16. 4. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 103/21 
APPENDIX 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
Rejected amendment 
The following amendment, based on the Section opinion and tabled according to the Rules of 
Procedure was rejected during discussions: 
Paragraph 5 
Reword as follows: 
45. The Committee is, however, totally opposed on health grounds to the proposed amend­
ment of Regulation (EEC) No 1411/71 which is intended to raise the fat content of standard 
whole milk and of semi-skimmed milk and hopes that if the revised Regulation has in fact 
come into force on 1 January 1984, it will be immediately rescinded. Many consumers are 
now persuaded by the overwhelming medical evidence that excessive animal fat consump­
tion places them substantially at risk of a heart attack and do not wish to see their choice of 
low fat milk restricted.' 
Voting: 
For: 24, against: 45, abstentions: 15. 
Opinion on the Commission proposals on the fixing of prices for agricultural products 
and related measures (1984/85) 
(84/C 103/10) 
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 26 January 1984 the Council referred the abovementioned proposal to the Econo­
mic and Social Committee in accordance with Article 43 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 
215th plenary session held in Brussels on 29 February and 1 March 1984. 
The full text of the opinion is as follows: 
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE, 
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the Euro­
pean Economic Community, and in particular 
Article 43 thereof, 
Having regard to the decision taken by the Council 
on 26 January 1984 to consult it on the Commission proposals on the fixing of prices for agricultural 
products and related measures (1984/85), 
Having regard to Article 18 of its Rules of Proce­
dure, 
Having regard to the oral report made by the Rap­
porteur-General, Mr Schnieders, 
No C 103/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 4. 84 
Having regard to the discussions at its 215th plenary 
session, held on 29 February and 1 March 1984 
(meeting of 1 March 1984), 
HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION 
by 70 votes to 21 with 19 abstentions (vote 
recorded): 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee is aware of the difficult situa­
tion in which the European Community finds itself 
at the present time because, among other things, the 
financial resources available to the Community for 
its commitments are insufficient. In 1984 the Com­
munity's total own resources of 24 600 million ECU 
will be used up. Unless measures to control the mar­
kets and agricultural expenditure are introduced in 
the near future, the Community's overall financial 
ceiling will be exceeded this year. The Committee 
approves the Commission's request that the Council 
take the relevant decisions by 31 March. This is not 
only because the new farm prices must come into 
force on 1 April, but also because the decisions 
required for the relaunching of the Community and 
the reform of CAP must likewise be taken by that 
date, the decisions on the reform of the CAP having 
to be in keeping with Article 39 of the Treaty of 
Rome. 
1.2. The farm price decisions have to be taken at a 
time of great economic difficulties. The Community 
itself continues to suffer from the effects of the 
recession. Some 12 million people in the Com­
munity (10,7 % of the working population) are unem­
ployed. Although there are signs of incipient econo­
mic recovery, no significant improvement in the 
labour market situation is to be expected. This also 
has repercussions in the agricultural sector. Con­
siderably fewer people have been able to switch 
farming to other employment. 
1.3. The reduced world demand for agricultural 
products has also had an impact on the European 
Community, especially in the case of milk. The 
Community supplies 70 % of the volume of milk 
products traded on the world market. The unfavour­
able economic situation and heavy indebtedness of 
many countries of the world has also led to a fall in 
demand for cereals, sugar and beef and as a result, stocks have risen. In addition, for various reasons 
(management of the markets, international agree­
ments, political commitments, etc.) the Community 
has in recent years exercised restraint and had 
limited opportunities with regard to exports of cer­
tain products (cereals and milk products, for 
instance). The large stocks, of milk products in 
particular, are very costly. Because of the stocks on 
the world market, virtually no additional outlets are 
available at the moment. 
1.4. On the basis of the net value added index, 
which provides some pointers to the probable 
income trend, farm incomes do not seem to have 
improved on average in recent years in the Com­
munity, although the present statistical scatter 
around the mean is very large according to year, 
Member State and sector. Further signs of this are to 
be found in a situation of stagnating demand for 
agricultural products and a decline in exports; the 
price increases decided by the Council of Ministers 
have not therefore improved farm incomes, as 
would have been desirable. This does much to 
explain why farmers, in a bid to maintain a certain 
level of income, have had to increase output in 
order to offset higher production costs and pressures 
on farm prices. 
1.5. In this situation it is difficult to find a solution 
to the complex problems confronting us. The Com­
mission's proposals would impose considerable sac­
rifices on Community farmers, who could suffer a 
substantial drop in income as a result of the entire 
package of measures (reform and price proposals). 
