No C 182/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
excluded by the present proposal, so that capital companies 
too may be exempted from duty. 
3. The Economic and Social Committee has already 
pointed out on various occasions — most recently in its 
opinion on the amended Directive 85/303/EEC (OJ No C 
87 of 9 April 1985) — that in its view there is no place in a 
rational tax system for an indirect tax on the raising of 
capital. It therefore called for the abolition of capital duty 
and repeats this call here. 
4. However, as total abolition does not seem possible at 
this time, it is absolutely essential that care be taken to 
ensure that a tax which in any case is inopportune does not 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The expansion of trade in goods and services is 
essential to the creation of the Internal Market of the 
Community and in trade with the rest of the world. 
Transport in all modes is critical to the success of economic 
and social development within the Community. The 
Committee's opinion on second phase liberalization of 
scheduled passenger services confirms this point. 
1.2. The capacity to move more goods by freigt-only air 
services in addition to the passenger/freight scheduled 
services, will become increasingly important after 1992 
when competition within the Community and with third 
countries increases. The expansion of air cargo services, 
particularly to and from island MemberStates, will become 
more important in relation to surface transport. The 
(!) OJ No C 88, 6. 4. 1990, p. 7. also lead to distortions of competition or social in­
equalities. The Commission's proposal should prevent 
such results arising from the duty on the raising of capital. 
The Economic and Social Committee therefore supports it 
as a second-best solution failing a total abolition of capital 
duty. 
Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
Committee therefore supports, in principle, the proposals 
from the EC Commission to liberalize freight-only air 
services within the Community as part of the integrated 
transport system. 
1.3. The liberalization of freight-only services must be 
carried out under conditions analogous to those proposed 
by the Economic and Social Committee for combined 
passenger/freight services in its opinion on the Second 
Phase of Liberalization, in the interests of fair competition 
in both the passenger and freight sectors. 
1.4. There are numerous similarities between the 
transport of air freight and the carriage of passengers, 
arising from similarities in production. However, it is Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on the operation of air cargo services (1) 
(90/C 182/03) 
On 22 March 1990 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 84, paragraph 2 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Transport and Communications, which was responsible for preparing the 
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 11 May 1990. The rapporteur was 
Mr Kenna. 
At its 277th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1990) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion unanimously. 
23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/9 
important to bear in mind that there are also important 
differences between the two sectors, among which are the 
following: 
— a large share of the market is held by the so-called 
'integrators'. (Integrators are those enterprises which 
take responsibility for the whole movement of freight 
from door-to-door, i.e. from shipper to freight-
forwarder to airline to freight-forwarder to recipient.), 
— in relation to tariffs, the application of the present 
regulations has been consistently more liberal in freight 
transport than in passenger transport. In contrast, 
however, in relation to access to the market and the 
provision of capacity, the regulations have been applied 
to freight-only services at least as restrictively as to 
passenger services, 
— it is acceptable (sometimes even preferable) to transport 
freight at times of the day, and by indirect routings, 
which would be unacceptable for passengers, 
— the transport chain for freight from door-to-door is 
more complicated for freight than for passengers in that 
freight requires the intervention of a number of 
procedures and of people which are not required for 
passengers, 
— the carriage of freight (by all modes but especially by 
air) is being affected by new concepts in distribution; 
e.g. the 'just-in-time' concept. 
2. The main issues in the Commission's proposals 
2.1. The issues may be summarized as follows: 
— the package of measures agreed in December 1987 
excluded freight-only services. These present proposals 
intend to rectify the situation, 
— the Commission suggests that these measures will help 
airlines to compete on an equal basis with surface 
transport, which is becoming more liberal, and with the 
integrators, 
— airfreight is only 0.08 % of total goods moved within 
the Community. There is, therefore, considerable scope 
for expansion. The Commission's proposals also refer 
to their study on airfreight in 1982 which showed that 
there is strong competition for the movement of freight 
between air and road. At the same time, air transport is seen to be at a disadvantage because of costs and delays 
in the transport chain caused by the regulatory 
environment within which air cargo services have had to 
operate. 
2.2. The Commission's proposals include removal of 
restrictions on access to markets including third, fourth 
and fifth freedom rights. Cabotage between points within 
Member States is also proposed. 
— Operating flexibility which means that air cargo 
carriers, as defined, would be allowed to change aircraft 
at any point on a route and be free to operate fifth 
freedom services without calling at their State of 
registration. Flexibility also extends to frequency of 
services, 
— on pricing, the Commission proposes that cargo rates be 
published 30 days before their introduction with no 
requirement for prior approval from Governments. 
