188.000 million ECU<1):
<1) 1983 budget
The budget breakdown before 1976 was not sufficiently detailed for it to be  
possible here to give separate figures for withdrawals.
As will be apparent, spending varies considerably from one year to the next, but  
the figures as a whole do not reveal the trend of steady and excessive growth in  
expenditure that might be feared, especially considering that Greece, a major  
producer of fruit and vegetables, joined the Community in 1981. This is reassuring  
when one considers that basic and buying-in prices - and hence intervention prices  
- have increased continuously, as the average percentages set out below show:
:  Marketing  
:  yearAverage increase over the previous:  
marketing year in % :
:  1975/76 11 :
:  1976/77 8 :
:  1977/78 4.50
:  1978/79 2 :
:  1979/80 1.50 :
:  1980/81 6 :
:  1981/82 11 :
:  1982/83 12
:  1983/84 5.5 :
The overall increase between 1975/76 and 1982/1983 has been 54%.

4
II. HISTORY OF THE INTBHVENTTOW srsTBM
The first rules relating to the intervention system were introduced by Council  
Regulation No 159/66/EEC of 25 October 1966 laying down additional provisions for  
the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables <1).
Under this Regulation, producers* organizations and associations of such  
organizations were authorized to determine withdrawal prices below which they would  
not sell the produce of their members; for a number of products for which the  
Council was to fix basic and buying-in prices prior to each marketing year (2) they  
were to pay the producers compensation for produce not sold.
Where the price of one of these products on a representative producer market  
remained for three successive days below the buying-in price plus 15% of the basic  
price, the Commission was to declare a state of crisis; if the price went below  
the buying-in price, the Commission was to declare a state of serious crisis in the  
market concerned.
In the first case, the Member States were authorized to grant financial  
compensation to the producer's organizations responsible for intervention, based on  
the quantities withdrawn and the buying-in price (multiplied where relevant by an  
adjustment factor if the product differed from the standard product used for fixing  
the basic price) plus an amount equal to 5% of the basic price. However, this  
compensation was not to exceed 90% of the expenditure incurred by the producers'  
organization.
In the second case, the Member States were authorized to buy Community products  
offered to them (provided they had not been the subject of intervention by a  
producers' organization); the price to be paid was the buying-in price, where  
relevant multiplied by an adjustment factor but not increased by 5% of the basic  
price. This rule discriminated in favour of producers* organizations as against  
individual producers.
(1) 0J No 192, 27.10.1966, p. 3286 (Not translated for the English Special Edition)
(2) Cauliflowers, tomatoes, sweet oranges, mandarins, lemons, table grapes, apples,  
pears and peaches.

- 5 -
The Member States were also able to fix the level of the buying-in price applying  
to their own market. This could be different from the price decided by the Council  
but was not to be more than 70% of the basic price.
The financial compensation paid by the Member States and any buying-in by them were  
restricted to the period during which the state of crisis or serious crisis  
continued.
It very soon became clear that the choice left to Member States as to whether or  
not to grant compensation to producers* organizations for produce they withdrew  
from the market, to buy into intervention or to fix the level of the buying-in  
price on their own market could make intervention less effective and distort  
competition in the marketplace.
In addition to this, the process of declaring states of crisis denied the  
producers’  organizations the flexibility they needed in order to respond rapidly to  
local market conditions and prevent prolonged collapses in prices.
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2515/69 of 9 December 1969 (1), amending Regulation No  
159/66/EEC, was the answer to these two problems. Accordingly, from 1 May 1970 in  
the case of cauliflowers and 1 June 1970 in the case of the other products for  
which the Council fixed basic and buying-in prices,
- producers' organizations were allowed to intervene as they saw fit in response  
to local circumstances;
- Member States were required to pay them financial compensation provided that the  
price at which withdrawals took place did not exceed a level based on the basic  
and buying-in prices fixed by the Council <2);
- Member States were required to buy into intervention any products of Community  
origin offered to them when the Commission declared a state of serious crisis,  
though exemptions were possible.
(1) OJ No L 318, 18.12.1969, p. 10 (Not translated for the English Special Edition).
(2) (Buying-in price x adjustment factor) + 10% of basic price.

-  6 -
These rules were incorporated into Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72, which consolidated  
the existing Regulations governing the common organization of the market in fruit  
and vegetables (1), and they are still in force today.
(1) Council Regulation No 23 of 4 April 1962 on the progressive establishment of a  
common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables.
OJ No 30, 20.4.1962, p. 965 (English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 97).
Council Regulation No 158/66/EEC of 25 October 1966 applying common quality 
standards to fruit and vegetables marketed within the Community.
OJ No L 192, 27.10.1966, p. 3282 (Not translated for the English Special  
Edition).
Council Regulation 159/66/EEC of 25 October 1966 laying down additional  
provisions for the common organization of the market in fruit and vegetables.
OJ No L 192, 27.10.1966, p. 3282 (Not translated for the English Special  
Edition).
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2513/69 of 9 December 1966 on the coordination and  
unification of the rules relating to imports of fruit and vegetables applied by  
each Member State with regard to third countries.
OJ No L 318, 18.12.1969, p. 6 (Not translated for the English Special Edition).

7
III. IRREGULARITIES UNDER THE INTERVENTION SYSTEM
To date, the Commission has recorded only a small number of irregularities under  
the intervention system.
One case arose in the Netherlands in which apples withdrawn from the market were  
passed to the processing industry for the manufacture of apple purde.  This fraud  
involved 9 798 tonnes but will probably have no effect on the EAGGF since payment  
was withheld.
A similar case occurred in Italy during the 1981/82 marketing year, when oranges  
and lemons were passed to the processing industry after false withdrawal  
certificates had been issued for them. Three firms in the Palermo region were  
concerned.
The paying agency in Italy has held up payment orders totalling LIT 297 986 775  
pending the result of court proceedings.

-  8 -
IV•  DIFFICULTIES IN THE WAY OF DISTRIBUTING OR PROCESSING PRODUCTS
WITHDRAWN FROM THE MARKET
The difficulties encountered in disposing of produce withdrawn from the market in  
one of the ways permitted by the Community rules (1) arise ultimately from two  
factors which it is not easy to influence:
- It is normally impossible to predict the exact timing of intervention.
— Host of the products concerned are highly perishable. ,
The result of this is to make planning practically impossible, both in terms of the  
time and place of disposal and in terms of spreading disposal operations over time.
Disposal also has to be carried out outside traditional distribution channels and  
without having a negative impact on the normal process of marketing the products  
involved.
In this connection, there are two major constraints on the free distribution of  
fresh produce.
The first of these is that recipients close to the point where intervention takes  
place quickly find themselves unable to take more free produce, especially since in  
most cases these quantities are additional to what they normally buy. A situation  
of this kind arose recently with the 1982 apple crop. In view of the forecast  
surplus and the withdrawals already carried out at the beginning of the marketing  
year, the French Government made major efforts to organize free distribution as  
provided for in the Community rules, but the potential recipients were slow to  
respond.
The second constraint concerns recipients at some distance from the point of  
intervention. Although transport costs are paid by the Community on a
<1) Article 21 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of 18 May 1972 on the common  
organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables.

- 9 -
flat-rate basis related to the distance involved (1), the problem is to find  
adequate transport since the vehicles available are in many cases barely enough to  
meet normal distribution requirements.
With the idea of dealing with these difficulties and to avoid wasting the products  
altogether, the Commission has on several occasions proposed to the Council that  
free distribution should be extended beyond the original circle of recipients  
(charities, charitable institutions and people on low incomes) (2).
Schoolchildren were added to the list in 1971 (3), and penal institutions, holiday  
camps for children, and homes and hospitals for the aged designated by the Member  
States were added in 1980 (4).
It is also worth mentioning the resolution which the Council adopted on 26 November  
1982, under which the Member States were authorized to release apples withdrawn  
from the market in 1982/83 to charity organizations for shipping to Poland and  
distribution free of charge to the population there (5).
This was in response to the motion for a resolution put to Parliament on 3 November  
1982 by Mr Schmid, Mr Walter, Mr von der Vring and Mr Van Minnen (1-819/82, PE  
81.423).
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1365/82 of 2 June 1982 laying down standard  
rates for the financing, by the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee  
Fund, Guarantee Section, of expenditure resulting from the free distribution of  
products withdrawn from the market by producers’  organizations, or bought in by  
the intervention agencies, in the fruit and vegetable sector.
This Regulation raised the flat-rate amounts eligible for reimbursement by the  
EAGGF by 20-59% from 1 January 1982, the percentage varying according to the  
distance involved.
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2515/69 of 9 December 1969 (Not translated for the  
English Special Edition).
(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 967/71 of 10 May 1971 (Not translated for the  
English Special Edition).
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1315/80 of 13 May 1980.
(5) Confirmed in Council Regulation (EEC) No 552/83 of 8 March 1983.
0J No L 65, 11.3,1983, p. 1.

xo
The use made of this new possibility, particularly in Germany and Denmark -  
although the quantities involved are not yet known - was on the whole limited  
because of the costs of transport which participating charities had to pay  
themselves. During the same period, small quantities of apples from Poland were on  
sale on some Community markets (Germany and the United Kingdom) at prices lower in  
some cases than the reference price: this would have led to the introduction of
countervailing charges if it had continued.
Since 1969, the processing industry has been allowed to process products withdrawn  
from the market for free distribution in manufactured form, but this, too, has been  
limited by the unpredictable pattern of intervention which the industry finds  
difficult to accommodate in its forward planning of production schedules. The  
problem is less acute for the distilling industry since the freshness of the  
product is of less significance. This is probably why distillation is a relatively  
popular choice, especially in Italy, in the case of those products for which  
distillation is allowed (apples, pears and peaches).
It should be noted that the production of fruit and vegetable juice from products  
withdrawn from the market, with a view to subsequent free distribution, generates  
considerable extra expenditure for the EAGGF. In one recent case this appeared  
excessive both in terms of the volume processed and the unit cost of processing  
(see Annex I).
The Commission’s first response to this has been to require Member States to  
exclude from contracts for the processing of fruit and vegetables withdrawn from  
the market into juice all tenderers whose offer prices are higher than a certain  
level in relation to the intervention price (1), and to order that the same levels  
must not be exceeded in inviting fixed-price tenders for the processing into juice  
of fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market (2).
(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1936/83 of 13 July 1983 amending Regulation  
(EEC) No 1560/70 laying down conditions for awarding contracts for obtaining  
juice by processing fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market (OJ No L  
191, 15.7.1983, p. 42 >.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1937/83 of 13 July 1983 amending Regulation  
(EEC) No 55/72 laying down conditions for inviting tenders for the disposal of
fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market (OJ No L 191, 15.7.1983, p. 43).