Such a fall in income would inevitably have an 
effect on sectors upstream and downstream of agri­
culture, on employment and on the whole economy 
of the Community's rural regions. 
1.6. The Committee thinks that any changes in 
farm policy measures must be carried out cautiously 
and in a balanced manner. Any social hardships 
which might arise must be mitigated. Only a cohe­
sive, long-term approach can be defended in discus­
sions with the interested parties and have the 
desired effect. The Commission refers to the reduc­
tions in income that are being demanded from farm­
ers but fails to give figures. 
Farming can be expected to bear such large reduc­
tions in income only if there is a definite prospect of 
overcoming the major difficulties in the foreseeable 
future. 
16.4.84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 103/23 
1.7. With a view to limiting the drop in farmers' 
incomes and ensuring — despite the difficult finan­
cial, market and employment situations — the con­
tinued existence of an efficient Community farming 
industry which (both in farming itself and in the 
upstream and downstream sectors) provides the 
maximum number of people with employment and 
a reasonable income and contributes to the conser­
vation of the environment and nature, the Com­
mittee proposes the following approach, which also 
takes account of the interests of consumers and tax­
payers in the Community: 
— there should be a limited rise in prices, varying 
from product to product, such as to ensure 
balanced development in all Community 
regions, 
— Community intervention should be based on 
production targets valid for several years, and 
encourage product quality, 
— price increases should vary in such a way as to 
be an incentive for products of which there is a 
shortage and a disincentive for those in surplus, 
— direct support measures should be provided for 
small farmers in the poorest regions in the Com­
munity, which are hardest hit by inflation and 
where weak production structures do not pro­
duce adequate incomes. 
1.7.1. A programme should be developed for the 
utilization of agricultural land for, among other 
things, producing self-renewing raw materials and 
bio-energy. The Commission should examine 
whether it would be appropriate for the EAGGF to 
grant subsidies to offset the cost disadvantage vis-a­
vis the raw materials currently used, given the long-
term necessity to utilize resources to the full. 
1.7.2. The "Committee notes that forestry, if there 
was an appropriate Community plan, could be a 
major help in many cases, both in maintaining a cer­
tain measure of agricultural activity or protecting 
the soil and the environment, and in steering prod­
uction towards those products not in surplus. 
1.7.3. The Committee further requests that an 
examination be made of the possibility of giving 
direct income aids on a temporary basis to small 
producers particularly hard hit by measures 
designed to bring structural surpluses under control. 
1.8. If all the Commission's proposals — including 
non-agricultural measures — were implemented it 
would at all events be necessary to increase the 
Community's own resources. The Committee would 
refer to its opinion of 26 October 1983 on the future financing of the Community ('). The Community's 
own resources should be used to a greater extent to 
facilitate adjustment in the various regions and in 
farms and areas that are particularly affected. 
1.9. A common economic and monetary policy 
must be implemented at the same time, with a view 
to eliminating the constant currency fluctuations 
and improving the employment situation in the 
Community. 
2. Comments on specific products 
The Committee has commented on a series of pro­
posals submitted by the Commission on the basis of 
Doc. COM(83) 500 final, covering a number of 
farm products. The Committee's opinions on these 
proposals should be borne in mind. The following 
comments are therefore confined to the proposals 
contained in Doc. COM(84) 20 final. 
2.1. Cereals 
In order to stabilize the market in bread-making 
cereals, a carry-over payment (at a level appropriate 
to costs) should be paid for wheat and bread-mak­
ing rye, and there should continue to be intervention 
for bread-making wheat at the beginning of the new 
farm year. 
2.2. Rice 
The Commission links the raising of the interven­
tion price with a significant reduction in the thres­
hold price and with reclassification. 
This Commission approach is going to benefit 
third-country exporters, who will continue to 
develop dominant positions on much of the Com­
munity market. 
The Committee therefore asks that: 
(a) Community preference be genuinely applied; 
(b) the guaranteed price be geared more to produc­
tion costs; 
(c) procedures for fixing import levies and for 
refunds be made more transparent. 
(') OJ No C 358,31. 12. 1983, p. 35. 
NoC 103/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 4. 84 
2.3. Milk and milk products 
The change in the fat/protein ratio from 55 :45 to 
50 : 50 is unlikely to produce the increase in butter 
sales anticipated by the Commission. The basic idea 
of using more protein is commendable, but the price 
of butter should not be reduced on a general scale 
and the price of the protein products should not be 
raised as much as the Commission proposes (in 
particular because a reduction in the price of butter 
will not lead to savings commensurate with the 
greater expenditure on skimmed-milk powder, let 
alone with the income lost by producers). The Com­
mittee would like to see the consumption aid for 
butter retained in certain countries and suggests that 
the beneficiaries could be the most deprived groups 
of consumers. 
