COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(94) 360 final 
Brussels, 27.07.1994 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 
Development and future of Community policy 
in the fruit and vegetables sector 
0. Résumé and main conclusions 
In the Commission's view the main objective of the reform must be to 
help and encourage producers in the Union to rise to the challenges of 
the coming years and develop and strengthen their assets, namely: 
- the quality of their products, mostly intended for the fresh market 
and often highly perishable; 
- their dynamism and ability to adapt to a changing market; 
- the services which they can offer alongside their products. 
Environmental protection and the supply of a range of varied and 
healthy products must be included among the said services. 
Altogether, despite some undeniable structural imbalances, the present 
market organization provides an operational framework which answers the 
requirements and has proved its worth. All the positive features -
market orientation, decentralization of management and grouping of 
supply - should be reinforced. The Commission is therefore in favour of 
reform proposals which would consolidate the positive features of the 
present MO, while simplifying it and remedying any drift or weaknesses 
observed. 
The Commission's aim is to redirect budgetary expenditure towards 
positive measures which contribute to a sound future and take into 
account environmental concerns. 
It proposes a mix of various types of measure: 
- better grouping of supplies to match increasingly concentrated 
distribution; 
- a new way of managing short-term surpluses and gradual elimination 
of structural surpluses; 
a better balance between fresh produce and processed products; 
- redefinition of standards; 
- a specific approach to specific problems affecting certain products 
of "minor" importance in Community terms, but significant local or 
regional importance; 
- more stringent controls. 
The successful implementation of the Uruguay Round conclusions is an 
integral part of the new scenario for the fruit and vegetables sector. 
The Commission will take care to ensure that the Community preference 
authorized by the conclusions is not jeopardized by such 
implementation. 
Present situation and foreseeable outlook 
Pursuant to its commitments to the Parliament and Council, and 
specifically those made at the time of the farm price decisions for 
1993/94, the Commission has made a detailed analysis of the present 
situation and foreseeable outlook of the Community's fruit and 
vegetables sector and the common organization of the market. In the 
light of its analysis it has identified certain approaches for the 
future. 
In thinking about the broad policy lines for the future, the Commission 
took into account the joint Council conclusions adopted in September 
1993 stating that "for those sectors in which the common market 
organization arrangements have not yet been amended, the Council and 
the Commission undertake to adopt such provisions as are necessary to 
maintain farm incomes and Community preference. The conditions and 
agricultural and financial principles which have been applied 
throughout the agricultural sector will be taken into account in those 
sectors. Account will also be taken of the context of the Uruguay 
Round." On that occasion the Commission underlined the necessity of 
complying, in all the sectors covered by the common agricultural 
policy, with the financial guidelines established for the coming years. 
For the conversion of these commitments and statements into practical 
measures it is essential to take careful account of the specific 
characteristics of each sector and the economic challenges facing it. 
The fruit and vegetables sector differs from the other major sectors 
subject to a common market regime because of the large number and 
diversity of products concerned, the perishable nature of most of them 
(need for rapid marketing, limited storage possibilities), the more 
market-oriented approach to production (less prominent role of 
intervention), and the fairly decentralized system of market 
regulation, largely in the hands of the producers' organizations. 
Broadly speaking, despite some obvious structural surpluses, the system 
has proved its worth. All its positive features, which correspond well 
to the specificity of the sector (market orientation, decentralization, 
grouping of supplies), should be maintained, or even reinforced. 
It is important to stress this as the risk of market strains looks like 
building up in the medium term for most fruits and vegetables, both at 
world level and in the Community, and as demand becomes increasingly 
concentrated. 
The Commission is convinced that the fruit and vegetables sector in the 
Union is potentially well equipped to face these new challenges. The 
operational framework offered by the market regulations can and should 
be adapted to help and encourage producers to develop this potential to 
a maximum. 
World trends 
At world level there is a strong trend towards increased production; 
consumption is also increasing, but at a slower pace. Although a number 
of developing countries seem to present considerable potential for 
consumption growth, they often lack the necessary foreign exchange or 
prefer to develop domestic production. So there is a mounting risk of 
surpluses at world level, more in the case of fruit than of vegetables, 
with the result that the few large solvent markets will come in for 
increasing attention from all the exporting countries. 
This is particularly true for the European market, for the following 
reasons : 
- purchasing power is high; 
- prices are relatively attractive; 
- imports of fruit and vegetables are rising. 
The European Union is a player of first order on the world market. 
In fact, with imports of approximately 1 950 million ECU, it is by far 
the largest importer in the world, with a trade deficit in fruit and 
vegetables of about 1 280 million ECU, it also is the largest "net 
importer". Its degreee of self-sufficiency in fresh products is less 
than 40% (all figures: 1990-92 average), and the fact that Community 
output is primarily this in spite of the fresh market. 
Modifications following the Uruguay Round 
Currently, on import, products are subjected to "ad valorem" customs 
duties, for a limited number of products with a reference price system. 
The latter's aim is to prevent imported products being sold on the 
Community market below a certain price level. They are fixed each 
marketing year by the commission with the particularity that they can 
never be lowered in agricultural ECUS. In practice, there has been near 
price stability since 1986. The mechanism consists of a monitoring of 
the market prices of the principal products imported, origin by origin. 
The new system concluded in the GATT framework envisages the 
introduction of entry prices which will apply to all the products which 
currently have reference prices except lettuce, endive-chicory and 
aubergine. The levels of the entry prices were calculated from the 
reference prices, without modifying the total level of protection. 
The commission will soon present a communication on the implementation 
of the GATT agreement for all agricultural sectors, and therefore also 
for fruit and vegetables. However, the principal problem raised by the 
GATT agreement for the latter remains that of control of the entry 
prices. 
The Community will have therefore to provide itself with the 
instruments to ensure the correct operation of the entry price system. 
They will have to be in conformity with the rules of GATT and to enable 
the Community to enforce the elements of its offer. 
Following the Gatt agreement competition will become more acute, both 
on the Community market and the newly opened markets. Community 
producers have undeniable advantages on their side. The quality of 
their products, their adaptabiliyt to a constantly changing market and 
the services that can accompany their products all represent key assets 
to be exploited. 
In a more open world, one of the main challenges facing Community 
producers will be the need to be more competitive. The Commission hopes 
that the guidelines set out in this discussion paper for the adjustment 
of the market regime will help and encourage Community producers to 
respond to the challenges before them. 