11
The Commission's second-line response has been to propose to the Council, in the  
context of rationalizing the CAP, that the provision in Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72  
allowing processing of products withdrawn from the market with a view to free  
distribution of the manufactured product (fifth indent of Article 21(1)(a)) should  
be dropped.
In this connection, one should also mention that the Advisory Committee on Fresh  
and Processed Fruit and Vegetables was consulted on 1 July 1981 about selling some  
of the apples withdrawn from the market to the processing industry, but the  
Committee voted unanimously against an operation of this kind on the grounds that  
normal rejects from grading were usually sufficient to meet the industry's needs,  
that there was a risk of fraud and speculation which would divert the industry from  
its customary sources and that it would discriminate against processors situated 
far from centres of intervention.
Some operations actually carried out in Germany to process apples into juice for  
free distribution have also met with opposition from the industry itself, which  
felt that these operations were competing with ordinary sales of apple juice. As a  
result, the German authorities have decided not to dispose of intervention products  
in this way again in future.
It has also been suggested that the processing industry should be allowed to  
manufacture puree and jam from fruit withdrawn from the market for free  
distribution to the same circle of recipients as fresh fruit, but this idea met  
strong opposition from industry, cooperatives and the trade at the Advisory  
Committee meeting on 25 February 1983. They argued that such products would  
compete with the regular output of the fruit and vegetable industry, and even with  
biscuits, flans, youghurt, etc. if they were to replace the desserts which the  
recipient organizations normally serve to their residents.
Another suggestion which has been made several times, namely to process fruit and  
vegetables withdrawn from the market into juice, jams or other products for supply  
as food aid to countries outside the Community, is certainly commendable

-  12  -
as an idea. However, this would give rise to considerable expenditure in addition  
to the cost of intervention itself (processing, storage, transport over long  
distances, etc.). There is also the danger that these products would replace  
traditional trade. There are, in any case, other products which are more urgently  
needed in deficit regions.

- 13 -
V. STRUCTURAL MEASURES
1. Over the years, the Council has adopted two proposals from the Commission relating to  
the reorganization of Community fruit production. These two mesures were designed to  
stimulate and finance a policy of grubbing up fruit trees where the fruit in question  
was in structural surplus. The first Regulation in 1969 covered apples, pears and  
peaches <1) while the other in 1976 covered only certain varieties of apples and  
pears (2). The grubbing up operations carried out under Regulation (EEC) No 2517/69  
affected some 89 OOO hectares in the original Community of Six. A breakdown between  
countries is given below.
in u.a.
Apples :  Pears :  Peaches
as % of total area  
affectedTotal area  
affected  
in haEligible  
expenditure  
by the
Member StatesEAGGF :  
reimburse- :  
ment :
:  GERMANY 91,6 7,9 0,5 26.094,8890 7.203.260 3.601.630 :
:  BELGIUM 76,0 20,0 4,0 9.007,1070 20.872.670 10.436.335 :
:  FRANCE 71,6 16,8 11,5 22.459,0800 17.966.938 8.983.469 :
:  ITALY 31,5 52.1 16,4 19.388,8845 15.527.146 7.763.573 :
:  LUXEMBOURG 99,1 0,9 - 227,7200 182.174 91.087 :
:  NETHERLANDS 79,2 20,8 0,0 11.404,6761 9.122.897 4.561.448 :
:  TOTAL 69,1 23,2 7,7 88.582,3565 70.875.085 35.437.542 :
Sources: 6th and 11th EAGGF report, Guidance section, and Community departments
concerned.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2517/69 of 9 December 1969 laying down certain measures  
for reorganizing Community fruit production (OJ No L 318, 18.12.1969, p. 15).
(2) Council Regulation ( E E C )  No 794/76 of 6 April 1976 laying down further measures for  
reorganizing Community fruit production (OJ No L 93, 8.4.1976, p. 3).

14
The corresponding figures under Regulation (EEC) No 794/76, including payments  
made up to 31 December 1981, are Bet out in the table below.
Apples Pears
Total area 
affected  
in haEligible  
expenditure  
by the 
Member 
States (*)EAGGF
reimbursement
(*>as % of total area  
affected
BELGIUM 100 _ 379,93 517.179 258.590
DENMARK 100 - 42,32 52.486 26.243
GERMANY 100 - 431,26 655.963 327.981
FRANCE 91,1 8,9 5.655,56 6.082.922 3.041.461
ITALY 42,2 57,8 4.441,09 3.577.219 1.788.609
LUXEMBOURG 100 - 10,95 14.704 7.352
NETHERLANDS 100 - 938,88 1.209.494 604.747
TOTAL 73,6 26,4 11.899,99 12.109.967 6.054.983
(*) Up to 31 December 1977 in u.a., from 1 January 1978 to 31 December 1980 in EUA,  
from 1 January 1981 in ECU.
Sources: 11th EAGGF Report, Guidance Section, and Community departments concerned.
The main effect of these two measures was to remove a number of old plantations,  
many of them badly managed or barely managed at all, which had the major  
disadvantage of producing sporadic large crops and causing major, unpredictable  
fluctuations in overall output, with the result that they seriously disturbed  
the market.
2. The Council also adopted special measures for the citrus fruit sector in 1969 as  
a result of a Commission proposal <1).
Here the aim was not to reduce production potential, since the Community has a  
large deficit in citrus fruit, but to replant existing plantations with  
varieties more in demand from Community consumers and, in addition, to overhaul  
the entire marketing system in order to facilitate the sale of Community output.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2511/69 of 9 December 1969 laying down special
measures for improving the production and marketing of Community citrus fruit  
(OJ No L 318, 18.12.1969, p. 1).

- 15 -
A provisional summary of the schemes carried out under Regulation (EEC) No  
2511/69, on the basis af applications and EAGGF reimbursements up to 31 December  
1981, is set out below.
ITALY
:  Type of scheme Hectares
convertedEligible  
expenditure by  
Member State  
(*)EAGGF :  
reimbursements :  
(50%) :  
(*> :
:  — Conversion (Art. 1(1)(a))
:  - Aid to nurseries (Art. l(l)<a))  
:  - Aid to improve marketing  
:  (Art. 1(1)(b>)
:  - Additional aid (Art. 1(2))2.315,37 1.545.307
5.837.060
39.407.456
3.011.310772.654 :  
2.918.530
19.703.728 :  
1.505.655
:  TOTAL 2.315,37 49.801.133 24.900.567 :
FRANCE
:  Type of scheme  
<Hectares
convertedEligible  
expenditure by  
Member State  
<*)EAGGF :  
reimbursements :  
<50%) :  
(*) :
:  — Conversion (Art. 1(1)(a)) 124,62
+
5.763
individual
trees613.624 306.812 :
(*) Up to 31 December 1977 in u.a., from 1 January 1978 to 31 December 1980 in EUA,  
from 1 January 1981 in ECU.
Sources: 11th EAGGF Report, Guidance Section, and Community departments concerned.
These results are relatively modest compared with the original aims.  The main  
reasons for this were the insufficient incentive provided by the levels of  
additional aid and aid for conversion and the restrictions imposed on  
qualification for additional aid. This led the Commission to propose an  
amendment to Regulation (EEC) No 2511/69, which was adopted by the Council on 18  
May 1982 (1).
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1204/82 (OJ No L 140, 20.5.1982, p. 38).

- 16 -
The main changes are:
— medium-term schemes extended to lemons;
— more flexible conditions of eligibility for additional aid, which is designed  
to make up the income lost by growers who undertake replanting;
— an increase in additional aid to bring it up to the actual level of income  
lost during replanting;
— the inclusion of structural measures designed to enable the citrus fruit  
sector to adapt its production to changes in market requirements;
— restriction of medium-term schemes to those Member States where there are  
major problems associated with the pattern of varieties currently in  
production.
3. To the above one must add the Community assistance granted to projects for  
improving agricultural structures under Regulation No 17/64/EEC (since lapsed)  
and Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 (1). Total aid in 1964-72 throughout the fruit  
and vegetable sector was 68 831 000 u.a. (420 projects); in 1973-79 it was
68 625 000 u.a./EUA (265 projects) (2).
4. In the context of structural measures, mention should also be made of the aid  
towards the formation of producers' organizations in the fruit and vegetable  
sector granted under Article 14 of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72.
(1) Council Regulation No 17/64/EEC of 5 February 1964 on the conditions for  
granting aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.  
Council Regulation (EEC) No 355/77 of 15 February 1977 on common measures to  
improve the conditions under which agricultural products are processed and  
marketed.
(2) From 1964 to 1977 in u.a.; 1978-79 in EUA.

- 17 -
The EAGGF's share in this aid to date totals IS 087 167 ECU, in support of 383 
producers* groups. These are divided among the Member States as shown in the 
table below.
!  : :  Expend iture by MemberState
Groups Reimbursed by :
:  MEMBER STATE : formed inECU % oftotal EAGGF :
<1) : (in ECU) :
:  BELGIUM 3:  1.683.080 : 4,8 813.  300
:  DENMARK : 21 :  1.  729.  778 : 4.9 864.889 :
:  GERMANY 78 :  6.  533.  714 : 18,6 3.266.857 :
:  FRANCE :182 :  1.804.688 : 5.1 742.833 :
:  IRELAND 3 96.303 : 0,3 34.286 :
:  ITALY 61 :  21.012.022 : 59.8 8.947.150 :
:  NETHERLANDS : 6 2.063.081 : 5,9 317.536 :
:  UNITED KINGDOM : 9 221.  608 0,6 100.316
:  TOTAL 363 :  35.144.274 : 100,0 15.087.167 :
(1) Expenditure not yet reimbursed has been converted to ECU at the rateon1
December 1981.

- 18 -
VI. COST—EFFECTIVENESS OF DISTILLING FFUIT INTO ALCOHOL (1982 position)
According to the information the Commission has been able to obtain from distilling 
industry circles in Italy (1), the processing of apples into alcohol costs on the 
order of LIT 421 660 per hectolitre.
This figure covers transport of the fruit from intervention centres to the 
distillery, the cost of fuel and other energy inputs, wages, general costs and the 
very high duty on the manufacture of alcohol, as well as the purchase price of the 
apples, which is a deduction from expenditure by the EAGGF.
The cost of processing peaches and pears is much the same, but since the alcohol 
yield is lower the industry pays less for the raw material.
Considering that the selling price for alcohol in Italy is between LIT 425 000 and 
LIT 430 000 per hectolitre, distillation would seem to be a commercially viable 
option under present conditions (particularly the current tax structure) and, at 
the very least, it avoids the total spoilage of large quantities of fruit withdrawn 
from the market. However, these operations should not be allowed to get out of 
hand since they could disturb the alcohol market.
(1) Italy is the Member State which distils the largest amount of fruit withdrawn 
from the market.