2.4. Oilseeds 
Oilseed prices should be regulated uniformly under 
a common policy on fats and oils. Consequently the 
Committee advocates a uniform increase of 2,5 % in 
the target price for rape seed, sunflower seed, olive 
oil and other oilseeds. The Committee supports the 
attempts to improve the Community's supply of ani­
mal feed protein. This feed protein is obtained as a 
by-product in the processing of most oilseeds. 
The Committee would once again point out that the 
Community is only 25 % self-sufficient in oilseed 
and protein crops. To date it has been possible to 
dispose of the rape seed and the sunflower seed 
produced without any difficulty, by means of aids. 
They are an alternative to products in surplus. The 
Community must state clearly which products farm­
ers should switch to as the guarantee thresholds for 
cereals, milk and sugar do not offer farmers any 
other alternatives. Consequently, the Committee 
would ask the Council to examine whether it is logi­
cal to lay down guarantee thresholds for rape seed 
and sunflower seed. 
The Commission states its intention of reducing the 
prices by maintaining the premium for the double-
zero varieties (low glucosinolate and erucic acid 
content) and not paying the full intervention price 
for the other varieties. In the Committee's view such 
a measure is premature. Little of the double-zero 
varieties is produced as only small quantities of seed 
are available. In addition, farmers will already have 
sown the 84 crop. Suitable test methods must also 
be introduced to ascertain the glucosinolate content 
and establish general quality standards, before such 
reductions in the intervention price are adopted. 
Finally, the Committee would emphasize the importance of research to remove the problems 
which limit the use of rape oil and rape cake. 
2.5. Sheepmeat 
The ewe premium paid to sheep farmers in region 3 
will be reduced by merging regions 2 and 3. Coun­
tries with different structures and different market 
conditions will thus be treated differently. As a 
result the premium will no longer serve its purpose, 
which is to compensate for loss in income. 
The Committee endorses the proposals that (a) the 
ewe premium be granted only where producers keep 
a minimum of 10 ewes and (b) the procedure for 
applying for the premium be standardized through­
out the Community. The Committee calls for the 
rapid payment of the premiums at the end of the 
marketing year. The proposed fixing of minimum 
premiums is welcomed, but it must be ensured that 
no openings are provided for circumventing this 
provision. 
The Committee thinks that the case for restricting 
the variable slaughter premium in the United King­
dom to 25 % of the guide level should be recon­
sidered. The producers affected by this measures 
will suffer considerable losses in income. 
2.6. Beef and veal 
The Committee thinks that it is not advisable to 
abolish the variable slaughter premium in the 
United Kingdom and to introduce the general inter­
vention rules in its place. If this premium is abol­
ished, the retail price of beef and veal will increase 
and consumption will drop. The resultant high inter­
vention costs will exceed the costs of the United 
Kingdom's present regime for beef and veal. 
2.7. Pigmeat 
The Committee is opposed to the Commission's pro­
posal to limit the pigmeat intervention arrangement 
to private stocks. Purchase by intervention agencies 
should also remain possible. 
The instruments of the pigmeat market organization 
have not so far enabled the basic price to be 
achieved on the market. This makes it all the more 
important to be able to cushion at least major price 
16. 4. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 103/25 
collapses, and to use intervention to mitigate 
catastrophic situations. To allow this, it must be 
possible for purchasing by intervention agencies to 
continue. 
3. Concluding remarks on all the recent Commission 
proposals for the agricultural sector 
3.1. The Commission points out in the explana­
tory memorandum that the farm price proposals are 
closely linked to its earlier proposals on agricultural 
reform. 
Similarly the present opinion on the farm price pro­
posals must be read in conjunction with the Com­
mittee's opinions on the various proposals for agri­
cultural reform. 
Regarding the Mediterranean regions of the Com­
munity in particular, the Committee would stress the 
need to take account of the integrated Mediterra­
nean programmes which it approved in principle in 
November 1983 (') and to which it will revert in 
detail shortly. 