Community trends 
At Community level, the trend of production of most fruit and 
vegetables, mainly intended for the fresh market, is sharply upward. 
This seems to be due to increased yields rather than to an increase in 
areas planted. Consumption is also increasing, but more in favour of 
certain processed products (frozen vegetables, fruit juices) and 
"exotic" species (especially fruit). In contrast, for many traditional 
types of fruit and vegetables (and recently for the kiwi), the trend of 
consumption is only slightly upward, sometimes even stable or downward 
(pears), and there are risks of saturation. For some products, 
structural surpluses already exist. 
The greater market dependence of fruit and vegetable growers will 
influence trends in the future as it did in the past: if a market is 
glutted the pressure on prices gradually induces the necessary 
adjustments. It is not sufficient simply to extrapolate the trends in 
order to arrive at a forecast for the future. None the less, trend 
analysis can give an idea of where and when adjustment problems may 
arise. Such an analysis has been attempted by the Commission. The main 
findings are set out in Annex 1. The conclusion must be that greater 
strains will be inevitable in the years to come, making it all the more 
essential for the market organization mechanisms to encourage rapid and 
efficient adjustment of the sector to the new conditions. 
Present situation in the Union 
Fruit and vegetables occupy (average for 1990-92) 4.3% of the 
Community'8 utilized agricultural area (UAA) and represent 16% of its 
total final agricultural production (FAP). The relative importance of 
the sector for the agricultural economy has tended to increase over the 
last ten years. It is particularly important in Spain (27% of national 
FAP), Italy (27%), Greece (23%), Portugal (18%) and Belgium (17%), but 
also in the Netherlands (13%), France (12%) and the United Kingdom 
(11%). 
Another specific feature of the fruit and vegetables sector, as 
compared with other arable farming, is its high labour intensity and 
consequent importance for rural employment in certain regions. There 
are 1.8 million holdings of an average size of 1.3 ha producing fresh 
fruit and vegetables in the community, commercial holdings specializing 
in vegetable production number about 100 000, with an average area of 
4.2 ha; the corresponding figures for specialist fruit production are 
350 000 holdings and 7.9 ha. 
As a general rule, the income of specialist vegetable holdings is 
substantially higher than the overall average income and that of 
specialist fruit-growing holdings. For the latter, the situation is 
more complex: in the north of the Union the income of fruit-growing 
holdings is higher than that of average holdings, but in the south it 
is lower, especially in Spain, Greece and Portugal. The relative 
importance of the south in overall fruit production means that its 
unfavourable income situation is reflected in the average for the Union 
as a whole. 
Both fruit and vegetables generate high value added per hectare, much 
higher than the average farm. But the average area of fruit and 
vegetable holdings is distinctly smaller and labour requirements much 
greater. These two features largely explain why the holdings in 
question show a less good result for income per work unit. Specialist 
vegetable growers nevertheless show distinctly better figures, whereas 
the situation of fruit growers is less favourable. 
The most important fruit and vegetable growing regions, where the value 
of fruit and vegetable production represents more than 2.5% of the 
Community total and more than 25% of the value of total agricultural 
production in the region, are as follows: Kentriki Ellada (2.6% and 
29%), Comunidad Valenciana (4.6% and 67%), Andalusia (4.6% and 30.2%), 
Murcia (2.5% and 64%), Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur (2.9% and 46%), 
Emilia-Romagna (4.3% and 27%), Lazio (2.5% and 37%), Campania (3.9% and 
43%), Apulia (4.3% and 42%) and Sicily (5.9% and 54%). 
The Union is by far the world's largest importer. Its self-sufficiency 
rate is less than 40%. It imports mainly fruit, fresh and, above all, 
processed (citrus juices and to a lesser extent apple juice). The main 
fresh vegetable is the tomato. The other salient feature of the trade 
picture is the relative importance of intra-Community trade, which 
exceeds 70% of the volume of fresh products traded between Member 
States. The principal dispatching countries are Spain and Italy, 
whereas Germany is by far the main receiver. 
Relocation of production 
Given the prevailing risk of over-production, some producers' 
organizations are complaining about the problem of production 
relocation which the sector will have to face, particularly, they 
claim, as a result of the reform of the CAP. However, as far as the 
1992 reform is concerned, the effects are only just beginning to be 
felt. Apart from a few cases, which so far remain sporadic, it is 
therefore too soon to draw conclusions at field level. However, the 
problem should be given some thought, even if only on a theoretical or 
even speculative level. 
Although some major production zones, especially for fruit, have 
emerged in the course of time, the geographical distribution of fruit 
and vegetable production has never been fixed. The development of 
transport infrastructure and technical progress in methods of 
production, packaging, storage and transport have led to the emergence 
of new producers and new regions of production, some of them far more 
competitive than the old ones. The possible relocations that take place 
as a result are therefore merely a reflection of the dynamism of the 
sector, and the "traditional" producers of today are in many cases the 
"newcomers" of yesterday. 
The relative profitability of a form of production in a given location 
depends on many factors, and it is often difficult or impossible to 
isolate the impact of any one of them. Nonetheless, the level and 
security of prices obtainable for alternative crops undoubtedly 
constitute one such factor. For instance, among cereal growers, since 
the second half of the 80s, the steady decline of cereal prices has 
produced increasing interest in diversification. 
Altogether, the area planted to cereals has contracted in the course of 
the last ten years (start of the 80s to start of the 9 0s) by some 2.5 
million hectares, but the contraction seems to have been offset almost 
entirely by an increase in the hectarage sown to oilseeds or committed 
to (voluntary) set-aside after 1989. In fact, the total area under 
arable crops (and voluntary set-aside) even increased over the period 
in question. In contrast, the area planted to fruit and vegetables has 
tended to decline. According to the latest available information, the 
decline was particularly marked in the 1993/94 crop year, whereas the 
cereals hectarage, including set-aside, tended to increase in the first 
year of the implementation of the 1992 reform. 
It is therefore impossible to identify, at this global level, any 
significant switchover from arable crops to fruit and vegetables. The 
possibility that some cereal growers have moved into fruit and 
vegetables cannot be ruled out, and some studies bear this out, but the 
movement is marginal at present and there can be no certainty that the 
drop in the actual price of cereals was the determining factor. In 
addition, there are many examples of movements in the other direction, 
i.e. producers of fruit and vegetables changing to arable crops. 