- 19 -
VII. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Although the Commission is confident that the information supplied in the preceding 
sections will answer the precise questions put to it, it does not feel that the 
full extent of the problem of intervention in fruit and vegetables has been 
covered. It believes that it would be useful, therefore, to add the following 
remarks.
In a resolution adopted by Parliament on 16 June 1982 closing the consultation on 
three proposals to amend Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72, its Members called for 
"strengthening the withdrawal system, extending it to other products (as a priority 
to those which are subject to the reference price),  using it as a precaution and 
increasing the withdrawal price" (1).
In the Commission’s view, such measures would have the inevitable effect even in 
the Community of Ten of increasing expenditure, as a result of intervention in a 
larger number of products and of raising the unit prices which trigger 
intervention. A widening of the system could be disastrous in a Community enlarged 
to include Spain and Portugal. It is unlikely that extending price guarantees to 
further products would reduce the cost to the budget by encouraging diversification 
among the fruit and vegetables covered; contrary to what might be thought, the 
present system, covering seven types af fruit and two types of vegetable (up to and 
including the 1981/82 marketing year), has not caused a switch to products 
benefiting from intervention.
To take fruit as an example, where the products covered by the intervention system 
account for about 83% of Community output by volume, the increase in overall fruit 
production was 2.6% between 1973-75 and 1978-80 (average figures). The increase 
for products covered by the intervention system was only 0.8%, while, it was 11.8% 
in the case of products for which there is no price guarantee.
(1) OJ No C 182, 19.7.1982, p. 38.

-  20  -
Turning to vegetables over the same period, one finds that tomato production went 
up by 28% without a corresponding rise in withdrawals. As for cauliflowers, the 
only other vegetable subject to intervention during the period, production declined 
by 4.2%; output of all other vegetables, for which there is no price guarantee, 
was more or less static with a drop af only 0.5% (cf. Annex 11).
The same analysis based on average output in 1979, 1980 and 1981 shows a similar 
general trend, the only exceptions (apples, for example) being a reflection of 
major fluctuations in the crop (cf. Annex III).
The Commission is convinced that the policy it has pursued to date, in the 
proposals it has forwarded to the Council and in the decisions it has taken itself 
within its own field of competence, has had the same results as those aimed at in 
the Parliament resolution quoted above, namely — as the figures above show — to 
support if not actively encourage diversification and to avoid stimulating 
production to the point where supply exceeds demand.
Among the measures which have contributed to this, one ought to mention the smaller 
increases in basic and buying-in prices (and hence intervention prices) which have 
been adopted for a number of problem products as compared with the general level of 
increases. Apples and mandarins are a case in point: intervention in these has 
often been on a major scale and it would not be desirable to over-encourage 
production. In the case of tomatoes intended for processing, it is important to 
ensure they are not diverted to the fresh vegetable market.
For some years now, the Commission has also declined to authorize the marketing of 
fresh fruit of Class III in the case of apples (1), pears and peaches, some 
varieties of oranges, mandarins and - for limited periods - lemons. This step has 
automatically ruled out intervention in a quality class for which there is not much 
demand and hence has curbed expenditure on withdrawals.
(1) Except for Belle de Boskop, Cox’s Orange Pippins and Bramley's Seedlings during 
1977/78, when there was a shortfall in these varieties.

-  21  -
The Commission admits that products not meeting the minimum quality standards for 
marketing may sometimes be offered Into intervention. Human mistakes are always 
possible and the system of spot checks may well allow some batches or parts of 
batches not conforming with quality requirements to slip through. This can happen 
with products marketed through normal channels, too, and so may occur just as 
easily with products withdrawn from the market.
Partly with the aim of preventing of at least reducing such errors, the Commission 
forwarded a proposal to the Council on 16 March 1982 for a Regulation strengthening 
controls on the application of Community rules on agricultural products (1). The 
idea behind the proposal is to make it possible for officials appointed by the 
Commission to carry out on-the-spot checks in the Member States on the proper 
application of those Community rules relating to the common agricultural policy 
which are not covered by the present system of verifying expenditure financed from 
the EAGGF.
It is clear that this measure, once it is adopted by the Council, will only be 
really effective if the Commission has enough inspectors for them to be on hand in 
the right places on a regular basis.
(1) OJ No C 79, 31.3.1982, p. 6.

-  22  -
A further Idea advanced by Parliament (1), namely to introduce different 
intervention systems which vary according to variety and the requirements of the 
market, has been applied for many years already under arrangements which have not 
always fallen within its purview.
For example, the withdrawal price actually paid for a product withdrawn from the 
market is worked out by applying various coefficients laid down by the Commission 
(2) to the basic and buying-in prices set by the Council. These coefficients take 
account of the commercial value of the products concerned relative to a pilot 
product used for fixing the basic and buying-in prices.
Apples are probably the product with the greatest diversity. In March 1983 the 
withdrawel price of the pilot product (the varieties Golden Delicious, Red 
Delicious and Starking Delicious of Class I and a diameter of 70 mm or more) was 
14.062 ECU per 100 kg (3). The price for the same varieties but less than 70 mm in 
diameter was 10.759 ECU per 100 kg; for small grades (less than 65 mm) of some 
small apples such as Limoncella, Relnette Clochard and Relnette du Mans the 
withdrawal price was even lower at 6.379 ECU per 100 kg or about 45% of the figure 
for the pilot product.
During the 1982/83 marketing year for apples, when the volume of production 
(8.2 million tonnes) was of course higher than any level seen in the past, the 
Commission introduced a number of additional measures of the kind advocated by 
Parliament.
(1) Resolution of 16 June 1982, point 15.
(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1203/73 of 4 May 1973 fixing the conversion 
factors to be applied to the buying-in prices for fruit and vegetables (0J No L 
123, 10.5.1975, p. 1).
(3) In the same month, producer prices for the same product were around 21 ECU/100 
kg on the Belgian market, between 28 and 32 ECU/100 kg on the French market, 
between 19 and 26 ECU/100 kg on the Italian market and around 28 ECU/100 kg on
the Dutch market.

- 23 -
Producers’  groups, for example, were authorised to undertake preventive 
withdrawals. This has two advantages: it obviates the need to store apples which
are certain not to find a market and it reduces intervention spending, since 
withdrawals at the beginning of the marketing year can be made at prices lower than 
those obtaining from January onwards.
The Commission also adopted a Regulation (1) which provided that apples of the 
large varieties which were not at least 60 mm in diameter (compared with a minimum 
size in the quality standard of 55 mm) could no longer be marketed fresh from 1 
January 1983 to the end of the marketing year.
This automatically made it impossible to conduct intervention in large apples 
between 55 mm and 60 mm in the period concerned.
Finally, the prohibition already mentioned above on the sale of Class III qualities 
of certain fruit also contributes to what Parliament is seeking, since it prevents 
intervention in products for which there is little consumer demand and safeguards a 
source of supply to the processing industry.
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 2606/82 of 28 September 1982.

- 24 -
VIII. INTERVENTION DURING 1981/82
The Commission would like to take the opportunity offered by this report to provide 
Parliament with a survey of intervention during the last marketing year for which 
full figures are available (cf. Annex IV) and to comment on the results product by 
product.
Cauliflowers
Although the crop was larger than in previous years, withdrawals were the lowest in 
any of the last twelve years not only in volume <12 000 t> but also as a proportion 
of Community production. Only 0.73% of cauliflowers were affected by intervention, 
compared with the record level of 2.94% in 1979/80.
Only four Member States practised intervention in cauliflowers. France had the 
highest percentage share of national production (1.89%), followed by Belgium 
(0.97%) and Germany and Italy (less than 0.5%).
About half the cauliflowers withdrawn from the market were disposed of in one of 
the ways provided for in Community rules, mainly in the form of animal feed.
Tomatoes
As in the case of cauliflowes, the quantity affected by intervention was very 
small; it represented only 0.72% of Community output. This can be considered an 
average figure, the extremes being 0.11% in 1972/73 and 3.06% in 1979/80.
Greece, Denmark and Luxembourg were the only Member States not to carry out 
withdrawals. The highest share of national production subject to intervention was 
in the Netherlands (2.11%), followed by France (1.67%). The figures for Italy and 
Ireland were under 0.8%. Withdrawals in the other Member States were marginal, 
ranging from 5 tonnes to 49 tonnes; Germany had the highest percentage of national 
production at 0.15%.

- 25 -
It Is worth pointing out that producers* organizations undertaking intervention in 
glasshouse tomatoes are authorized to fix a withdrawal price which is higher than 
the one derived from the basic and buying-in prices set by the Council, within a 
ceiling laid down by the Commission. However, these organizations qualify only for 
the normal rate of financial compensation and have to meet the difference between 
the withdrawal price paid to their members and the Community price from their own 
funds. This facility has been taken up in the Netherlands, and although that 
country has the highest level of intervention in terms of national output, this is 
the result of an effort by Dutch growers themselves. All the tomatoes withdrawn in 
the Netherlands are used in animal feed, whereas over 75% Of withdrawals in the 
rest of the Community are not put to any other use.
Peaches
The volume of peaches involved in intervention was very high at 350 000 t, or 
15.22% of the Community crop.
Greece, of course, appeared in these statistics for the first time, contributing 
106 000 t (22.27% of national production), but withdrawals in Italy at 202 000 t 
<15.02% of Italian production) reached the highest level since 1976/77 <326 500 t).
Although withdrawals in France at 35 000 t constituted a smaller share of the 
national crop than in the other two Member States, the level was still the highest 
since 1971/72.
It ought to be said at this point that the 1981 crop in the Community of Nine 
exceeded the crops of the two previous years by some hundred thousand tonnes 
<1 782 000 t in 1981, 1 654 000 t in 1980, 1 682 000 t in 1979), to which Greek
production of 477 000 t was added for the first time.
In contrast to the pattern of the last few years, in which more than 60% of peaches
withdrawn were disposed of in one of the ways provided for in the Community rules,
almost 80% of the fruit withdrawn in 1981/82 was wastered.

- 26 -
Pears
Intervention in 1981/82 accounted for 5.35% of Community output (121 000 t in 
volume terms), a fairly average percentage compared with the extremes of 22.60% in 
1969/70 and 1.23% in 1978/79.
Three Member States practised major withdrawals, measured as a percentage of 
national production: France (8.39%), Italy (6.54%) and Belgium (6.31%). However, 
the actual volume in Belgium could be considered negligible at 3 646 t. In the 
Netherlands withdrawals accounted for only 1% of the national crop.
Over the Community as a whole more than 75% of intervention in pears took place 
during July, August and September, with more than 15% being withdrawn in October. 
From this it is clear that intervention was mainly in early varieties and not in 
main-crop pears.
Close to 75% of the pears withdrawn from the market were used either in making 
alcohol (Italy) or as animal feed; 7.76% were distributed free to various 
institutions.
Apples
Withdrawals in 1981/82 amounted to just under 54 000 t, equivalent to 1.07% of 
Community production, although admittedly the crop was also very low.
As a percentage of national production, intervention was greatest in Greece 
(7.66%). Although the volume affected in Italy was larger than in Greece, it 
represented only 1.54% of Italian production. The figures are negligible for the 
other Member States, especially France. Although it is the second largest 
producer, intervention only affected 0.2% of the French crop.
Of the apples withdrawn from the market, 50% were disposed of in one of the ways 
allowed under Community rules, 36.2% being distilled into alcohol, 9% being used as 
animal feed and 4.3% being distributed free of charge.

