No C 269/6 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 13. 11. 78 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 158th 
plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 26 and  27 April  1978. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community  and  in particular  Articles  47 and 
198 thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of the 
European  Communities  on 9 March  1978  for an opinion, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its chairman  on 15 
March  1978,  instructing  the Section  for Agriculture  to use 
the urgency  procedure  (Articles  46 and  47 of the Rules  of 
Procedure)  to draw  up an opinion  on the matter, 
Having  regard  to the oral  report  made  by the rapporteur, 
Mr Schnieders, Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section  for 
Agriculture  at its meeting  on 6 April  1978, 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 158th  plenary 
session,  held  on 26 and 27 April  1978  (meeting  of 26 April 
1978), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
with  no votes  against  and  two  abstentions: 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  approves  the 
Commission's  proposal  in so far as it represents  the first 
step towards  the  abolition  of discrimination  in the 
granting  of consumer  subsidies  for butter.  It has come  out 
against  such  national  discrimination  on several  occasions 
and recently  did so again  in its opinion  on farm  prices. 
Done  at Brussels,  26 April  1978. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the  supplementary  Commission  proposals  on the  fixing  of prices  for certain 
agricultural  products  and  certain  related  measures 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has not yet been  published  in the Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 6 March  1978,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Articles  47 and  198  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 158th 
plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 26 and  27 April  1978. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
13. 11. 78 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 269/7 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to Articles  47 and  198  of the  Treaty 
establishing  the European  Economic  Community, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of the 
European  Communities  on 9 March  1978  for an opinion, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its chairman  on 15 
March  1978  instructing  the Section  for Agriculture  to 
draw  up an opinion  on the matter,  under  the urgency 
procedure  provided  for in Articles  46 and  47 of the Rules 
of Procedure, 
Having  regard  to the Committee's  earlier  opinions  on this 
subject  and,  in particular,  its opinion  of 1 March  1978  (a), 
Having  regard  to the report  presented  by the rapporteur, 
Mr Schnieders, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  issued  by the Section  for 
Agriculture  at its meeting  on 6 April  1978, 
Having  regard  to the  discussions  at its 158th  plenary 
session  on 26 and  27 April  1978  (meeting  of 26 April 
1978), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
by 37 votes  to 25, with  12 abstentions: 
A. GENERAL  COMMENTS 
1. The  Committee  would  register  its disapproval  at the 
Commission's  late submission  of a supplementary  Vol.  Ill 
of proposals  in its 1978/79  farm  price  package  which 
contain  some  significant  changes  in the market  regimes 
and lead  to a different  assessment  of the package. 
2. The  annual  price  review  must,  if farmers  are to have 
any chance  to make  necessary  adjustments  to their 
production  plans,  be decided  well  before  the start  of the 
new growing  season  and  the  marketing  year.  The 
Commission  had  already  made  this  difficult  when  it only 
submitted  its first  batch  of proposals  in early  December. 
3. The  Commission  appears  to think  that  the changes  it 
is proposing  in the intervention  arrangements  will  provide 
a level  of market  support  sufficient  not  to damage 
producers'  incomes. 
The Committee  has doubts  about  this,  for the proposals 
appear  to it considerably  to weaken  the present  system  of 
market  support. 
The new  proposals  can,  in the  Section's  view,  only 
confirm  the trend  (of varying  severity  depending  on the 
C) OJNoCSO,  2B.2.  1978,  p. 1. product  concerned)  whereby  the gaps  between  market 
prices  and  the  target  prices  are  damaging  producers' 
incomes. 
4. For  the first  time  the Commission  is suggesting  that 
proceeds  from  the  co-responsibility  levy  be used  for 
schemes  that  are already  in operation.  In the past  it has 
repeatedly  stressed  that  the  proceeds  of  the 
co-responsibility  levy  would  be used  for  additional 
measures  to increase  outlets  for  milk  products  which 
farmers  would  have  a say in deciding. 
B. INDIVIDUAL  MEASURES 
1. Premiums  for  the  non-marketing  of milk  and  the 
conversion  of dairy  herds 
The Committee  is pleased  that  the Commission  has acted 
on the  Economic  and  Social  Committee's 
recommendations  to continue  and  improve  the  milk 
non-marketing  and  dairy  herd  conversion  premiums 
scheme.  However,  it considers  that  to be sure  of a better 
response  the scheme  would  need  to be extended  for a 
longer  period  than  is proposed.  The  Committee  points  out 
that the  Commission  must  give  its attention  to the 
problem  of ensuring  balanced  operation  of the scheme 
and removal  of the  impediments  which  discourage 
farmers  in the individual  Member  States  from  using  the 
scheme. 
2. The  Committee  thinks  the  Commission's 
supplementary  proposals  on  milk  and  beef  involve 
significant  changes  in the market  regimes  which  need  to be 
scrutinized  and discussed  in depth.  They  therefore  cannot 
be introduced  for the marketing  year  1978/79. 