In conclusion, there is no obvious and general phenomenon of relocation 
clearly attributable to CAP reform. But this does not rule out a 
possible risk for the future, so a close watch must be kept on the 
trend. 
II. The weaknesses of the MO and the challenges before it 
Close analysis of the MO mechanisms reveals a certain number of 
weaknesses, reflected particularly in: 
- the unsatisfactory operation of certain producers' organizations; 
- the importance of subsidized withdrawals which have become of a 
structured nature for certain crops and certain regions; 
- occasional criticisms of the Community's quality standards; 
- major shortcomings in statistics. 
Producers' organizations 
The producers' organizations are a cornerstone of the MO, responsible 
for thé decentralized application of its mechanisms. Except in cases of 
"serious crisis", hitherto infrequent, they bear sole responsibility 
for subsidized withdrawals in accordance with Community rules. Some of 
them on their own initiative also withdraw products not qualifying for 
Community support. 
But the role of producers' organizations should extend beyond 
decentralized management of withdrawals. Given the increasing 
concentration of demand (centralized purchasing and large-scale 
distribution), the grouping of supply through producers' organizations 
appears an economic necessity if the position of producers on the 
market is to be strengthened. 
The present MO has included measures to encourage producers' 
organizations from the outset. This policy has had divergent results. 
Nowadays there are many regions where real successes has been achieved, 
with organizations marketing their members' products efficiently and 
consolidating their position on the market. 
On the other hand, there are still: 
- producers' organizations either without great commercial ambitions 
which only justify their existence by the withdrawals they manage or 
the structural assistance they receive, or which have objective 
difficulties in performing their commercial role, and 
regions where producers' organizations cover only a minority of 
producers while other commercial operators fulfil their role in a 
way deemed fairly satisfactory by a large number of local producers. 
In the Commission's view it will also be necessary in the future to 
concentrate supply. This must be achieved on a voluntary basis, on the 
strength of the special services which producers' organizations can 
offer their members for efficient marketing and not because they enjoy 
a monopoly for withdrawals. 
fi^^^SHC^ps^ï^çr^v^ 
Subsidized withdrawals 
The system of subsidized withdrawals was devised to cope with short-
term surpluses of fresh and perishable produce due to exceptional 
weather. 
In the last five years (1989 to 1993), budget expenditure on 
withdrawals amounted to an annual average of ECU 310 million, over 90% 
was spent on fruit, and almost entirely on peaches, nectarines, apples 
and citrus fruits. As regards vegetables, the system was applied in 
practice only to summer tomatoes and cauliflower, plus some small 
quantities of aubergines. 
Withdrawals are rising and this trend should continue in terms of both 
quantities and expenditure, despite the system of intervention 
thresholds (stabilizers). Where thresholds are exceeded, there is 
provision for reductions in the institutional prices applicable the 
following year. In some cases the overrun must be established each 
marketing year (vegetables, peaches and citrus fruit) in others as an 
average over several years (apples). The price reduction may never 
exceed 20%. This cut-off point has been reached in practice by certain 
products. If the penalty had been calculated without regard for the 
cut-off point in 1992/93 (applicable in 1993/94), for example, it would 
have been 25% for peaches and 95% for nectarines. 
In some cases, where production costs are low, withdrawal seems to have 
gradually become an outlet in itself. Some producers seem to be caught 
in a vicious circle: producing for withdrawal, they try to keep upkeep 
costs to a minimum, favouring quantity to the detriment of quality; 
their produce falls increasingly short of market requirements and in 
the end is only good for withdrawal. In the case of citrus fruit, more 
particularly oranges, the role of withdrawal has been taken over partly 
by processing. This too is a subsidized outlet exploited systematically 
for fruit originally intended for the fresh market but which has 
gradually ceased to target the consumer. 
Such vicious circles must be broken, in the interests of the industry 
itself. The withdrawal system, and in some cases the system of aid for 
processing, should be looked into so as to remove the possibility of 
them being exploited systematically as a subsidized outlet and so that 
the producers themselves are made more responsible and encouraged to 
produce for the market. 
Withdrawals are not easily understood by the public. They should be 
strictly limited to short term surpluses and, as far as possible, the 
products withdrawn should be used for humanitarian purposes. Certain 
quantities of fruit and vegetables already find such destinations with 
in the framework, for example, of the free distribution of agricultural 
producfts to the most deprived. 
Moreover, one cannot exclude that the systematic use of the withdrawals 
as a subsidized outlet is connected with phenomena of fraud. Fraud, in 
the first place, with regard to quality, which, according to certain 
evidence, sometimes does not correspond to the requirements. Fraud, 
aslo with regard to the quantities: more products declared as withdrawn 
than in fact withdrawn. 
Quality standards 
The quality standards form a system of classification which helps to 
make the market more transparent by indicating certain characteristics 
of a product marketed. Standards reduce transaction costs and allow 
trade to develop without physical attention to the product. 
What would happen if standards were no longer compulsory? Initially 
there would be little change. Big traders would continue to refer to 
the standards as they really need them for their transactions, but the 
system would gradually break down on local and regional markets, 
reducing market transparency. 
Standardization has also been used as an instrument of market 
management. For example, it led to two measures which have been the 
subject of some debate: 
- the ban in principle on the marketing of class III products on the 
fresh market, and 
- the setting of the minimum size for Community apples of the large-
fruit varieties in 1990 at 65mm instead of the original 60mm (used 
in international standards). The primary reason for this was the 
desire to limit supply on the market by eliminating small apples. 
After diagnosing a serious crisis on the Community market for kiwi 
fruit, COPA-COGECA now requests the minimum size in the Community 
standard to be raised from 65 to 70g per fruit. 
Using standards for market management has certain advantages: 
- since it applies to products for market and for withdrawal, it 
limits the quantities available on the market without pushing up 
subsidized withdrawals. In situations of surplus (as is the case for 
many products) it contributes towards market balance, reduces budget 
expenditure and improves producer prices; 
- in some cases (e.g. kiwi fruit) it is the only available market 
management instrument. 
But these advantages are sometimes ill perceived by consumers, who are 
deprived of produce suitable for consumption and traditionally consumed 
in their region. 