- 27 -
Table grapes
There was no intervention in table grapes.
Even in years when there has been intervention, the volume of grapes involved has 
been minimal, representing at most 0.12% of Community output.
Mandarins
The only intervention in mandarins was in Italy, with the volume being the highest 
to date <82 000 t>.  This was a third of the Italian crop and 28% of Community 
production of small citrus fruit. Clementines, satsumas and similar hybrids are 
not covered by the intervention system.
Close to 15% of mandarins withdrawn from the market were distributed free, 9.6% 
were used as animal feed and the remainder became unfit for consumption due to 
spoilage.
Oranges
The amount of oranges withdrawn was 73 243 t, equivalent to 2.95% of the Community 
crop.
Withdrawals took place almost entirely in Italy. The volume involved was about 
average: sinde 1974/75 there have been four marketing years when intervention was 
greater, ranging from 101 000 t to 322 000 t, and three marketing years when 
intervention was smaller, ranging from 2 000 t to 44 000 t.
The oranges withdrawn from the market were mainly used in animal feed (87%) .
Almost 9% were distributed free, while only 4% were unfit for further use.

- 28 -
Lemon s
Intervention in lemons took place only in Italy. The 1981/82 marketing year saw a 
record figure of 70 000 t, representing 7.08% of Community production.
Of the lemons withdrawn, 4% were distributed free of charge; 46% were used in 
animal feed and the remainder were unfit for other disposal.
Conclusions
By adding up the quantities of fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the market which 
were not disposed of in one of the ways provided for in the Community rules, one 
arrives at a figure of under 500 000 t.
This amounts to only 2.3% of Community production of fruit and vegetables covered 
by the intervention system. It is only around 1.15% of Community output of all 
fruit and vegetables.
This percentage is minuscule when compared with annual imports from outside the 
Community of over 1 million tonnes of fresh vegetables and over 4 million tonnes of 
fresh fruit, not counting almost 2 million tonnes of tropical fruit such as bananas 
and pineapples.
The figure is also insignificant in the context of the Community's need to 
guarantee normal market supply, in relation to which intervention functions as a 
kind of safety valve.

- 29 -
IX. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
The fruit and vegetable market is difficult to manage for a variety of reasons.
First of all, there is a great diversity of products. Many are annual crops with a 
relatively short growing season, but production can be spread over a large part of 
the year because of the different geographical areas concerned, the planting of 
different varieties, and special methods such as protected or under-glass 
cultivation with and without heating.
Crops can also be greatly influenced by the weather, leading to widely differing 
harvests from the same yield potential. Apple production, for instance, varied 
from 5 021 000 t in 1981 to 8 562 400 t in 1982.
Finally, the products are for the most part highly perishable and can.spoil within 
a few days or even a few hours. With the right conservation methods it is possible 
to spread the marketing of a crop of apples and to a lesser extent pears over 
several months, but there is never a carryover of stocks from one year to the next 
as can happen with milk powder, cereals, sugar, etc.
All this means that measures of market support have to be taken flexibly and 
rapidly to meet situations which are local or transitory. Intervention by the 
producers' organizations themselves is the answer.
It is also worth pointing out that the biological characteristics of products 
withdrawn from the market do not allow them to be stored against possible 
shortfalls later on. It is important, too, that fruit and vegetables which have 
been withdrawn should not re-enter normal distribution channels if such measures 
are to have any effect.
If these two sides of the problem are taken into account, it is clearly difficult 
to ensure that intervention products are disposed of judiciously, particularly 
since technical, economic and budgetary factors already referred to tend to prevent 
disposal in one of the ways provided for in the Community rules, with the result

- 30 -
that, in the opinion of the Commission, there will always be a proportion of 
production which cannot be put to alternative uses.
Simply adding further ways of disposing of such products to the list of those 
already permitted (and it is difficult to see what these would be) would only 
increase expenditure by the Community and bring with it the danger that established 
enterprises downstream of growers would protest against what they might see as 
unlooked-for competition.
If we bear all these aspects in mind, the question is whether it would not be 
better to limit the different types of disposal to those which do not incur 
additional spending, i.e. feeding products withdrawn from the market directly to 
animals, selling them to the animal feed industry (1), selling them to distillers 
(2) or, in the case of blood oranges, selling them to the processing industry, with 
the risk that a greater proportion may not find another use and be wasted.
This is in fact exactly what happened before the common organization of the fruit 
and vegetable market was introduced, with the difference that
- farmers bore the full financial cost themselves personally whereas now they are 
paid compensation indirectly by the Community;
— products used to spoil in varying quantities on farms spread over a large area 
and, not being concentrated in one place, went unnoticed by the public and 
raised very little stir.
(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1559/70.
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 1562/70.

ANNEX I
Processing Into juice of products withdrawn from the 
the market with a view to subsequent free distribution
BELGIUM PRANCE GREECE
:  APPLES (1982/83)
:  Quantity processed 
:  (fresh product) 1.000 t 2.000 t 17.210 t
:  Cost of processing 
:  (in ECU/t of fresh product) 308,9 323,4 616
:  Total cost (in ECU) 308.900 646.800 10.601.360
:  Average withdrawal price per 
:  tonne (pilot product) 130,222 130,222 130,222
i
:  PEACHES (1982)
:  Quantity processed 
:  (fresh product) - - 11.074 t
:  Cost of processing 
:  (in ECU/t of fresh product) - - 837 ,0
:  Total cost (in ECU) - - 9.268.938
:  Average withdrawal price per 
:  tonne (pilot product):
:  - in Greece
:  - in the other Member States 244,221 244,221185,411

ANNEX IX
Production of fruit and vegetables in the Community of Nine
in *000 t
1973/1975 1978/1980 %change
1973 1974 1975 1978 1979 1980 average average
:  Vegetables subject to the
:  intervention system 6.083 6446 6.209 6.783 7.956 7.700 6.245 7.479 19,8
:  - tomatoes 4.399 4759 4.607 5.179 6.405 6.090 4.588 5.891 +28,4
:  — cauliflowers 1.684 1687 1.602 1.604 1.551 1.610 1.657 1.588 ~4,2
:  Other vegetables 16.897 16985 16.849 17.253 16.934 16.263 16.910 16.817 -0,5
:  Total (all vegetables) 22.980 23431 23.058 24.036 24.890 23.963 23.156 24.296 4,9
:  Fruit subject to the
:  intervention system 15.559 14057 14.876 14.441 15.234 15.164 14.830 14.9*7 0,8
:  - apples 7.230 5756 7.384 6.760 7.018 6.898 6.790 6.892 1.5
:  — pears 2.534 2505 2.323 2.135 2.113 2.368 2.454 2.205 _10,1
:  - peaches 1.705 1591 1.169 1.510 1.682 1.654 1.488 1.615 8,5
:  - table grapes 1.482 1439 1.312 1.529 1.631 1.685 1.411 1.615 14,5
:  - oranges 1.509 1659 1.532 1.433 1.684 1.540 1.566 1.552 ~0,9
:  - mandarins and
:  clementines 328 341 355 339 344 324 341 335-1,8
:  - lemons 771 766 801 735 762 695 779 730-6,3
:  Other fruit 3.064 2932 2.487 3.138 3.076 3.274 2.828 3.162 11,8
:  Total (all fruit) 18.623 16989 17.363 17.579 18.310 18.438 17.658 18.109 2,6

ANNEX III
Production of fruit and vegetables in the Community of Nine
in '000 t
1973/1975 1978/1980 %change
1973 1974 1975 1978 1979 1980 average average
Vegetables subject to the 
intervention system
- tomatoes
- cauliflowers 
Other vegetables6.083
4.399
1.684
16.8976.446
4.759
1.687
16.9856.209
4.607
1.602
16.8497.958
6.406
1.552
16.9327.700
6.090
1.610
16.2557.458
5.840
1.618
17.2086.245
4.588
1.657
16.9107.705
6.112
1.593
16.798+
+23,4
33,2
3,9
0,7
Total (all vegetables) 22.980 23.431 23.058 24.890 23.955 24.666 23.156 24.504 +5,8
Fruit subject to the 
intervention system
- apples
- pears
- peaches
- table grapes
- oranges15.559
7.230
2.534
1.705
1.482
1.50914.057 
5.756 
2.505 
1.591 
1.439 
1.65914.876
7.384
2.323
1.169
1.312
1.53215.238
7.018
2.113
1.682
1.632
1.68415.167
6.899
2.368
1.654
1.686
1.54013.219
4.734
2.141
1.782
1.610
1.75314.830
6.790
2.454
1.488
1.411
1.56614.541
6.217
2.207
1.706
1.643
1.659+
+
+1.9 
8,4
10,1
14,7
16,4
5.9
- mandarins and 
clementines
- lemons 
Other fruit328
771
3.064341
766
2.932355
801
2.487346
763
3.072325
695
3.271407
792
2.801341
779
2.828359
750
3.048 +5,3
3.7
7.8
Total (all fruit) 18.623 16.989 17.363 18.310 18.438 16.020 17.658 17.589 +0,4

COMMISSION
DES
COMMUNAUTES EUROPENNESANNEXE IV
DOCUMENT DE TRAVAIL STATISTIQUE
SECTEUR DES FRUITS ET LEGUMES - SEKTOR OBST UND GEMUSE
FRUIT AND VEGETABLE SECTOR - SETTORE ORTOFRUTTICOLI
GROENTEN EN FRUIT SEKTOR - FRUGT OG GRONSAGSEKTOREN
TOMEAS OPOROKIPEFTIKON
- Bilan des opérations d'intervention sur le marché effectuées au cours de 
la campagne de commercialisation 1981/1982.
- Bilanz der auf dem Markt erfogten Interventionsmassnahmen, die in Laufe 
des Wirtschaftsjahres 1981/1982 vorgenommen wurden.
-Schedule of market intervention operations carries out during the marketing 
season 1981/1982.
- Bilancio delle operazioni d'intervento sul mercato effettuali durante la
 campagna di commercializzazione 1981/1982.
- Balans van de tijdens het verkoopseizoen 1981/1982 verrichte marktinterventies.
- Bilans af interventions foranstaltningerne sket på torvet i  lóbet af 
regnskabsaren 1981/1982.
- Opologismos ton paremvasseon stin agora, pragmatoputhisson kata tin periodon 
emborias 1981/1982.