3. The Committee's general views 
3.1. The Committee has already expressed its particular 
approval — under the conditions specified in its opinion — 
of the Second Phase of Liberalization of Air Transport, 
which includes flights carrying freight in combination with 
passengers. The further liberalization of freight-only 
services is welcomed under conditions analogous to those 
specified in that earlier opinion. This liberalization, as 
proposed by the Commission, is welcome because it will: 
— provide scope for EC airlines to be in a position to 
compete with the integrators and with surface transport 
on terms which are more favourable than in the past, 
— extend the possibility for industry to avail of the benefits 
of faster city-to-city links by air in order to improve 
competitiveness, 
— the expansion of airfreight services is of particular 
benefit for trade over longer distances and to and from 
island Member States on the periphery of the central 
marketing areas. The expansion of such services would 
help to reduce the disparities between regions. In this 
context, the Committee regrets that, as indicated by the 
Commission, the new fifth-freedom opportunity pro­
vided by Article 4.4 is likely to benefit the large, 
No C 182/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
centrally-located EC carriers and suggests that the 
Commission take account of the difficulties which are 
experienced by the airlines of small, peripheral States in 
providing adequate cargo services to their main 
Community markets. This consideration applies espe­
cially to island States, for whom air transport is 
particularly important, 
— the expansion of airfreight on a more liberal basis 
would encourage the creation of jobs within European 
airlines and expansion of the aircraft industry. 
3.2. The Committee, in supporting the Commission's 
proposals, suggests that full account be taken of the 
following issues, which are also reflected in its opinion (*) 
on the second phase of liberalization of scheduled 
passenger services. In summary, the Committee's opinion 
said: 
— the aim should be to achieve the highest possible level of 
safety, 
— while the present air traffic congestion problems are not 
as acute for airfreight services which tend to use non-
peak times, it is nonetheless essential that bottlenecks in 
air traffic control and in and around airports or in 
access to airports be improved so as to ensure that the 
value of door-to-door services by air are fully realized. It 
is particularly important that bottlenecks be removed in 
view of the fact that a large proportion of air freight is 
carried on combined passenger/freight services. Such 
bottlenecks will cause distortions between carriers 
providing combined services and those providing 
freight-only services, where these carriers compete for 
the same airport or airway capacity, 
— the Commission's pending proposals concerned with 
the harmonization of technical and social standards in 
air transport should also apply where appropriate and 
taking into account the differences between freight-only 
and combined passenger/freight services, 
— for environmental reasons, the operations of jet aircraft 
at night should be carefully controlled. The Committee 
favours the operation of the quietest available aircraft. 
(!) OJ No C 112, 28. 2. 1990. p. 17. It is acknowledged that the cost of providing new-
technology aircraft could lead to increased airfares and 
aircargo rates. 
4. Comments on specific Articles 
4.1. Article 1 — Scope 
4.1.1. The Committee suggests that this Article be 
clarified, so as to indicate the scope of the proposed 
Regulation. For example, does it cover only flights within 
the Community ? Does it refer to freight which is carried on 
passengers services or only to freight carried on cargo-only 
flights ? The Committee also suggests, in the context of its 
comments on Article 2(c) below, that it should be made 
clear that the Regulation does not refer to the carriage of 
mail when this is the subject of a tender between the postal 
authorities and the carrier. 
4.2. Article 2(b)(ii)(2) — Definition of non-Community 
Carrier 
4.2.1. The Committee understands that this sub­
paragraph is intended by the Commission to include the 
integrators in the liberalization proposed in the draft 
Regulation. The Committee recognizes the valuable 
contribution made by the integrators in developing new 
distribution methods for the benefit of the consumer. 
4.2.2. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Com­
mission's proposal indicates that the integrators are owned 
by interests which are based in non-Community countries. 
The Committee notes that carriers based outside the 
Community already possess rights in air transport within 
the Community which far exceed those enjoyed by 
Community-based airlines in the home States of those 
foreign carriers. It is therefore suggested that enterprises 
which are based in third countries should not be granted 
rights within the Community unless reciprocal rights for 
Community enterprises are granted by those third 
countries. 
4.2.3. The aim must be to reduce the current imbalance, 
which currently favours non-EC carriers. For competition 
to be fair, non-EC carriers must be subject to the same 
technical and social conditions as EC carriers. 
4.2.4. At the same time, careful examination should be 
made of the wording of this Article, so as to ensure that it 
does not discriminate against integrators which are now, or 
23. 7. 90 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 182/11 
will be in the future, holders of a valid air cargo operator's 
licence granted by a Member State. 
See also the reference to relations with third countries in the 
context of Article 4.4. 
4.3. Article 2c — Cargo rates 
4.3.1. The Committee understands that, at the present 
time, rates for the carriage of mail are subject to tender 
between the postal authorities and the carriers, and are not 
offered for sale on the open market as is the case with other 
types of cargo. However, if at some future time mail 
becomes subject to the same marketing regime as general 
cargo, then the Committee accepts (in relation to both this 
Article and Article 8) that mail should be included in the 
terms of the Regulation on the same basis as general freight. 
See also the comments in relation to Article 1 above. 
4.3.2. In the same Article, in regard to agents, the 
Committee questions whether Governments should be 
responsible for approving the commission which is paid to 
freight agents, which is not the case at present in many 
instances. This would seem to introduce regulation where 
none exists under present arrangements. 
4.4. Article 4.2. — Cabotage 
4.4.1. The Committee considers that the question of 
cabotage rights for Community-based carriers should be 
dealt with as suggested in its opinion on the Second Phase 
of Liberalization. The possibility of cabotage rights for 
airlines based outside the Community should be considered 
only in the context of a comprehensive air transport policy 
applied to third countries. 