10 
Significant shortcomings in statistics 
In the course of its analysis, the Commission observed major 
shortcomings in the statistical data available. Some points should be 
stressed: 
- basic surveys are conducted every five years to establish the 
structure of the fruit-growing industry, but the results are not 
available until several years later. Estimates of fruit-growing area 
based on interim survey results (changes in area planted) are not 
always consistent with the findings of the next basic survey; 
for the annual statistics of area and production, Member States do 
not record non-commercial orchards and row trees in an identical 
manner; 
- for the same statistical variables (area, production, yield), the 
official sources occasionally give very different results; 
- there are no reliable figures on consumption. Supply balances are 
not established by all Member States and the reliability of certain 
items is rather doubtful. Estimates from consumer surveys are not 
systematically made available to the Commission and do not permit 
satisfactory monitoring of the trend of consumption; 
- some of the problems mentioned above are due to the fact that Member 
States are not legally bound to provide the Commission with annual 
information on area, production and supply balances; 
- differences in intra-Community trade estimates based on consignment 
and delivery figures are sometimes significant, even as high as 50% 
in certain cases; 
- for many products, especially processed, the only available data are 
provided by industry. 
11 
III. What approaches for the future? 
The purpose of this communication is not to make detailed proposals for 
reform. As in the case of the CAP reform in 1991<1) and the wine 
sector reform in 1993<2), the commission's wish is to suggest certain 
approaches for all the parties to think about. 
This corresponds to the recommendations of the European Council in 
Edinburgh in December 1992 about the transparency of Community 
decisions, involving the broadest possible consultation. 
In the Commission's view the main objective of the reform must be to 
help and encourage producers in the Union to rise to the challenges of 
the coming years and develop and strengthen their assets, namely: 
- the quality of their products, mostly intended for the fresh market 
and often highly perishable; 
- their dynamism and ability to adapt to a changing market; 
- the services which they can offer alongside their products. 
Environmental protection and the supply of a range of varied and 
healthy products must be included among the said services. 
Altogether, despite some isolated but significant imbalances, the 
present market organization provides an operational framework which 
answers the requirements and has proved its worth. All the positive 
features - market orientation, decentralization of management and 
grouping of supply - should be reinforced. The Commission is therefore 
in favour of reform proposals which would consolidate the positive 
features of the present MO, while simplifying it and remedying any 
drift or weaknesses observed. 
On the other hand, the introduction of production quotas and a "right 
of production", as recommended in some quarters, would undermine the 
dynamism required to keep pace with market change, particularly at time 
when foreign competition is gathering strength. It would also require a 
system of continuous monitoring and data gathering. 
The same problem would arise if a system of aid per hectare were to be 
introduced. There is no register of orchards, no land register and no 
sufficiently reliable background data for setting up such a system. And 
the first efforts to set up a citrus fruit register have confirmed the 
problems. Many years of work and heavy expenditure is needed in order 
to develop an efficient instrument of management. Past experience with 
the vineyard register also confirms the problems. Consequently, the 
Commission advises against such a policy. It is more in favour of 
adapting the present framework. 
(1) C0M(91) 100, 1.2.1991 
(2) COM(93) 380, 22.7.1993 
12 
The commission's aim is to redirect budgetary expenditure towards 
positive measures which contribute to a sound future and take into 
account environmental concerns. 
It proposes a mix of various types of measure: 
- better grouping of supplies to match increasingly concentrated 
distribution; 
- a new way of managing short-term surpluses and gradual elimination 
of structural surpluses; 
- a better balance between fresh produce and processed products; 
- redefinition of standards; 
- a specific approach to specific problems affecting certain products 
of "minor" importance in community terms, but significant local or 
regional importance; 
- more stringent controls. 
The successful implementation of the Uruguay Round conclusions is an 
integral part of the new scenario for the fruit and vegetables sector. 
The Commission will take care to ensure that the Community preference 
authorized by the conclusions is not jeopardized by such 
implementation. Work is already in hand on this aspect and the 
Commission will submit a framework proposal to the Council and 
Parliament, deciding shortly on the concrete measures to be taken. 
Parallel to the implementation of the Uruguay Round conclusions, and 
more generally to ensure the regular operation of the market, the 
Commission intends to open consultations with our main partners in 
order prevent any serious market disturbances having adverse 
repercussions on suppliers, whether in the Community or in third 
countries. 
With regard to the opening of new markets, the Commission will take 
strict care to ensure that the Uruguay Round conclusions are 
implemented fully by the Union's GATT partners, especially the question 
of market access. In the context of the reform, it will encourage fruit 
and vegetable producers to look into these new markets and will help 
them promote Community products to potential new consumers. 
13 
1. Better organization of community supply 
The organization of supply is vital for the competitiveness of 
Community producers for the following reasons: 
- the ever-increasing importance of the major retail chains, which 
in some Member States account for more than 60% of sales of fruit 
and vegetables to households. In general, central buyers: 
have considerable room to negotiate price reductions; 
seek to obtain large quantities of standardized, uniform 
quality 
operate on a just-in-time basis, transferring a good share of 
the stock management problems to producers' organizations and 
local wholesalers; 
- constantly changing demand. Producers must remain alert to 
consumers' desiderata and be able to adapt to market signals; 
- the growing importance of the intrinsic quality of products in 
consumers' eyes. The development of integrated crop protection 
and compliance with changing rules on residues, especially 
pesticide and nitrate residues, requires organizational efforts 
on the part of producers; 
- to integrate environmental concerns in farming practices 
Community wide and the need to develop, in particular, integrated 
crop protection methods; 
- the reduction of costs (production, marketing) also requires 
efforts and economies of scale. 
The producers' organizations already represent one of the 
cornerstones of the present MO. In the Commission's view they should 
be encouraged to play a more active role as commercial operators, 
provided that they can be credible in that role. The following steps 
should be envisaged: 
applying more stringent Community criteria for the recognition of 
producers' organizations by Member states. 
Recognition would be reserved for groups of producers which 
achieve a minimum turnover in sales of fruit and vegetables and 
effectively market a high percentage (80%) of the marketable 
production of their members. They must be of a minimum economic 
size which justifies the existence of a marketing department; 
setting up a part-financing system to enable producers• 
organizations recognized on the basis of the new criteria to 
maintain "operating funds", on condition that the beneficiary 
organizations : 
set up the funds on the basis of the effective contributions 
of members and the quantities effectively marketed; 
undertake to promote among their members the use of integrated 
crop protection methods or other environment-friendly 
techniques; 
ensure that their members comply with quality standards and 
plant health regulations; 
agree to national and Community audits to ensure correct 
administration of public moneys. 