1981/1982ANNEXE-ANHANG-ALLEGATO-BIJLAGE-ANNEX-BILAG-PARARTIMA 'l '
1/a
CAMPAGNE-ERNTEZEITRAUM-CAMPAGNA-SEIZOEN-SEASON-HOSTTIDSRUM-PER1000S 
QUANTITES-MENGEN-OUANTITA'-HOEVEEL H E  DEN-QUANT ITY-MAENGDER-POS S O T  I T A k g
P R O D .
BELGIQUE 
BELG IE
.C  houx( fleur s  
Bloem kool  
Cauli flowers  
K o u n o u p  idi a  
.T  o rn a te  s  
T o m aten  
Tom atoes
.  f ’êch e s  
Perziken  
P eaches  
7 1 0 d a k  i  n a  
Poires  
Peren  
Pears  
A p  i  d  i  a  
;.F o m m e  s  
Appelen
A p p les.M h la
b.Raisins(tabl^)  
D ru  i  ven  
G rap esC  table!  
Stafilia  
(e p  it r apez i  a  
-Mandarines  
Mandari j n e n  
“andarins  
M an d a  rin i  a  
-  .O ranges  
- inaasappeler  
? ort o k  a  l i  a  
.Citrons  
Citroenen  
emons/Z IrftrJiO265.182
49.110
3.646.623
116.659
aLDeutschland
403.419
35.742ELLASF R A N C E
106.269.802
23.292.754
4.077.574 439.1619.068.325
131186.770
35.152.567
35.918.033
2.584.389
575.891IRELAND
129.562.556  9 6.4 89.9 7 5171.087
82.281ITALIA NEDERLAND
2.332.099
34.034.476
202.514.033
79.894.906
26.844.691
82.031.820
72.662.806
70.253.281
253.368 570.568.112UNITED
KINGDOM
8.638.874
1.173.772 43.5305.110
363.740 448.581
10.176.386"c e * par^  (1) rapportE G  a la  prod.récoltée
12.069.025
56.121.169
343.936.402
120.676.864 5,3 p
53.733.095
73.242.697
70.253.281
497.2210,73
0,72
15,22
82.031.820 27,991,07
812.064.3532,95
7,08
3.27

c  i;Mont ant-cout-  du produit retiré 
C2)Danemark et Luxembourg :Néant 1981/1982
(1J Compensation financière à charge du F.E.O.G.A.- 
Compensazione finanziaria a carico del F.E.O G 
Udìigningbelób af E.U.G.F.L.
Valeur = ECU
Prod.Erz.
i. Blumenkohl 
Cavolfiori 
Blomka l
£.Tomaten 
Porimodor  i  
Tomaten
3. Pf i  rs i  che 
Pesche 
Ferskner
A.Birnen 
Pere 
Paerer
5-ApfeC 
Mele 
Aebler
6. T rauben
(tafel) 
Uveitavola) 
Druer
(  Sp.i s eb rug )
7. Mandarinen 
Mandar in i  
Mandarinen
8. Ap fels i  nen 
Arance 
Apfels i  ner
5 .  C  i  t  roner 
L i  mon i  
CitronerBelgique
BELGÏE ·ANNEXE 1/ a
Finanzieller Ausgleich zu lasten E.A.G.F.L.
A.-Financiële vergoeding ten laste van E.O.G.L.F. 
-Financial- compensation met by F.E.O.G.A. 
-Carimatiki antistathmisi katavalomeni apo FEOGA2.
DEUTSCHLAND
TOTAL19.605,48
3.204,97
371.255,48
10.988,71·
405.054,6430.298,41
3.418,65
16400873,28ELLAS FRANCE
1.662.999,66593.059,90
1 i 131.612,81
6.969.630,38
3.859.429,87
220.404,38
104.008,02
33,71 7,06 18.063.872,94 12.878.145,36IRELAND
14.623,07
8.216,40ITALIA
219.759,60
2.886.869,33
46.712.298,35
8.387.194,95
2.459.522,56
17.752.316,29
13.998.416,85
14.320.041,61
22.839,47 1106.736.419,54NEDERLAND
611.989,94
101.059,05
30.025,49'UNITED
KINGDOM
743.074,48305,39
4.687,52
35.200,04
40.192,95CE/EG (2)
862.723,39
4.652.024,16
70.082.802,01
12.723.626,87
4.427.357,24
17.752.316,29
14.102.424,87
14.320.041,61
138.923.316,44

annexe' l/t>
1981 /1S82
I. CHOUX-FLEURS - BLUMENKOHL - CAVOLFIORI - BLQEMKOOL - CAULIFLOWERS 
BLOIIkAL - KOUNOU-PIDIA
Répartition des quantités totales retirées du marché (ANNEXE 1/a - Il
EXPRIME El' POURCENTAGE (%) ________ _
Ca
tégorie de qualité
I
II
III
Mode de présentation
- en feuilles
- couronnés
- effeuillés
Nsde de conditionnement
- en emballage
- en vrac
Retrait par mois
- mai
- juin
- juillet
- août
- septembre
- octobre
- novembre
- décembre
- janvier
- février
- mars
- avril
*
festination du produit
Distribution gratuite Art.21 
par. la) premier tiret
Alimentation animale, art.21 
par.  la)  troisième tiret
devenu impropre à la consom­
mation avant destinationBELGIOUE
BELGIFJ
2,20%DEUTSCH­
LAND
3*34 %FpANCF 
75,14 %
76,40
23,6097,95
2,0599,71
0,29
68,53
31,4710066,78
33,13
0,09
100 100 74,43
25,57
1,01
0,35
61.32
17.32 
8,52
11,480,27 
38,37 
42,15 
2,17 
1,31 
_15,730,01
2,24
5.88 
14,10
7,~
2.89 
0,34.
- -0,12 
66,75 ·  
0,20 
0,47
39,94 18,31 0,00
- 43,87 30,61
60,06 37,82' 69,39ITALIA 
19,32 %
100
14,78
20,71
64,51
2,01
97,99
0,94
1,28
14,08
23,39
24,18
36,13
2,01
97,99e!cf : < »
100 %
99,20
0,80
53,03
33,75
13,22
61,85
38,15
0,00
1.71 
5,70
13,35
5.72 
2,40 
1,21 
0,25 
2,81
54,68
4,82
7,34
1,88
43,40
54,72
(1) Danmark, Ellas, Ireland, Luxembourg, Nederland et United Kingdom ;

1981/1982Af HANG 1/b
11 ·  TON-AiEC - TOMATEN - PQMQDORI - TOMATEN - TOflATCFS - TOfATEP - TOMATES4..
Aufteilung der aus dem Markt genommenen Gesamterzeugnisse (ANHANG 1/a - 1.) 
AL'SGEDRL CKT IN VONHINDERTSATZEN (%)
Catégorie de qualité
1 }
EC i
IIJ.
Type
- rondes
- h côt e.S
- allongées - San Marzano
- autres
calibre
- 67 mm et plus
- 4 7 mn inclus 
à1  67 rrn exclu
- 35 mm inclus 
à 47 nm exclu
- Mélange cat. II
- Tous calibre (cat. III)
- 40 mm et plus
- 30 mm inclus
à 40 mr. exclu
- mélange cat. II
- Tous calibre.(cat. III) Mode de conditionnement
- en emballage
- en vrac
Retrait par mois
- juin
- juillet
- août
- septembre
- octobre
- novembre
Destination du produit
- Distribution gratuite 
Art. 21 par. 1 a) premier 
tiret
- Alimentation animale 
Art. 21 par. 1 a) troi­
sième tiret qv&l'r.è\n'ifcir*^T.
- Devenu impropre à la 
consommation avant 
destinationBtlfîIOŒ 
BEI/SIE
0,09 %
22,77
77,23
100
18,09
4,68
77,23
100
19,33
2 0 ,8 6
27,46
32,35
39,52
60,48LEITSC!
LAND
0,06 %
97.01 
2,99
63,07
36,93
18.01 
45,06
31,76
2,18
2,99
100
37,92
20,56
41,52
63,76
2,74
33,50FRANCE
23,50%
100
.  99,23
0,77
1,59
81,24
10,66
5,75
0,13
0,01
0,62
100
6,59
20,91
46,80
23,50
1,32
0,88
0,38
0,91
0,04
98,67IRELAND
0,31 %ITALIA NEDER­
LAND
60,64 ,  % [15,39 % [0,01 % ÎQQ %
81,28
18,72
100
49,79
31,49
18,7299,76
0,24
1 75,81
J
16,66
7.53
0,52
51,63
7.53 
0,23
18,94
11,98
9,17UN m u  
KING-C.E 
E.G.
100
1,63
6,61
18,01
24,54
34,44
14,772,78
23,07
72,09
1,76
0,30100
100
12,97
33,74
53,29
100
5,34
19,66
40,74
17,04
10,19
7,03
0,39 !  8,20
55,76 :  5,65 I100
43,85 86,15100
100
100
100
33,86
50,88
15,26
10099,73
0,27
85,13
10,10
4,77
2 ,6 8
55,77
15,31
1,59
11,61
7,32
5,57
0,15
I
99,69 j  
0,31 ,
2,38
9,66
31,34
51,98
3,10
1,54
5,14
19,21
75,65
(1) Danmark, Ellas et Luxembourg :  néant.

I98i1/198.2 ALLEGATO I/b 5.
III.  PECHES - FFIKSICHE - PESCHE - PEP.ZIKEK - PEACKKS - FERSKR'ER - ROÜAKINA
pépartizione delle quantità totali ritirate dal mercato (  ALJJSGATO -4-/a -‘1)
ESPRESSO IK PERCENTUALE (£)
E L L A S  
30,90 %F R A N C E
10,22 %ITALIA  
58,88 XÉJ:< 1 >
100 %
Catégorie de qualité
I
II
Calibre
- 80 mm et plus
- G7 mm inclus à
- 61 mm inclus à
- 51 mm inclus à
- 47 mm inclus à
- meins de 47 mn80 mm exclu 
67 mm exclu 
61 mm exclu 
51 mm, exclu
Mode de conditionnement
- en emballage
- en vrac
Retrait par mois
- juin
- juillet
- août
- septembre
Destination du produit
Distribution gratuire
Art. 21 par.la) premier tiret
Alimentation animale
Art. 21 par.la).troisième tiret
'transformation en alcool 
Art. 21 par. lb)
Devenu impropre à la consommation 
avant destination100 100 100 100
0,27 0,27 0,27 0,27
37,55 18,59 44,94 39,96
44,65 27,09 37,69 38,76
17,53 50,25 15,17 19,49
-3,80 1,93 1,52
1 0 Ò 28,25 100 92,67
— 71,75 7,33
2,95 3,12 2,14
- 41,62 57,37 38,03
95,05 50,60 33,62 54,34
4,95 4,83 5,89 5,49 :
- 1,24 5,98 3,65
- 0,87 0,66i
0,48 !
I
-
I29,32 17,27 !
I
100 97,89 64,04 78,60
(1) Belgique, Danmark, Deutschland, . Ireland, Luxembourg, Nederland  
et United Kingdom :  Néant.