The Committee considers that a general decision on 
all these various proposals (reform, farm prices, 
IMP) should be taken by the Council before 
31 March 1984. 
3.2. The Committee notes that the situation of 
farming and its economic and monetary environ­
ment have changed since the Treaty of Rome Arti­
cles dealing with agriculture were drafted and since 
the Stresa Conference: firstly, the Community has 
moved from a deficit situation (six Member States) 
to 100 % or 100 %-plus self-sufficiency in the princi­
pal basic farm products; secondly, the CAP has suf­
fered from the failure to align economc and mone­
tary policies as envisaged in the Treaty. 
3.3. The current debate on the reform of the CAP 
must not obscure the basic reasons for the introduc­
tion of the agricultural-market regimes: wide varia­
tions in production levels and seasonal pattern of 
production; considerable fluctuations in price; large 
number of decision-makers (farmers, storage, pro­
cessing, marketing organizations and firms, etc.); 
wide variety of production conditions in the world; 
(') OJ No C 23, 30. 1. 1984. p. 52. disorganized world markets, etc. Nor should it be 
forgotten that all countries throughout the world 
find themselves obliged, in one way or another, to 
support their agriculture to much the same extent as 
the Community. 
3.4. The introduction and operation of the com­
mon market organizations has gradually led to a 
modernization of farming methods, same measure 
of farm specialization and a clear orientation in 
agro-industrial investments and strategies; these fac­
tors have had an impact on the employment and 
economic situation in the regions of the Com­
munity. 
3.5. It is necessary to try and match supply and 
demand. There are various ways of restoring equili­
brium to the agricultural-products markets currently 
out of balance; it is possible to change supply-side 
conditions, to encourage demand (marketing, 
research and advice, expansion of export markets), 
to lower prices, to impose some form of co-responsi­
bility levy on farmers, to promote production of 
alternative farm products currently in deficit. The 
Committee has comments and suggestions to make 
on each of these questions. But whatever decision is 
taken finally, it must not be forgotten that there is a 
limit to the sacrifice which can be asked of the Com­
munity's farmers; the sacrifice must be tolerable. 
3.6. The common market regimes must take close 
account of current and potential outlets. This objec­
tive merits discussion: for example, a production 
sector without outlets today may offer, given an 
active commercial strategy and instruments, good 
prospects for the future; the expansion of produc­
tion of a particular product cannot be definitively 
halted if the marketing difficulties are caused 
mainly by a temporary recession and temporary 
monetary difficulties or by political hold-ups in the 
decision-making procedure. 
3.7. The CAP must help to adapt the range and 
quality of Community products to market trends 
and to the needs of industry, commerce and the con­
sumer. 
3.8. The Commission's proposals and the Com­
mittee's opinion relate to certain specific sectors 
(cereals, milk products, etc.). In the Committee's 
view the Community and the CAP must not, how­
ever, neglect the development of sectors (horticul-
No C 103/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 4. 84 
changes in the CAP; these changes must be made in 
a flexible and gradual manner to enable those con­
cerned to adjust and to avoid social and economic 
upheavals. 
3.11. The Community's budgetary plight imposes 
constraints on everyone. Under these circumstances 
the Commission is looking for economies to keep 
CAP expenditure within current financial limits. 
However, it would be paradoxical if such measures, 
geared to the financial circumstances of the 
moment, were to take the place of general political 
arguments for a fundamental reform of the CAP, in 
disregard of the imperative considerations the Com­
mittee has sought to expound. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Francis CEYRAC 
APPENDICES 
to the opinion of the Economic and Social Committee 
APPENDIX 1 
Voting 
A roll-call vote was taken on the opinion as a whole. The following members, present or repre­
sented, voted for the opinion: 
Messrs Amato, Beretta, Berns, Binnenbruck, Bornard, Briganti, de Caffarelli, Campbell, Cavaz-
zuti, Colle, Cremer, Dassis, De Bruyn, d'Elia, Delia Croce, De Tavernier, Drago, Emo Capodi-
lista, Mrs Engelen-Kefer, Messrs Etty, Flum, Fortuyn, Fuller, Glesener, Mrs Gredal, Messrs van 
Greunsven, Hadjivassiliou, Kamizolas, Kirschen, Kitsios, Laur, Law, Lojewski, Low, Marvier, 
Masucci, Meraviglia, Mols Sorensen, Morselli, Mourgues, Muhr, Nielsen B., Nielsen P., Nier-
haus, de Normann, Ognibene, Pfeiffer, Poeton, Mrs Quigley, Messrs Raftopoulos, Ramaekers, 
Mrs Rangoni-Machiavelli, Messrs van Rens, Rouzier, Schnieders, Schoepges, Schwarz, Sir 
George Sharp, Messrs Spachos, Storie-Pugh, Strauss, Swift, Tamlin, Vasseur, Ventejol, Vercellino, 
Wick, Mrs Williams, Messrs Yverneau, Zinkin. 