14 
" ~""|"ii>»?£M'ir **«* 4-j _* j^3*> 
The public contribution to such operating funds would be provided 
jointly from the Community budget and national and/or regional 
budgets, with a greater contribution from the Community in the 
Objective 1 regions. This would place responsibility on all the 
public administrations concerned to ensure correct use. The 
criterion would be "one ecu of public support for each ecu of 
private funding". The Community contribution would be increased if 
the producers• organization agreed to cooperate with similar 
organizations in other Member states in order to expand its range of 
products and/or extend its delivery periods. 
In view of the specific problems of certain regions, where producer 
organisations do not hardly exist, an adjustment of this criterion 
of "one ecu of public support for each ecu of private funding", will 
be envisaged for a limited period. 
The operating fund could be used inter alia for the following: 
- improving product quality; 
- promoting and encouraging producers to use integrated crop 
protection techniques, and any other environment-friendly 
techniques, including recycling of used plastics and packings. 
The Member States will offer the framework within which the 
standards to be applied will be elaborated. 
improving the market image of products and, in particular, 
setting up or expanding a marketing department; 
- promoting the products on other markets. 
The public contribution to the operating fund would be calculated on 
the basis of the effective turnover of the group, obtained on the 
fruit and vegetables market, but degressive in function of its size. 
The basis of calculation is therefore not limited to products 
currently eligible for subsidized withdrawal, but includes all the 
range and diversity of Community fruit and vegetable production. 
Some of the resources from the operating funds could be used to: 
- increase by a limited percentage the withdrawal indemnity payable 
in respect of products currently subject to a withdrawal price 
(see point 2 below); 
- pay compensation to members for products withdrawn from the 
market not subject to a withdrawal price; 
- increase by a limited percentage the prices obtained by producers 
for products sold for processing. 
The necessary steps will be taken to prevent that these measures 
will lead to massive withdrawals for certain products. Moreover, if 
a product is withdrawn, this must be compatible with the 
environment. 
15 
As in the case of the wine sector reform^) the Commission holds 
the view, in line with its Communication on inter-branch 
organizations in 1990(4), that a light Community framework for 
inter-branch arrangements in the fruit and vegetables sector should 
be offered to Member States so wishing. 
2. A new approach to managing short-term surpluses 
The purpose of the reform is not just to ensure that the producers 
take more responsibility for market management, but also to reduce 
the attractiveness of the withdrawal option and the tendency of 
producers' organizations to concentrate on it. 
Short-term surpluses are an inherent feature of fruit and vegetable 
production. The producers' organizations would be free to decide 
which products and quantities should be withdrawn as and when they 
saw fit. For products at present eligible for Community support on 
withdrawal (withdrawal price), the producer would receive 
compensation in the form of a community withdrawal indemnity set at 
a clearly unprofitable level, i.e. well below the present withdrawal 
price in most cases. Arrangements for processed fruit and vegetables 
would be adapted accordingly. 
The producers' organizations could top up the withdrawal indemnities 
to which their members were entitled. For this purpose they could 
use a limited and decreasing proportion of the operating fund 
(referred to in point 1 above). They could also use this proportion 
of the operating fund to compensate their members for the withdrawal 
of products that are not at present covered by the system of 
withdrawal prices. 
When withdrawn products were destroyed, payment of both the 
Community withdrawal indemnity and any topping up or compensation 
from the operating fund would be conditional upon the definition at 
forehand of and the use of environment-friendly techniques. 
This more stringent approach to withdrawal will mean that the system 
of intervention thresholds for fresh products can be discontinued at 
the end of the transitional period. 
Producers who are not members of the grouping could also withdraw 
products eligible for the Community indemnity payable through the 
producers * organizations. They would receive the indemnity after 
deduction of a flat-rate amount to take account of the management 
costs incurred by the producers' organization. 
3. A balanced relation between fresh and processed products 
Wide variety is not only a feature of fresh products; it is also 
reflected in the considerable complexity and diversity of relations 
between products consumed fresh and those consumed after processing. 
In some cases, the approach suggested in this communication for the 
fresh product will also affect the processed product; in other 
cases, the new approach for the fresh product will have little or no 
impact on the processed product. 
(3) COM(93) 380, 22.7.1993 
(4) SEC(90) 562, 26.10.1990 
16 
Five broad categories can be distinguished in this respect: 
1. Products eligible for withdrawal but not for processing aid: 
these include cauliflower and apples, which are subject to a 
system of intervention thresholds. 
2. Products eligible for withdrawal, but for neither processing aid 
nor thresholds. They include apricots and table grapes. 
Setting withdrawal indemnities at non-profitable levels (lower 
than at present) and allowing for the possibility of topping up 
prices obtained for products sold for processing should be 
conducive to a more stable and fluid relation between production 
and processing. 
3. Citrus fruits, for which the processing aid system is included in 
the fresh products market organization. The threshold relates to 
all subsidized disposal,whether the subsidy takes the form of 
withdrawal or processing aid. 
4. Products intended for either the fresh or the processing market, 
where the two markets are usually separate. These products are 
eligible both for withdrawal and for processing aid under the MO 
for processed products; consequently, there are two stabilizers, 
one for fresh products and the other for processed products. The 
stabilizer for processed tomatoes takes the form of industry 
quotas; those for peaches and pears take the form of intervention 
thresholds. 
For both groups, setting withdrawal indemnities at lower levels 
will also bring down minimum prices and processing aids; the 
money thus made available will fuel the operating funds of the 
producers' organizations. As mentioned in point III.l, the 
operating funds can be used in part to increase prices obtained 
on sales for processing. With this approach, part of the public 
support now granted to the processing industries (with indirect 
benefits to producers) will be transformed into direct support to 
producers. 
5. Products that are eligible only for processing aid under the MO 
for processed products subject to a guarantee threshold. They 
include, for example, prunes, figs and dried grapes (although for 
dried grapes the present system will be replaced after the 
current marketing year by a maximum guaranteed area). 
These products will not be directly affected by the reform of the 
MO for fresh products. 