ALLEGATO I/b 6.
Ill.  Suite - Fortsetzung - S^eguito - Vervolg - Cont. - Fortsaettelse - Sinexia
jEiÇHia-
1
E F ,C.E.(d
E.G.
VARIETES
Amsden- 1,44 - 0,15
St. Anna0,01 0,00
Andrians 0,13 - 0,04
A rpus 0,57 “ - 0,18
Baby gold 0,07 —
0,370,02
Bella di Cesena“ — 0,22
Bella di Roma- “ 0,02 0,01
Cardinal- 1,70 3,59 2,28
Charles Ingouf- 0,94 0,03 0,11
Charles Roux- 0,04 0,00
C lamb 1,75 - 0,54
Crest Haven“ 0,14 0,08
Di xi gem - — 0,04 0,02
Di xi red - 9,20 7,25 5,21
Dixon 6,32 - - 1,95
Early Elberta - - - -
. .  Elberta 53,87 2,63 0,04 16,78
Fav Elberta - 0,06 - 0,00
Fair Haven 2,13 10,02 0,04 1,70
Fortuna 1,39 - - 0,43
Garson 0,07 “ 0,02
General- - 0,01 0,00
Gui Îloux- 0,19 - 0,02
Hale Haven0,17 - 0,015
Halford 3,53 - - 1,09
Jersey land- 0,02 - 0,00
J.H.Hale 20,- 4,01 6,23 10,26
Jungerman 0,16 - - 0,05
Karolina 4,03 — 1,24
Krummel 0,10 - - 0,03
Liana Baruzzi- - 0,05 0,03
Locfde l 0,18 “ 0,05
Loring- 5,04 - 0,51
May Flower- 0,02 0,08 0,05
Merril Fiesta 0,05 - 0,01
Merril Franciscan 0,00 2,10 — 0,22
Merril Gemfree- 0,47 — 0,05
Mi chelini- 4,16 1,84 1,51
Pierri 81- - 0,78 0,46
Red Globe 0,26 — 0,08
Red Haven 4,65 34,29 11,92 11,96
Red Skin0,39 - 0,12
Robi tu0,18 — 0,05
Southland- 1,50 5,12 3,17
Springtime
Starn0,100,98 0,30 0,27
0,03
Sun Crest0,01 — — 0,00
Sun Haven- 0,27 0,03
Vivian0,53 “* 0,16
Autres variétés (jaunes) j -16,90 56,70 35,11
Américaines
Autres variétés (blanches))0,02 3,85 5,44 3,60Autres variétés (jaunes j
(1) Belgique, Danmark, Deutschland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Nederland et
United Kingdorn :  Néant

BIJLAGE 1/b
1981/1982
TV. POIRES - BIRNEN- P E R E  - PEREN - PEARS- PAERER - API0IA
rnâèting v a n  d e  vit d e  m a rk t g e n o m e n  totale 
U I T G E D R U K T  I N  P E R C E N T A G E  ( % )hoeveelheid (Bijlage 1/a -1 )
B E L G IQ U E  
B E L G ÏE3,02 %FRANCE
29,76%ITALIA
66,21%N E D E R " U N IT E D  
L A N D  K IN G D O M  
-0,97% I  0,04%L t (  1  E G
100*
C atégorie d e  qualité
n  i
V arié té à
- gros fruits
- petits fruits
C alibre
- 7 0  m m  e t plus
- m o in s  d e  7 0  m m
- 6 0  m m  e t plus
- m o in s  d e  6 0  m m
M o d e  d e  conditionnem ent
- em b allag e
- e n  v ra c
Retrait o ar m o is
Juillet
A o û t
S e p te m b re
O cto b re
N o v e m b r e
D é c e m b re
Janvier
Février
M a r s
Avril
D estination d u  produit
- Distribution gratuite art.2 1  
par. 1  a )  prem ier tiret
l -  Alimentation anim ale art.2 1  
par. 1  a )  troisième tiret
- T r^ S  ro / '  ' ·  '  io n  e t distributior 
9fatuité ritc  2 1  o ar “ a )  
cinquième hir?
T r^ n  i f»r  « al » O n  e n  fc ^ o L  fhL - 
% A . p  xr h)
- im fiopre- à L -  ionS o n ig  
jo&tton vivent d e« · tiTia t ton100
8,13
91,87
3,70
4,43
44,50
47,37
100
2,92
19,59
40>77
13,76
5,19
4,70
4,51
6,08
2,48
1,72
96,44
1,84100
6,35
94,65
4,18
1,17
85,17
9,48
93,-
7,"
19,67
66,81
5,45
■2,97
3,06
•2,04
7,81
\ 11,07
i
!
0,01
81,11100
47,75
52,25
28,52
19,23
35.12
17.13
93,53' 
6,47 j
7,76 
37,37j  
28,461 
19,52| 
1,75!
1 i
1,11 I  
0,1 2!  
0,0 0:  
2,91 !
8,13!
29,99 100
59,51
2,37100
5,27
94,73
0,16J
5,11'
6,47; 
88,261
100,-
29,32 
30,86 
27,63' 
5,81 j  
2,40 
2,58 
0,91 
0,17 
0,12 j100
62,-
38,-
62,-
38,-
15,39 ;  
84,61 ;
24,49
75,51
100100
33,52
66.48
20,23
13,29
50,-
16.48
93,60
6,40
10,99
45,-
21,36
15,34
1,63
0,84
0,90
0,23
1,10
2,61
7,76
27,03
0,00
39,40
25,80
^ e -if\tid i'K . .  Deutschland, Ellas, Ireland et Luxembourg:  néant

Bij tage I/b
8
Iv*  Suite - Fortsezung - Continuation - Sequito - Vervolg - Fortsaettelse -Sinexia
(POIRES)
V A R IE T E S B F I N L U K C E (1)EG
G R O S  F R U IT S  
-A B A T E  Fetel  
-Beurré Alexandre Lucas  
-Beurré Clairgeau
-Beurré Lebrun
-Doyenné d'Hiver
-Doyenné d u  C om ice
-Duchesse d'Angoulème
-Empereur Alexandre(Bré D ose)
-Jeanne d'Arc
-Kong'ress
-Packm ans TriumphCWill. d1 Autoi  
-Passacrassana  
-Triomphe d e  Vienne  
-William's Duchess'CPitmaston
-Autres Gros Fruits
PETITS F R U IT S
“Atexandrine Douillard
-Beurré d'Amanlis
-Beurré d'Anjou
-Beurré Durondeau
-Beurré d e Mérode(H.U. Philip)
-Beurré Hardy
-Beurré Morettini  
-B on chrétien Williams  
-Brederode
-Callebasse à  la Reine  
-Cla^pp's Favourite  
-Comtesse d e  Paris  
-Conférence  
-Cosc ia
-Emile d'Heyst
-Epine d u  M a s .C D u c  d e  Bordeaux  
-Kei zer in  
-Gieser Wildeman  
-Dr. Jules G uyot  
-Leg ipont(Charneux)
“Louise B onne d'Avranches  
^ M a a g d e . Peer
“M a d a m e  Ballet .
-St. Maria Morettini  
■Précoce d e Trévoux  
■Président LoutreoiL  
■St. R e m y
■Zwijndrechtse Wijnpeer  
■S p ad o n a
" Autres  petits fruits0 ,0 2
6,11
2, -
0,00
0,01
24,91
0,06
1,90
0,08
2,72
Ô,00
21,25
0 ,0 2
40,36
0,00
0,11
0,37
0,07
0,070,23
5,10
0 ,0 2
0,60
3,04
0,03
15,68
0,06
74,99
0,2511,69
0,05
0,20 
3,99 
0,00 
6,78
_ _ __
0
,12 - -
24,91 — -
0,01 1,05 —
0,00 0,27 -
0,08—
-0,16 —
-1,14 -
5,59 19,78 13,51
1,36 —
8,46 0,11 —
-0,02 -
0,07 15,01 9,10
—0,09 -
2,72 6,16 ; —
1,74 - -
-0,19 —
- - | -
30,88
0,26
1,06
0,08
0,030,97
0,06
0,12
2,80 62,-
0,06 |
17,52 :
15,21 ;
0,09 :
13,90
0,38
0,46
1,01
1,01
3,3615,397,74
0,01
0,10
0,00
0,13
2,88
0,00
4,49
0,08
18,01
0,07
0,00
0,00
0,18
0,00
0,75
0,01
4,86
0,91
10,27
0,00
0,28
0,00
2/52
1,15
0,00
0,00
0,00
42,77
1,39
0,32
0,00
0,70
0,20
0,00
0 ,0 2
0,01
0,01
0,13
n i Danmark,^E  l tas, Ireland et Luxem bourg i  N e’arvt  
r Deutsch land'1

ANNEX i/b
19&1/1982
V. POMMES - APPEL - MELE - APPELEN - APPLES - AEBLER - MI1A 
Breakdown of the total quantities withdrawn from the market (Annex la - l)
expressed  in percentages  ($>)
B E L G I Q U E !
B E L G I E0,22 %
Catégorie de qualité
I
II ·
Variété à
— gros fruit b
— petits fruits
Calibre
— 70 nun et plus
— moins de " J O mm
— 65 nim et plus
— moinB de 65 mm
Mode de conditionnement
— en emballage
— en vrac
t  Retrait par mois 
Aottt
Septembre
Ootobre
Novembre
Décembre
Janvier
Février
Mars
Avril
Mai
Juin
Destination du produit
— Distribution gratuite 
art 21 par. la) premier 
tiret
— Alimentation animale 
art. 21 par. la) 3ème 
tiret
— TranBf. et distrib. 
grat, art. 21 par la) 
5ème tiret
— Transformation en alcool 
art. 21 par. lb)
— Devenu impropre à la 
consommation avant des­
tination100
90,53
9,47
35,67
54,86
2,22
7,25
100
19,02
38,16
6,55
9,02
1,76
3,36
4,24
1,70
6,81
9,38
0,22
99,78ELIAS
43,35%FRANCE
4,81%IRE­
LAND
0,15%ITALIA
49,96%NEDER­
LAND
0,68%
100100100100100
100
10010094,17
5,8384,23
15,77
59,76
40,24
98,32
1,6819,47
80,5354,53
39,64
5,12
0,7132,19
52,04
1,37
14,40
99,93
0,0798,38
1,6210087,17
12,83100
100100
57,98
29,33
12,692,01
34,67
52,43
7,83
2,33
0,13
0,13
0,21
0,2689,74
6,83
1,37
1,28
0,54
0,10
0,00
0,14
-6,8063,817,83 -
0,016,3118,2315,04
72,53100
99,9986,8917,964,60UNITED
KINGDOM
0,83%C « E  ■  /-.  
E . G . U  
ΙίΎ Τέ
100
41,08
58,92
41,08
58,92
0,19
99,81
9,88 
34,75 
27,95 
16,66 
8,04 
1,47 
1,25
36,20
63,80100
91,66
8.34
53,48
38,18
7,30
1.04
92,50
7,50
6,54
17,74
69,80
4,08
1,24
0,09
0,17
0,15
0,17
0,02
4.34
9.04
36,23
50,3°
(l) Danemark, Deutschland et Luxembourg: néant3-

4*
ANNEX i/b
S u i t e  —  F o r t 8 e t z u n g  —  S e g iiito  —  V e rv o l/r —  o o n t. —  forteettelBe - e in e x ia
(POMMES)
VARIETES B ELPI RL I NL UKC.E.
E.G.(1)
A GROS FRUITS
Belle fleur double 
Black Stayman 
Blenheim
I  Bramley's Seedling 
Brettacher 
Charles Ross 
Delicious Comune 
Democrat 
Ellisons orange 
Flinkenwerder 
Glorie van Holland 
Golden Delicious 
Gravensteiner 
Horneburger 
Imperatore 
James Grieve 
Jonagold
Karmijn de Sonnaville 
Lans Prince Albert 
Lombard's Calleville 
Melrose 
Morgenduft 
Ontario 
Red Delicious 
Reinette grise/ 
blanche canad« 
Reinette de Prance· 
Richared 
Rome beauty "
Royal Red
Schone van Boskoop
Stark Delicious
Starking
Starkrinsom
Stayman red
Stayman Winesap
Tydeman's Early Worcest
Winterbanana
Zigeunerin
Autres k gros fruits33,95
35,04
2,06
0,87
18,6211,52
88,481000,18
63,34
2,32
6,64
0,02
0,01
0,04
20,93
0,20
0,34
0,05
0,100,02
0,08
77,11
0,69
0,80
4,81
0,28
0,23
0,2117,37
10,10
13,15
0,460,15
0,09
0,00
37,47
1,16
3,32
0,19
0,01
0,00
0,00
0,02
0,03
10,45
38,35
0,10
0,17
0,02
0,05
0,00
0,05
(l) Danemark, Deutschland et Luxembourg :  néant