2.1. Milk 
The Committee  fears  that  suspension  of intervention 
buying-in  of skimmed-milk  powder  will  adversely  affect 
farmers'  incomes,  despite  the measures  intended  to take 
its place,  and  that  it will  trigger  waves  of intervention 
activity  before  and  after  the suspension  period  which 
would  otherwise  not occur.  Also,  the winter  period  is an 
unreliable  guide  to the  effect  of suspension  of the 
intervention  arrangements  on farm  incomes. 
2.2. Beef  and  veal 
The Committee  asks  the Commission  to make  sure  that 
the changes  in the intervention  arrangements  do not have 
an adverse  effect  on producer  prices.  The  Committee 
assumes  that  under  the  proposal  it will  be  the 
Management  Committee  which  decides  when  the 
intervention  arrangements  are to operate  and  when  they 
are to be suspended  and  which  also  fixes  the level  of the 
No C 269/8 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 13. 11.  78 
coefficients  for individual  kinds  of meat.  The  Committee 
is afraid  that  this  is asking  too much  of the Management 
Committee,  if only  because  the  information  from  the 
regional  markets  which,  under  the new  proposal,  is to 
play a key role  in the intervention  arrangements,  is often 
an inadequate  indicator. 
3. Starch 
The Committee  supports  the  Commission's  moves  to 
improve  the position  of starch  potatoes.  It would  point out that  the Committee's  conclusions  as to the necessary 
increase  in the prices  of agricultural  products  generally 
also apply  to this  product.  However,  the  proposals 
contain  new  elements,  particularly  in regard  to the 
balance  between  potato  starch  and  cereal  starch.  The 
Committee  regrets  that  the Commission  has  not  taken 
more  account  of the Committee's  opinion  of 1 March 
1978  on the report  on starch  products  in the Community 
and the starch  production  refund  (Doc.  CES  276/78),  and 
calls  upon  the Commission  to revise  its proposal  in the 
light  of the submissions  made  in that  opinion. 
Done  at Brussels,  26 April  1978. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
ANNEX 
to the opinion  of the  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Rejected  amendments 
The following  amendments  were  rejected  during  the discussion: 
Page  2, paragraph  3 
Delete  the paragraph  and  substitute  the following  text: 
'3. Nevertheless,  the Committee  welcomes  the Commission's  initiative  in that  it is an endeavour  to 
reduce  the production  of large  surpluses  in certain  sectors. 
4. However,  the Committee  expresses  considerable  anxiety  on these  issues.  First,  as to the effect  on 
farm  incomes,  the  Committee  is not  wholly  convinced  by the  Commission's  argument  that  farm 
incomes  will  not  be reduced.  Second,  there  are  evident  dangers  in weakening  the  present  general 
structure  of market  support.  Such  measures  should  only  be temporary,  until  other  positive  measures 
reduce  the threat  of unwieldy  and  expensive  surpluses.' 
(Existing  paragraph  4 becomes  paragraph  5). 
Reason 
It is self-evident  that  steps  to reduce  unmanageable  surpluses  must  be welcomed,  even  if there  are some 
doubts  about  the particular  methods  employed. 
Voting 
For:  29, against:  36, abstentions:  6. 
13. 11. 78 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 269/9 
Page 3, paragraph  2.1. - Milk 
Add to the existing  paragraph: 
'While  the objective  of reducing  the volume  and cost  of intervention  is acceptable,  the Committee  would 
urge  the  Commission  to consider  other  methods  of reducing  it, with  the  tools  at its command, 
preferably  over  a full year  so as to reduce  the danger  of speculation  and  disorder  in the market.' 
Reason 
As for the first  amendment,  this  is a question  of tools,  not  of objectives. 
Voting 
For: 29, against:  37, abstentions:  9. 
Opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Decision  empowering  the Commission  to issue  loans  for 
the purpose  of promoting  investment  within  the Community 
The text  referred  to the Committee  has been  published  in Official  Journal  of the European 
Communities  No  C 37 of 14 February  1978,  page  7. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 8 February  1978,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic  and 
Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Articles  235  and  198  of the Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 158th 
plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 26 and  27 April  1978. 
The full  text of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community  and  in particular  Articles  235 
and 198  thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of the 
European  Communities  on 8 February  1978  for  an 
opinion, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by the Chairman  of 
the Economic  and Social  Committee  on 7 February  1978, 
in anticipation  of the aforementioned  request,  entrusting 
the preparation  of an opinion  on the matter  to the Section 
for Economic  and Financial  Questions, Having  regard  to the oral  report  made  by Mr Rouzier,  the 
rapporteur,  and  the opinion  adopted  by the Section  on 
4 April  1978, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 158th  plenary 
session  held  on 26 and 27 April  1978  (meeting  of 27 April 
1978), 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION 
unanimously  by 40 votes  to 0 with  9 abstentions: 
1.1. The  Committee  is sympathetic  to the spirit  that 
inspired  this proposal.  It generally  applauds  the proposal,