This said, the Cpmmission will review all the various processed 
products, and will propose any adjustments needed to ensure the 
smooth functioning of the entire fruit and vegetables sector 
following reform, it will be guided by the following principles. 
- Policy on processed fruit and vegetables should be consistent 
with policy on fresh products; this means continuing to foster 
competition and to seek genuine market outlets. 
17 
- The Community framework for the market in processed fruit and 
vegetables must leave the industries and producers concerned 
sufficient leeway to adapt to market needs, to open promising new 
markets and to exploit their relative competitiveness. Any rigid 
system, such as production or processing quotas, might hamper the 
required adjustments and eventually create an increasingly 
serious handicap for the processing industries in a constantly 
developing market. 
In future the Community processing industry must not be seen as 
an outlet for market surpluses of fresh products, wherever 
possible, products intended for the fresh market should be 
differentiated from products for processing. Multiannual 
contracts between the industry and producers may constitute an 
approach worth exploring. 
4. Redefining the role of standardization 
Standardization has a major role to play as a system of 
classification contributing to market transparency. This is 
recognized both in the Community and internationally. Without 
Community standards, therefore, regions or Member States might be 
led to set up their own systems, which could lead to serious 
distortions. 
For these reasons, the standards should be maintained and updated as 
a compulsory Community reference framework; most operators are in 
favour of this in the interests of minimum commercial transparency. 
This does not mean that operators may not supplement the framework 
by adding their own specifications. 
From this point of view, all the present standards need to be 
reviewed, simplified, updated and developed, in close coordination 
with the standardization work going on at other international 
levels in which the union is involved. 
It is true that the standards have been frequently criticized for 
their complexity, and the role played by the Union in establishing 
commercial standards has been questioned. Advocates of 
subsidiarity often present the Commission as a body distant from the 
real world, seeking to impose over-detailed and unnecessary rules 
and regulations. Such criticism is offset by the requests sent to 
the Commission for the standards to be updated and expanded. The 
Commission would therefore suggest that a debate could be opened on 
the matter. 
However, there is no doubt that the Commission has a duty to 
consider the health of consumers in the framework of the single 
market. On the question of wholesomeness, maximum residue limits 
for pesticides and crop protection products have been set for all 
fruit and vegetables in Directive 90/642/EEC. Limits on nitrates 
(important for vegetables) and aflatoxins (important for vegetables 
and nuts) are laid down in proposals for directives soon to be sent 
to the Council. In addition, a proposal for a directive is being 
drawn up for the horizontal harmonization of the other aspects of 
the wholesomeness of products of plant origin. 
It is still difficult to define objective, measurable criteria for 
organoleptic quality, which is so important to consumers. 
18 
5. A specific approach for specific problems 
The Commission also thinks it is necessary to give some 
consideration to the future of such products as garlic, asparagus, 
mushrooms, soft fruits and other products where problems cannot 
always be overcome solely with the aid of the general MO 
instruments. Their economic importance is not decisive at Community 
or even at national level, but they may well be very important at 
regional or local level. In the face of strong international 
competition, the economic survival of these products might even come 
under threat, with all the resulting social consequences. 
Establishing operating funds as suggested in this communication 
would be a major step towards providing producers' organizations 
with the means to deal with such problems. Other measures may also 
be necessary, where appropriate, the commission is prepared to 
study, in close cooperation with the regions, the Member States and 
the operators concerned, the specific situation of each sector so as 
to prepare any provisions that may be necessary, on the 
understanding that such provisions should comply with the 
constraints arising from the Uruguay Round and the Union's 
international commitments. This is already true, indeed, of products 
such as nuts and dried grapes. 
€. Tighter controls 
Frequent calls for tighter controls are made by all the European 
institutions: Parliament,, the Council, the Court of Auditors, the 
Economic and Social Committee, and the Commission. The GATT 
agreements, and the Commission's proposed approach, can be 
effectively applied only if there are adequate control measures at 
both national and Union level. 
In more general terms, as the proposed approach is geared to 
simplification of Community rules and increased responsibility for 
producers and their organizations, its adoption will involve the 
government departments concerned in more intensive control than at 
present. 
Tighter controls should cover in particular the management of the 
operating funds of the producers' organizations, compliance with 
commercial and health quality standards, and the smooth working of 
the entry price arrangements. A small but efficient nucleus of 
Community inspectors will help to ensure, for Community and non-
Community producers, consumers and operators alike, that the 
controls are applied in a uniform and non-discriminatory manner. 
This objective will also be furthered by closer contact between 
national and Community officials responsible for control, and joint 
training and information activities on a Community scale. This 
coordinated and cooperative approach is essential in view of the 
proliferation of bodies responsible for different aspects of 
control, the need to make the various actors more responsible for 
the sound management of the sector, and the Union's major 
international commitments. 
19 
7. A necessary transition 
The commission is avare of the need for a transition period and 
back-up measures once the aims and instruments have been defined. 
The scaling-down of withdrawal prices to a non-remunerative level 
should be progressive, over a four-year period. 
The Commission's proposed approach will involve problems of 
transition in certain community regions, for certain producers and 
certain products, for the following reasons: 
(i) Producers* organizations are weak or even non-existent in 
certain regions of the community. 
(ii) The reform should enhance the role of producers' organizations 
which contribute effectively to grouping Community supply; the 
criteria for the recognition of such organizations need to be 
strengthened. 
But the application of more rigorous criteria, essential as it 
is, will raise the problem that many organizations do not (or 
not. yet) fulfil them, and will therefore not be entitled to 
the community contribution to the operating fund. For 
example, they may be too small in economic terms, or the 
proportion of the output of their members that is actually 
marketed may be too low. 
(iii) Withdrawal indemnities set at unprofitable levels are likely 
to cause problems in certain regions and groupings where 
withdrawals have become excessive. 
To solve this type of problem, the commission suggests introducing 
four-year adjustment programmes, financed by the communityi 
(a) to help producers' organizations expand, e.g. by grouping 
together or by expanding their membership, and to encourage 
the creation of producers' organizations where none exist; 
(b) to encourage producers who have traditionally been dependent 
on withdrawal to adjust themselves back to the market; 
(c) to facilitate conversion and/or grubbing up possibly in 
combination with reparcelling to crop varieties more adapted 
to the market, or to assign land to other purposes such as 
afforestation and conservation. 