4<r
ANNEX I/b
M -
V. Suite-Fortsetzunq-Sequito-Vervold-cont-Fortsettelse-Sinexia
(POMMES)
VARIETES J  B EL
I fIrl I!
j  ML UKCE (1) 
EG
à PETITS FRUITS
Abbondanza- -- -0,04 - -0,02
Lenoni- -- - —0,75 —0,00
Perlepsch 
George Cave__ - - -5,860,05
Discovery- -- -
0,02-0,610,00 ■
Cardinal - -96,28 — — * “4,64
Commercio- —— — -
Cox's Orange pippin 8,91 “- - —0,10 0,02
Crispin
Early Victoria - -- - -0,31 -0,00
Eyremont Russed — —“
Glocken apfel · “ ""
Gloster 69* * ·
Granny Smith - -- -1,44 - —0,72
Grenadier - -- - - 17,61 0,15
Holsteiner Cox's - -- - - “
Inyrid Marie - -- -0,55 -0,00
Ida Red - -- — — — “m m
Jonared - -- - - —* “
Jonathan 0,55 -- T4,30 0,62 -2,15
Lord Derby - -- - - -0,450,00
Lavina '  - -- -0,03 - “0,01
Laxton '  s ;Superb - -- - -0,15 25,260,21
Laxton's Fortune* - -- - 0, 460,00
Lord Iambome - -- — —— —•  “
Millers Seedling - -- - - 5,550,05
Mantet - -- - -2,08 -0,01
Odin -  - - - -0,33 —0,00
Monarch - “— — "" '“
Oldcnhuryer - — —
Feine des Reinettes — “
Reinette Descarde et
ChéneC · - -- - —
Reinette clochard; - — — “
Reinette Ltoilée - — — “ -
Reinette du Mans “ -“ — — “ “
Rosa del Caldaro - -“ - — —
Stark Ear liest - -0,16 - -1,38 —0,02
Spartan - *-— —
Stayman red Scarlet — — * * *“
Starking - — — “
0,19 0,00 Tr aa »sparen te jaune “ - — “ “
Winter Winsap - — — — * *“
Winston “- - -0,03
3,120,00
Worcester pearmain - —“ “ 0,03
Zoete appelen/Bloemee - “ — —5,19 0,03
Win terglocken apfe1 — — ”
Autres à petits fruits
_______ i4,09 0,20
(4)  Danmark, Deutschland et Luxembourg néant

198'l/198l  ANNEX I :  b
V·  POEMES ~ APPEL - MELE - APPELEN - APPLES - AEBLER - MILA (suite)
RETRAITS PREVENTIFS
Répartition des quantités exprimées en pourcentage (X) (annexe 1  a-1)
Les pourcentages détaillés ci-dessous sont inclus dans la répartition  
des quantités totales retirées du marchés (pages 7 - 8 et 8 bis)
;  Catégorie de qualité !  Ml H I  (_
II#
Varie , i  :
-  gros fruits
:  - petits fruitsi
i  C  .11  i  hr e  
|  - /O mm et 
I  - moins de 70 mm 
j  - 65 mm et plus 
i  - moins de 65 mmI
(IL . .  be conditionnement
- e (\ embaliage 
1  - ( f r \ vrac
|  Retrait par mois 
j  “  octobre
- novembre 
I  - .Décembre
I
ïâL>£ÀSr
I -  l u )  l  ( Oc l  i  C ious 
j  - Red Delicious 
i  _ Richared*
~ Royal r  c d
- Stark delicious
- j t  ark inq
- Starkrimson
- Stayman red
~ St.jyman winesap 
,  " Imperatore/Morgenduft 
J - Schone van Boskoop
Destination du produit 
■ distribution gratuite 
Art. 71 p. 1a)prem;tiret
- Alimentation animale
Ar t.  r.’ Ip.  1  , i )  t  ro i  s .  t  iret
~ Ifansf.et di str.qratui te 
Ar t.2 1p.  1a)5ème t  i  ret 
"Transformation en alcool 
Art.21P.1b)
Devenu impropre à  la 
consommation avant 
destination

19B-yi98:b BILAC I/b
VI. RAISINS de table - Tafeltrauben - TableGRAPES - UVE da tavola_ 
TafelDRUIlEN - DRUIP til spise brug - IPITRAPEZIO STAFIblA
Inddeling at de samtlige maengder traekket ad af handeler (  
Bilag I/a.l)
UDTRUKT I PROCENT (% )
- 250 gr et +
- moins fie 250 gr
et mélanges (cat. III)
- 150 gr et +
- moins de 150 gr
et mélanges (cat. III)
- 100 gr et' +
- moins de 100 gr
et mélanges (cat. III)
Retrait par mois
- Août
- Septembre
- Octobre
Destination du produit
- Distribution gratuite
art. 21 paf“. “la)-premier tiret
- Alimentation animale
art. 21 par. la) troisième tiret
- Devenu impropre à la consommation 
avant destinationy- ,  —  —  ■ {  '
Catégorie de qualitéN 1  H *L
I '
III
Variété
Kégina dei vigneti
Cardinale · ,
Regina j
Type ;
a) serre
b) plein champ
- à gros grains
- à petits grains
Calibre

1981/1982 PARARTIMA I/b
VI1·  jlANDARINE^ - MANDARINEN - MANDARIN - MANDARINI  - MANDAR1JNEN - MANDARIMER -
MANTARINIA
katanomi ton sinalikon posotition pou aposslrthikav sno tin agoza
(Parartima I/a 1)
EKERASMENO SE P0SS0ST0 (X)
ITALIA 
100 %C. E.
E.G. (1)
'
C atéqor i  e de qualité
Ii !99,99 99,99
III
Ca l  ibre0,01 0,01
- plus de 69 mm
-  5  A  mm/69 mm10,87
61,10|  10,87 
61,10
- moins de 54 mm 28,03 28,03
Mode de conditionnement
- emballage 76,61 76,61
- en vrac 23,39 23,39
Retrait par mois
-  novembre -
- décembre 6,81 6,81 j
- j anv i  er '  „ 79,48 79,48
-février 13,71. 13,71
Destination du produit
- Distribution gratuite art. 21 § 1a) 
premier tiret14,99 14,99
- Alimentation animale art. 21 § 1a) 
t  ro i  s  i è  me tiret9,58 9,58 |
- Devenu impropre à  la consommation 
avant destination 75,43f
75,43
(1) Autres Fiats memK a  :  Néant

A *4 t4 i A I  k
vili. ORANGES -APFELSINEN - ORANGES_ ARANCE - STNAASAPPELEN - APPELSINER "
PORTOKALIA
Répartition des quantités totales retirées du marché (Annexe I/a 1)
EXPRIME EN POURCENTAGE (%)
FRANCE ITALIAII·’»
100X
Catégorie de qualité
I
II
III
Cal ibre
plus de 88 mm (TAROCCO) 
73 mm - 88 mm 
moins de 73 mm 
mélange de calibres 
plus de 80 mm (var.
67 mm - 80 mm 
moins de 67 mm 
mélange de calibres 
plus de 76 mm (var.
60 mm - 76 mm 
moins de 60 mm 
mélange de calibresliste)
autres)
Mode de conditionnement
- emballage
- vrac
Retrait par 
décembre 
j  anvi er 
févr i  er 
mars 
avr i  l  
mai 
Variétémoi s
Tarocco
Moro
Navel
Sanguinei lo 
Sanguigno 
Ovale calabrese 
Bella dona 
Valencia late 
Biondo comune 
Autres
Destination du produit 
distribution gratuite art. 21 par. 1a) 
premier tiret
alimentation animale art. 21 par. 1a) 
troisième tiret
transformation et distribution gratuite 
art. 21 par. 1  a) cinquième tiret 
-cession aux industries (règi. 2448/77) 
devenu impropre à la consommation avant 
destination100
1,70
1,53
1,22
0 ,2 0
95,35
100
29,63 
25,47 
29,'50 
8,41
6,99
1,70
91,31
6,99
10070,60
29,40
0,15
3,04
0,45
37,65
0,54
7,29
0,85
50,0270,84
20,16
0,16
3,01
0,44
37.37 
0,55 
7,24 
0,85
50.38
— —
0,00 0,00
64,82 65,10
35,18 34,90
_0,23
0,44 0,64
10,66 10,81
53,98 53,62
34,92 34,64
- 0,06
41,29 40,98
30,99 30,74
0,22 0,94
25,24 25,04
0,00 0,00
2,05 2,03
0,20 0,20
- 0,06
0,00 .  0,00
9,03 8,96
87,73
3,2487,03
4,01
(1) Autres Etats m em b res :  Néant

gó
1981/.19B 2 ANNEXE I/b ^
IX. CITRONS - »ZITRPNFN - LEMQNS - LIMONI - CITROENEN - CITRONER - LENONIA 
répartition des quantités totales retirées du marché (Annexe I/a. 1)
EXPRIME EN POURCENTAGE {%)
ITALIE 
100 %C.E.
E.G.
Catéqorie de qualité
r  182,50 82,50
II J
III 17,50 17,50
Type de culture
- Primofiore
- Verdelli - _
- Invernale 100 100
Calibre
- plus de 83 mm 4,19 4,19
- 62/83 î tïti 10,76 10,76
- 53/62 mm 24,88 24,88
- moins de 53 mm '  60,17 60,17
Mode de conditionnement
- emballage 74,16 74,16
- vrac 25,84 25,84
Retrait par mois
- juin - -
- juillet - _
- aoû t ' — —
- septembre - - '
- octobre - _
- novembre - -
- décembre - -
- janvier - -
- février - -
- mars 4,42 4,42
- avril 25,09 25,09
- mai 70,49 70,49
Destination du produit
- distribution gratuite 4,15 4,15
(art. 21 par. 1 a) premier tiret
- alimentation animale
(art. 21 par. 1 a) troisième tiret46, CD 46,23
- devenu impropre à la consommation
avant destination 49,62
II49,62
(1) autres etats membres Néant.