4.5. Article 4.4. — Relations with third countries 
4.5.1. Insofar as this provision legislates only for 
relations between Member States, the Committee finds it 
acceptable. However with regard to relations between the 
Community and third countries in the field of air transport, 
the Committee refers to its opinion on the Second Phase of 
Liberalization, and suggests that links with third countries 
should be part of a comprehensive air transport policy 
applied to them. The Committee also refers to the opinion 
— currently in preparation — on relations with third 
countries in commercial aviation (rapporteur: Mr Mo-
reland). 
See also the comments on Article 2(b) (ii) (2) above. 4.5.2. For comments on the relevance of this Article to 
peripheral Member States, see above in Paragraph 3.1, 
under 'The Committee's general views', third indent. 
4.6. Article 8 — Cargo rates 
The Committee proposes the following comments and 
changes to this Article in regard to pricing: 
4.6.1. Sub-paragraph 1 
4.6.1.1. The word 'Community' should be deleted, on 
the grounds that both Community and non-Community 
carriers should be subject to the same requirements in this 
context. 
4.6.1.2. The Committee suggests that publication be 
confined to the base price (similar to the reference tariffs in 
road transport), with the possibility of lower prices being 
negotiated on the basis of such considerations as: peak 
period of carriage, large volumes, etc. 
4.6.1.3. In addition, the Committee notes that the 
proposal under review refers only to rates from airport-to-
airport; but suggests, that — as the shipper is usually 
concerned only with transport from door-to-door — there 
is no need to publish negotiated rates. 
4.6.2. Sub-paragraph 2 — 30 days' notice 
4.6.2.1. 30 days' notice is too long in a highly 
competitive market. It is suggested that this be reduced to 
14 days. 
4.6.3. Sub-paragraph 3 
4.6.3.1. The Committee also feels that the requirements 
covered in sub-paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article introduce 
regulation where none exists at present. There is concern 
that the provisions of these two sub-paragraphs would give 
rise to increased bureaucracy to the detriment of the 
commercial operation of airlines and their clients. 
4.6.3.2. In addition, the Committee points out the 
following: 
— safety standards should be maintained irrespective of 
the level of cargo rates being charged. The two issues 
should not be inter-related, 
— the proposal covers only the rates from airport-to-
airport, but, in practice, airlines and their agents quote 
door-to-door rates to the shipper. In these circum­
stances, it would be extremely difficult to establish the 
extent to which airport-to-airport rates, included in the 
door-to-door price, are lower or higher than in the 
No C 182/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 23. 7. 90 
previous season. This consideration emphasizes the fact 
that freight transport is different from passenger 
transport, 
— the Committee suggests that, while transparency in 
aircargo rates is a worthy objective, it should be 
achieved by reference to the base price, similar to the 
reference tariff in road transport. This could be 
supplemented by periodic checks on the part of Member 
States to establish the level of airport-to-airport rates 
being charged. 
4.6.3.3. The Committee therefore suggests that this sub­
paragraph should be amended so as to avoid the 
introduction of new restrictions and maintain flexibility in 
pricing, while at the same time ensuring that safety 
standards are maintained by the appropriate methods. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. Organic agriculture is defined in the dictionary as: 
'Agriculture which does not use chemical fertilizers or 
pesticides'. 
1.2. Terms like organic, biological, environmental etc. 
were applied to their methods of production by committed 
groups of alternative producers who evolved detailed rules 
of production and sold their produce mainly directly or 
through specialized 'health' shops. 
1.3. In recent years however these products have been 
marketed very much more widely to consumers in general 
(!) OJ No C 4, 9. 1. 1990, p. 4. 4.6.4. Sub-paragraph 4 
4.6.4.1. In view of the amendments proposed for sub­
paragraph 3, the Committee considers that sub-para­
graph 4 is unnecessary. It therefore suggests that sub­
paragraph 4 be deleted, as its provisions would hamper the 
commercial development of airlines. 
Done at Brussels, 30 May 1990. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE 
who do not know the detailed rules of production but 
believe organic food is produced strictly in accordance with 
the dictionary definition. 
1.4. Organic, biological, ecological etc. have thus 
become excellent marketing terms, suggesting that the 
products are more wholesome, natural and healthy than 
normal ones and that the latter are somehow inferior. 
1.5. There is generally no detectable difference sufficient 
for control purposes, between organic and normally grown 
foods. However, since many consumers believe that 
organic foods are more wholesome and are therefore 
prepared to pay the appreciably higher costs which are 
required to produce them. 
1.6. The higher costs arise because organic methods of 
production reduce yields considerably, increase visual 
defects and result in higher waste because pests cannot be Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EEC) on organic production of agricultural 
products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs (*) 
(90/C 182/04) 
On 16 December 1989 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under 
Article 198 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the abovementioned 
proposal. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's 
work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 May 1990. The rapporteur was Mr Kenneth 
Gardner. 
At its 277th plenary session (meeting of 30 May 1990) the Economic and Social Committee adopted 
the following opinion unanimously.