If grubbing up is included, subject to certain limits, in 
adjustment programmes upon which the future of a producers • 
organization depends, it will have a better chance of success. 
But the commission is not convinced that large-scale 
subsidized grubbing up is sufficient in itself to solve the 
problems of structural surpluses. At all events, to be 
effective, a grubbing-up scheme must be accompanied by rules 
on planting rights, with appropriate monitoring measures- But 
the difficulties caused by the lack of a proper land registex-
and the dearth of statistics referred to earlier, should not 
be underestimated. 
At the end of the transition period, the commission will present a 
report on the realisation of the adjustment programmes. 
lo 
IV. CONCLUSIONS 
The Commission's analysis of Community policy on fruit and vegetables 
leads it to conclude that reform of the present mechanisms is needed to 
help and encourage Community producers to exploit all their assets and 
give a maximum boost to the sector's momentum. This is the best way 
forward to ensure a positive outlook for the future, especially for 
younger growers. 
The Commission's aim is to redirect budgetary expenditure towards 
positive measures which contribute to a sound future and take into 
account environmental concerns. 
It proposes a mix of various types of measurer 
- better grouping of supplies to match increasingly concentrated 
distribution; 
- a new way of managing short-term surpluses and gradual elimination 
of structural surpluses; 
- a better balance between fresh produce and processed products; 
- redefinition of standards; 
- a specific approach to specific problems affecting certain products 
of "minor" importance in Community terms, but significant local or 
regional importance; 
- more stringent controls. 
The successful implementation of the Uruguay Round conclusions is an 
integral part of the new scenario for the fruit and vegetables sector. 
The Commission will take care to ensure that the Community preference 
authorized by the conclusions is not jeopardized by such 
implementation. 
The commission hopes that broad debate will be opened in the Union on 
the prospects sketched out in this paper. In due course, it will 
present detailed proposals, taking the opportunity to review all the 
rules and regulations, with a view to their updating. 
21 
Area and production of fruit and vegetables in the Union 
average 1990-92 (x '000 t in %) 
million ha % UAA 
Area Fruit 3.64 
Vegetables 1.91 
Total 5.55 4.3 
FRUIT VEGETABLES 
x '000t % x '000t % 
Dessert apples 
Dessert pears 
Peaches 
Apricots 
Cherries 
Plums 
Nectarines 
Nuts 
strawberries 
Kiwis 
Berries, (exc1. kiwi) 
Oranges 
Mandarins 
Satsumas 
Clementines 
Lemons 
Table grapes 
Other 
TOTAAL 8143 
2474 
3089 
569 
513 
889 
863 
772 
648 
444 
522 
5550 
340 
427 
1277 
1491 
2221 
1151 
31383 25,9 
7,9 
9,8 
1,8 
1,6 
2,8 
2,7 
2,5 
2,1 
1,4 
1,7 
17,7 
1,1 
1,4 
4,1 
4,8 
7,1 
3,7 Cauliflower 
White cabbage 
Other cabbage 
Celery 
Leeks 
Lettuce 
Witloof, Endive 
Spinach 
Asparagus 
Curled endive 
Artichokes 
Tomatoes 
Cucumbers 
Aubergines 
Marrows 
Sweet peppers 
Carrots 
Garlic 
Onions 
Peas 
French beans 
Mushrooms 
Other 
TOTAL 2197 
1912 
1517 
534 
731 
2432 
599 
423 
232 
667 
1002 
13140 
1348 
561 
842 
1473 
3030 
339 
3070 
723 
1003 
739 
8194 
46708 4,7 
4,1 
3,2 
1,1 
1,6 
5,2 
1,3 
0,9 
0,5 
1,4 
2,1 
28,1 
2,9 
1,2 
1,8 
3,2 
6,5 
0,7 
6,6 
1,5 
2,1 
1,6 
17,5 
100,0 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY (*) 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM 
EUR 12 FRUIT 
X '000 t 
412 
72 
3017 
3454 
8540 
3405 
17 
10567 
8 
539 
859 
494 
31383 % EUR 12 
1,3 
0,2 
9,6 
11,0 
27,2 
10,8 
0,1 
33,7 
0,03 
1,7 
2,7 
1,6 
100,0 VEGETABLES 
x '000 t 
1253 
261 
2147 
4000 
11048 
5655 
233 
12610 
2 
3657 
2048 
3793 
46708 % EUR 12 
2,7 
0,6 
4,6 
8,6 
23,7 
12,1 
0,5 
27,0 
0,00 
7,8 
4,4 
8,1 
100,0 TOTAL 
X '000 t 
1665 
333 
5164 
7454 
19588 
9060 
250 
23177 
10025 
4196 
2907 
4287 
78091 % EUR 12 
2,1 
0,4 
6,6 
9,5 
25,1 
11,6 
0,3 
29,7 
0,01 
5,4 
3,7 
5,5 
100,0 
(*) New Lander excluded for fruit, included for vegetables 
22 
\ 
Total expenditure of EAGGF Guarantee Section 
(ECU billion) 
1988 
1989 
1990 
1991 
1992 
1993 Fruit/veg 
fresh 
283 
497 
670 
489 
608 
1,076 Fruit/veg 
processed 
427 
522 
583 
618 
654 
596 Fruit/veg 
total 
710 
1,019 
1,253 
1,107 
1,262 
1,672 EAGGF 
Guarantee 
27,687 
25,875 
26,475 
31,865 
32,114 
35,590 % 
2,6 
3,9 
4,7 
3,5 
3,9 
4,7 
Main measures for fresh products (ECU billion) 
Refunds 
With­
drawals 
Process­
ing of 
citrus 
fruit 
Nuts 
other 
TOTAL 1988 
49 
169 
54 
11 
283 1989 
63 
284 
128 
22 
497 1990 
67 
304 
230 
34 
35 
670 1991 
77 
187 
129 
35 
61 
489 1992 
92 
188 
229 
46 
53 
608 1993 
156 
597 
179 
81 
63 
1076 
23 
EVOLUTION DU COMMERCE EXTRA DE FRUITS ET LEGUMES 
FRAIS ETTRANSFORMES EN VOLUME Miot 
12 
10 IMPORTATIONS! 
TOTALES 
j IMPORTATIONS 
jsf prod, tropicaux 
4 h ^EXPORTATIONS! 