ANNEXE II ^
1981/1982
DEPENSES effectuées pour emballage neuf de type perdu, destiné à la distribution 
gratuite du produit d'intervention
Valeur/ECU
FRANCE ITALIAC.E.
E.C. v ’
1. Choux-fleurs
2. Tomates
3. Pêches
4. Poires
5. Pommes
6. Raisins de table 
7· Mandarines
8. Oranges
9. Citrons9,22
225,22
1.177,62
67.160,38
5.830,711.407,60
120.088,04
820.359,57
220.096,17
71.539,88
709.385.74
288.639,47
113.602,981.416,82
120.313,30
821.537,19
287.256,55
77.370,59
709.385,74
288.639,47
113.602,98
TOTAL
—74.403,19 1.345.119,45 2.419.522,64
RECETTES * réalisées pour vente du produit d'intervention (Art. 21 par. 1 b) :  
(distillation)
DEUTSCHLAND FRANCE ITALIAC.E. (2)  
E.C. v ;
3. Pêches
4. Poires
5. Pommes- -268.842,93
482.520,39
286.448,25268.842,93
482.520,39
286.448,25
TOTAL 1.037.811,57 1.037.811,57
Art. 21 par. 1 a) 2ème,‘3ème ou 4ème tiret :  (non alimentaire ou alimentation 
„ animale)
FRANCE ELLAS IRELAND ITALIAC.E. /2)  
E.C. K  J
1. Choux-fleurx
2. TomateB
3. Pêches 
4· PoireB 
5. Pommes 
6· Raisins
7· Mandarines
8. OrangeB
9. Citrons-26,85_ 14,60 .37,25
2.036,-
11.046,44
2.170,84
2.491,20
13.886,56
47.445,68
28.452,0937,25
2.036,-
11.046,44
2.170,84
2.532,65
13.886,56
47.445,68
28.452,09
TOTAL - 26,85 14,60 107.566,06 107.607,51
Cession à l'industrie de transformation 
règi» (CEE) n° 2448/77ITALIAC.E.
E.C. k '
8. Oranges Néant Néant
(1) La compensation financière à charge du P.E.O.Q.A. est égale aux sommes prévufS 
À i ’  iPr'.e*' e T aius tifo&de·· dépenses indiquées ci—dessus, diminuée des recettes.
(z) autres ffats t iemht-cS :  nédnt*.

ANNEXE 11bi s
198*1/1983·
DEPENSES. effectuées pour La transformation et distribution gratuite 
(art. 21 par. 1  a) cinquième tiret - application des régi. 
(CEE) n° 1560/70 et n° 55/72)
---—------------ -
C.
E.
E.G.
5. Pommes
- transformation
- transportNr 1  H-1  l_
TOTAL
(1) La compensarion financière à charge du F.E.O.G.A. est égale aux sommes 
prévues à l'annexe I, ainsi que des dépenses indiquées ci-dessus,

SECTEUR DES FRUITS ET LEGUMES FRAIS ANNEXE III4Q
Récapitulatif des quantités totales (CEE) retirées du marché par campagne de commercialisation
CAMPAGNE
1967
(jusqu'au 
31 mai)
1967 - 1968
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
198019811969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982CHOUX FLEURS
1.900.788
42.886.554
267.903
4.519.415
18.427.543
18.286.250
15.589.032
15.010.921
27.356.021
20.612.035
12.611.236
36.646.039
43.459.733
40.731.999
13.216.61612.069.025TOMATES
708.475 
2.031.036 
1.667.075 
5.866.703 
31.907.577 
4.747.055 
37.420.389 
15.293.833 
135.911.294 
21 .‘ 069.850 
20.578.787 
19.634.735 
197.100.178 
78.878.348 
56.121.169PECHES
103.466.976
47.051.694 
97.600.075 
31.891.834 
21.096.426 
79.906.772 
35.182.447 
357.421.700 
59.886.929 
38.262.221 
111.089.540 
55.620.187 
343.936.402POIRES
701.287
216.687.161
149.055.260
642.215.254
408.512.473
53.672.693
260.579.016
209.677.825
176.475.814
330.405.102
41.757.877
26.592.465
54.130.211
162.926.399
120.676.864POMMES
296.827, 
21.969. 
183.335, 
180.497, 
1^6.161, 
1 .927, 
403.360 
42.916 
828.648 167.189 
2.713 
391.622 
551.013 
519.993 
53.733.950
.027
.259
.983
.402
.299
.655
.035
.899.286
.142
.592
.196
.206.
.095RAISINS
82.913
1.244.615 
26.400 
19.100
530.005MANDARINES
22.163
12.749.221
3.146.147
43.419.026
37.281.632
27.695.509
53.122.594
78.215.259
53.024.638
82.031.820Quantité - kg
ORANGES
31.724.320
34.678.599
85.063.404
101.587
129.406
130.143
71.024
187.954.609
44.066.437
322.449.824
18.170.548
104.614.720
2.737.204
101.090.831
73.242.697CITRONS
2.291.913
11.370.645
56.416.402
1.326
24.581.301
21.754.937
70.253.281TOTAL F 8 L
1.900.788
372.
379.
423.
894.
752.
107.
750.
568.
1.295.
1.306.
207.
701
1.035
1.007
812848.586 ;  
,094.702 
.640.413 
.182.927 
.600.183 
.958.056 
.287.652 
.626.068 
.686.597 
.089.647 
.476.557 
.909.461 
.017.587 
.035.167 
.064.353

SECTEUR DES FRUITS ET LEGUMES FRAIS
Récapitulatif des dépenses effectuées pour rachat des produits retirées du marché, à charge du F.E.O.G.A. (1).
par campagne de commercialisationANNEXE IV
l o .
CAMPAGNE
;  1967
:  (jusqu'au 
!  31 aai) "  
1967BELGIQUE
1968 
I  1969 
!  1970
1971
1972 
:  1973 
!  1974
1975
1976 
i  1977
19781968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979264.
961.
922.
747.
451.
37.
828.
330.
1.203.
1.215.
13.
3.833.813,02
773,26
844,60
802,94
278,76
128.30
975.40
051.30
959.40 
244,32 
157,16 
837,53DEUTSCHLAND
232.000,-
311.593,82
5.046,54
810.579,32
19.284,63
.679.894.59267.392,25
38.113,57
.659.145,45ELLAS FRANCE
58.313,34
8.428.
12.888.
851
101
13.776.
1.864,
18.103,
1.525,
25.569,
5.828
1.038
8.832100,45
398,70
991.98 
093,83 
331,65 
865,73 
558,54 
948,13
277.80 
059,11
657.99
142.81Valeur : en U.C.
IRELAND
1979 - 1980
1980 - 19811981 - 19826.551.352,41
5.690.371,89
405.054,649.106.981,96
3.506.188,36
33.717,06637.280,64
13063.872,9412.047.864,49
19.590.804,34
12.878.145,3647.517,23ITALIA
17.034,
7.890.
21.773,
29.989,
23.051.
4.201,
23.912,
41.668,
54.857,
129.908.
19.831.
40.685,426,-
655,-
407,-
463,89
829,81
231,70
459,-
084,49
421,32
860,40
622,34
616,15LUXEMBOURG
4.846,46
5.029,22NEDERLAND
612.
2.593.
1.219.
4.108.
2.209.
176.
2.073.
1.278.
2.181.
2.755.
537.
10.075.822,42
360,-
935.09 
592,26
816.10
911.05 
761,80 
912,90 
566,64 
871,35
326.05 
132,88UNITED
KINGDOM
954,31
258,36
5.075,5322.671,24
666.768,01C.E.
E.G.
58.J13,34
26.340.
24.334.
25.773.
41.184.
39.800.
6.285.
45.730,
44.822,
86.492.139.980.
21.481.
66.900.161,89
186.96
023.13 
518,25
850.14 
183,40 288,37 
539,81 
119,75502.96 
588,35 
160,06
Valeur en ECU
102.598,45 
71.255,77 
22.839,4761.399.217,04
73.940.662,03
106.736.419,5412.773.474,13
5.612.335,49
743.074,48877.001,51
1.984.890,87
40.192,95102.358.489,99
111.033.789,39
138.923.316,44
(1) La compensation financière à charge du F.E.O.G.A. est égale à la dépense pour l'achat des produits augmentés des dépenses éventuelles- pour frais de transport et emballage du tVDeperdu non récupéré dans le cas de distribution gratuite et diminuée des recettes réaliséesdes produits, pour distillation ou autres destinations autorisées dans le cadre de l'art. 21 du règlement (CEE) n° 1035/72 dudans le cas de ventes 
Conseil, portant or­ ganisation vomaune des marchés dans ce secteur oes fruits et légumes.

SECTEUR DES FRUITS ET LEGUMES FRAIS ANNEXE V
Récapitulatif de la compensation financière à charge du FEOGA par produitsI I
Valeur en U.C.
C A M P A G N E
1C H O U X-FLEURS T O M A T E S
:_______P E
C H E S  !: POIRES P O M M E S RAISINS M AN D AR IN ES O R A N G E S  | C ITR O N S TO TAL F  &  L
1967j
i !
(jusqu1 au 58.313 - - - - - -!. i
31 mai ) 1i|
1967 - 1968 1.369.766 27.767 - 27.44? 21.615.856 - - 3.299.326.26.340.162 !
1968 - 1969 7.418 71.489 9.570.869 11.405.558 847.077 - - 2.431.776 -24.334.187 !
1969 - 1970 157.033 50.883 - 9.626.042 8.484.808 - - 7.454.258 -25.773.023 !
1970 - 1971 437.738 230.035 3.355.368 29.703.843 7.448.162 - 1.908 7.464 ! -41.181.518 ;
1971 - 1972 525.399 1.112.459 8.670.615 19.898.742 8.584.050l 9.585 -39.800.850
1972 - 1973 459.780 175.921 3.011.306 2.544.007 85.552 - 8.617 ! -6.285.183
1973 - 1974 414.525 1.306.935 · 2.143.317 15.735.146 24.887.864 - 1.236.045 !  6.456 -45.730.288 ;
1974 - 1975 957.526 741.118 9.444.117 12.271.268 2.302.796 8.763 302.864 I  18.558.093 235.995 44.822.540 !
1975 - 1976 896.102 7.134.009 4.609.141 11.533.981 51.106.611 - 4.783.235 !  5.031.129 1.397.912 !  86.492.120
1976 - 1977 596.816 1.158.673 52.034.430 22.605.121 10.876.339 107.264 4.881 .071 i  39.818.632 7.902.15? I  139.980.503
1977 - 1978 1.784.830 1.122.341 9.557.449 2.953.971 164.611 2.865 !  3.698.848 !  2.196.491 185 ]  21.481.588
1978 - 1979 2.181.397 1.237.222 5.630.521 1.813.950 30.628.398 j  1.945 7.688.722 i  13.496.700 4.221.305 j  66.900.160
1
1979 - 1980
1980 - 1981
1981 - 19822.506.733
878.007
862.72313.445.412
6.393.881
4.652.02419.546.829
10.335.297
70.082.80?4.569.309 47.704.853 -  14.632.803 
15.166.352 45.382.P21 ' 56.915 10.166.933 
12.723.62? 4.427.357 - 17.752.316452.551
18.152.466
14.102.425Valeur en ECU
4.501.71?
14.320.042102.858.490
111.033.789
138.923.316