The following members, present or represented, voted against the opinion: 
Messrs Arena, Bagliano, Boddy, Breitenstein, Dracos, Goris, Hammond, Hilkens, Jarvis, Jas-
chick, Jenkins, Kelly, Kenna, Masprone, Milne, Paggi, Rainero, Regaldo, Smith A., Storm Han­
sen, Mrs Strobel. 
The following members, present or represented, abstained: 
Messrs Bonety, Bordes-Pages, Broicher, Carroll, Curlis, de Bievre, Hemmer, Laughrey, Margot, 
Noordwal, Pearson, Pronk, Querleux, Roseingrave, Soulat, Staratzke, van Melckenbeke, Wagner, 
de Wit. tural plants, honey, nut oil etc.) which, though rela­
tively minor in volume terms, are nevertheless a 
significant economic asset and help to keep people 
on the land and to conserve the countryside. 
3.9. The internal debate on a reform of the CAP 
must not result in a weakening of the capacity and 
competitive position of the Community on the 
world markets for agricultural and food products. 
3.10. The existence of growing surpluses in certain 
major products, combined with the exhaustion of 
the Community's own resources, makes necessary 
Done at Brussels, 1 March 1984. 
16. 4. 84 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 103/27 
APPENDIX 2 
A. Rejected amendments 
The following amendments, tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, were rejected 
during the discussion: 
'Point 1.7. 
Add the following after the first sentence: 
The Commission's proposals for adjusting farm prices and positive MCAs and for curbing pro­
duction, viewed together and in conjunction with other measures already taken by the Commis­
sion to cut agricultural spending, mean that the scope for Community farmers to earn a living 
will be excessively curtailed.' 
Last sentence of 1.7 to read as follows: 
'The sacrifice demanded by the Commission is not acceptable to farmers. With a view to solving 
the present problems, the adjustment of the CAP should take place more gradually.' 
Voting : 
For: 24, against: 61, abstentions: 11. 
'Point 2.1 
Delete.' 
Voting: 
For: 35, against: 40, abstentions: 23. 
'Point 2.2 
Delete.' 
Voting: 
For: 37, against: 45, abstentions: 21. 
'Point 2.3 
Delete last sentence.' 
Voting: 
For: 38, against: 56, abstentions: 11. 
B. The following passages in the Economic and Social Committee's draft opinion were withdrawn as 
a result of amendments adopted during the discussion 
'Point 1.4 — first sentence 
Farm incomes as measured by the index chosen by the Commission have not improved in recent 
years.' 
No C 103/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 4. 84 
Voting: 
For: 35, against: 23, abstentions: 6. 
'Point 1.6 
The Economic and Social Committee thinks that in the current economic situation in the Com­
munity such a large drop in income would create serious difficulties, given the gap between farm­
ers' incomes and the overall average income — which is particularly pronounced in some areas 
and regions.' 
Voting: 
For: 41, against: 32, abstentions: 15. 
'Point 1.8 
Option A (approved by the Section for Agriculture by 20 votes to 19 with 3 abstentions) 
The average price increases proposed by the Commission should be accepted. Even with these 
proposals, and with the other reforms proposed by the Commission, expenditure on the common 
agricultural policy will increase over the years 1983/84/85 at nearly twice the rate of own 
resources, whereas it is accepted policy that this expenditure should increase at a lower rate than 
own resources. 
Option B 
The figures given by the Commission in document COM(84) 20 final, Annex 5 indicate that in 
1984 and subsequent years the rise in CAP spending will be less than the planned increase in the 
Community's own resources.' 
Voting: 
For: 55, against: 35, abstentions: 7. 
'2.4. Sugar 
With the exception of the Lome sugar imported for external policy reasons, the sugar market 
regime costs the EAGGF relatively little. Given the increase in production costs, it is thus justi­
fied to raise prices more than 1 %.' 
Voting: 
For: 58, against: 28, abstentions: 12. 
'Point 2.5 — first paragraph 
The Committee feels that it might be better to reduce the difference between the price of olive oil 
and that of competing seed oil by laying down a price ratio of 2 : 1. To be really effective, the 
ratio would have to be 1,6 : 1 and introduced immediately. The cost of the requisite monitoring 
— which would have to be stepped up — should be borne not by the producers' organizations, 
but by the EAGGF, as in the case of consumer aids.' 
Voting: 
For: 56, against: 42, abstentions: 4.