1984 1985 1986 WOl Source : EUROSTAT 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 
2i^ 
ANNEX I 
Production and consumptiont first conclusions 
Towards greater pressure 
With a few exceptions, increased output has not so far led to structural 
surpluses. First of all, in most cases, the effects on market equilibrium 
of the increase in output have been attenuated, and sometimes offset, by a 
corresponding expansion in demand. Secondly, many types of fruit and 
vegetables are not entitled to specific internal support through 
intervention (withdrawal) or aid to processing. In these cases, output 
tends to adapt systematically to demand. The production of fruit and 
vegetables is far more market-driven than any other agricultural sector. 
This means that, for most products, output surpluses give less cause for 
concern than in other sectors. 
However, the exceptions to this rule are significant, especially as most 
Community output is intended for the fresh market. Withdrawals are 
substantial and are even becoming systematic for certain varieties of apples 
and peaches. Citrus fruit withdrawals are still fairly limited, but 
increasing, and, because of the aid available, much of the fruit that cannot 
be disposed of on the fresh market is going for processing. Processing is 
also a subsidized fall-back outlet for peaches. 
Withdrawal and subsidized processing are much less important in the 
vegetables sector. Exceptions are cauliflowers and, to a lesser extent, 
tomatoes; for the latter it has been necessary to introduce processing 
quotas. By contrast, withdrawal plays only a limited role for summer 
tomatoes. 
The strong market dependence of fruit and vegetable growers will influence 
trends in the future as it did in the past: if a market is glutted the 
pressure on prices gradually induces the necessary adjustments. It is not 
sufficient simply to extrapolate the trends in order to arrive at a forecast 
for the future. None the less, trend analysis can give an idea of where and 
when adjustment problems may arise. Such an analysis has been attempted 
below, in table 1 for fruit and table 2 for vegetables. 
2s 
In interpreting Table 1, it should be borne in mind that "uses" include 
fruit juice (converted into fresh fruit equivalent), largely produced from 
imported concentrate, since community output is not competitive without 
massive aid. Juice consumption is a major component of citrus fruit 
consumption, estimated at some 50% in 1990/92 and 55% in 2000. The 
consumption of citrus fruit not including juice would be only 8.8 million 
tonnes in 2000 instead of 19.7 million tonnes. For table grapes, Table 1 
does not take account of the impact of the wine sector reform now at the 
proposal stage. We estimate that prohibiting the vinification of table 
grapes would lead to a slight production surplus of around 200 000 tonnes. 
In brief, it is clear from Tables 1 and 2 that markets in virtually all the 
Community s major fruit and vegetable products may well come under pressure. 
- 24-
1. FORESEEABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION 
OF FRESH AND PROCESSED FRUIT ('000 t) (*) 
APPLES 
PEARS 
PEACHES (1) 
GRAPES 
CITRUS FRUIT 
ORANGES 
LEMONS 
OTHER CITRUS 
SUB-TOTAL 
PER HEAD 
OTHER FRUIT (2) 
TROPICAL FRUIT (3} 
TOTAL 
PER HEAD 
TOTAL excl. juicev and 
tropical fruit (4| 
PER HEAD PRODUCTION 
1990-92 
8143 
2474 
3951 
2221 
9177 
5550 
1490 
2137 
! 25966 
1 
6279 
• 
32245 
> 
I, 2000 
10000 
2450 
4555 
2430 
10700 
6219 
1670 
2S11 
30135 
\ 7530 
: 37665 % diff 
22,8 
-1,0 
15,3 
9,4 
16,6 
12,1 
12,1 
31,5 
16,1 
19,9 
16,8 USE 
1990-92 
8540 
2751 
3155 
2305 
16920 
12845 
1445 
2630 
\ 33671 
97,5 
6303 
4037 
44011 
127,5 
29274 
84,8 2000 
8820 
2356 
3600 
2700 
19685 
15060 
1630 
2995 
37161 
104,1 
6815 
5360 
49336 
138,2 
30386 
85,1 ft diff 
3,3 
-14*4 
14,1 
17,1 
16,3 
17,2 
12,8 
13,9 
10,4 
6,7 
8,1 
32,8 
12,1 
8,4 
3,8 
0,4 % p.a. 
1,10 
0,73 
3,20 
1,20 
0,90 
0,42 
0,04 
NB: Figures for "use" also include the consumption of fruit juice based, on 
imported concentrât» and converted into equivalent fresh fruit. 
* for net imports of apple juice (53 000 t), processed: pears (40 000 t), and orange 
juice (550 000 t), co«ffici«irts of 8, 8.5 and 12.5 respectively/ were used to convert 
into equivalent fresh fruit, while EUROSTAT uses a factor of 1.6. 
(1) including necfsrfro» 
(2) Production estimated on the basis of the sub-total for fruit; identical calculation 
for consumption, but excluding juice 
( 3 ) On the basis of EU imports 
(4) 1990-92 » total misas 2120 (apples), minus 8580 (citrus fruit), minus tropical fruit 
2000 - ditto, but plus 27% for juice 
FORESEEABLE PRODUCTION AUD CONSUMPTION 
OF FRESH AND PROCESSED VEGETABLES 
TOMATOES 
CAULIFLOWER 
LETTUCE 
CARROTS 
ONIONS 
SUB-TOTAL 
PER HEAD 
OTHER VEGETABLES 
TOTAL 
PER HEAD 
including fresh veg. 
PER HEAD 
including fresh veg. 
PER HEAD PRODUCTION ('000 t) 
1990-92 
13222 
2197 
2432 
3030 
3070 
23951 
22757 
46708 2000 
14050 
2500 
2742 
3630 
3440 
26362 
25138 
51500 % diff 
6,3 
13,8 
12,7 
19,8 
12,1 
10,1 
10,5 
10,3 USE (* 000 t and kg/head) 
1990-92 
13465 
2045 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
45880 
132,9 
33880 
98,1 
12000 
34,8 2000 
13925 
2285 
n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 
5Q300 
140,9 
36100 
101,1 
14200 
39,8 % diff 
3,4 
11,7 
9,6 
6,0 
3,0 
14,4 % p.a. 
0,37 
1,24 
1,03 
0,65 
0,33 
1,51 
NA : not available. 
- 2}~ 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(94) 360 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 03 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-94-377-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-72240-1 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg