ARCHIVES HISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (77)221
Vol.1977/0084

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE, Euratom) n°354/83 duConseil du1erfévrier 1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublic desarchives historiques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergie atomique (JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifié par lerèglement (CE, Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossier estouvert aupublic. Lecaséchéant, lesdocuments
classifiés présents dans cedossier ontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article 5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No354/83 of1February 1983
concerning theopening tothepublic ofthehistorical archives oftheEuropean Economic
Community andtheEuropean Atomic Energy Community (OJL43,15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC, Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003 (OJL243,
27.9.2003, p.1),this fileisopen tothepublic. Where necessary, classified documents inthis
filehave been declassified inconformity with Article 5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr.354/83 desRates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L43vom 15.2.1983,
S.1),geändert durch dieVerordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom 22.September 2003
(ABI. L243vom 27.9.2003, S.1),istdiese Datei derÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden dieVerschlusssachen indieser Datei inÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel 5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
• COM(77)221 final .
Brussels ,5October 1977 •
REPORT BYTHE COMMISSION TOTHE COUNCIL
ONTHE RESPECTIVE MERITS OFTHE SYSTEMS OFPREMIUMS
AND INTERVENTION MEASURES INTHE BEEF AND VEAL SECTOR
&
IC*
V\tniié bu J
iCC^\ ,Ùi'itirët 1 ,/-y
CCM(77)221final

This report discusses therespective merits ofthe systems ofpremiums and
intervention measures applied inthe Community between 1974 and 1977 .
Thereport issubmitted totheCouncil asanAnnex tothe communication
onthe amendment ofthe common organization ofthe market inbeef and
(1)C0M (77)220of5Oo-tober 1977

ONLY INTERVENTION MEASURES HAVE AREALLY POSITIVE IMPACT ONMARKET PRICES
1.Inthe short-term intervention measures provide effective support for
the Community market
Graph 1shows the movement ofmarket prices inthe Member States and
ofthe Community average since intervention was resumed .
(1)Below the graph isshown the amount ofintervention each month
i (intonnes /months )forcomparison with the movement ofmarket prices ;
(a)In1974 -therate ofbuying-in accelerated until itreached
82000t/months in'October ;thanks tothis measure market prices *
dropped only slightly despite the considerable increase in
production (+20% compared with 1973 )andtherise intheself-supply
rate from 85.6% in1973 to99.9% in1974 .
(b)in1975 -there was aclear correlation between the movement of
market prices andintervention buying-in .Thus,under the influence
ofsubstantial buying-in (upto70000tin March ■'1975 )the
Community market price rose to100u.a. /100 kginApril /May 1975.
Then,buying-in having declined(to 10000tinJune )the market
price dropped by5%. From August ,however ,under the impact of
renewed intervention buying-in (40000t/month inOctober and
November 1975 )the Community market price picked upslowly but
steadily .
(c)in1976 -the year when theproduction cycle began toshow signs
ofdownswing (minus 2.2% compared with 1975 )substantial intervention
buying-in (40000t/month )offset the abnormally high slaughter rate
inspring and summer (drought )andthus prevented adrop inthe
I market price .Thetruth ofthis statement wasclearly demonstrated
inJuly,when following apause inintervention buying*in there was
for awhile asharp drop inmarket prices .
The graph shows more acute fluctuations inIreland and the United
Kingdom .
Inthe United Kingdom this isaccounted for bythe very limited recourse
tointervention (1.6% ofCommunity buying-in )which confirms the
effectiveness ofintervention asaprice support measure .
■^InIreland ,despite massive recourse tointervention ,prices were always
aligned with United Kingdom prices :intervention inthis Member State
was unable toplay therole expected ofitasaprice support measure .
(1)Public buying-in andprivate storage 'aid contracts concluded .

EfC:MOVEMENT OFMARKET PRICES AND INTERVENTION IN
THE BE£FAND VEAL SECTOR
'JA/tOQ kg
T2*S
120
115
DO
tov
I
100
95
90
8S
80
73
7C
60fI
UA.OOM
4 IL : i I 1
J I.i ! i I
MARKET PRICES – ! " I ' ' -~l -• i * 130
i i i . ! ! i{ 1- - •. f £'-•'• i • • -115
i 1 . i •••N
I 1 ι ί ~ /·-·· ; ' !-··"ί " 1- ί/Ν.!·,~τ –^ : , ■,ΙΗ)
_ _l 1 – // : K ;
:--,'s'v^'r ■ ?
.1jf> v' • /" ' L
-<*> 'χ γ- 'Τϊ -/ -/βχ/ -: *~»ΛΙ _.. ν . *-- · --– ;
\Λ'Γ/>:\ν-"··"·--/!,··· ί ί***■''! ! I
r7^'.,\ ,\\ !/,•*' I BELGIOHE /9EL0IE] ! ! . _«0
;'"A "A '/•'""| 0ANM1BK I"7 ~j ' ": ®° ;' - J ^ \V" I ! OANMA.RK "? \¡sf/ 1 «U:SCHLANO I I !'V/'V^-Tr ■ i"'X^ I - 4 r-–^---1 h*•"' N-N\// i ! *F,,N0 ! i < i
_ .. '.\ /.' ....... ! 1 1 L\·\–/-}· ■ - -τ 1-7-; 1"»\\J/ | NtOEfiLAND | | }
i 1 " cc'/cowe'T ""! ' '""| j "
i i" r!' f ' ! ; •r î " } 'r' > 40
3lp 1M:AlMi3|)iAl5lOiHlO(JIFIMIAiM!)[J A$.OiN:ølJiF.M AM J)AiSO:NO'JFM A.M JJASOiND
1S74 1975 1976 1977
1000 t./month –| , , , , , , , . . . . iQOOt. /month– l
idol–QUANTITY STORED _ J ! I I TOO!^Ι 1-– 11–1-
8d ■– F'-:y –rrd J –t™,-PRIVATE STORAGE CONTRACTS 80Y/'-'A FxOv;<1 1 T IFs^-rn.v#Mt ^MdÊ mi :ue^c. ■- I iife i" i"
X//// t~*?// BimrUACCC I
60 «0
J)'f!M 1AM))ASON0|3'FMAMj)ASONOjl'F MAMI'J A'S'O NDjjIf M'A 'MJ'J^A's'OiH O
Soorce •OGVIC<M 1974 1975 1976 1977 ,ICCE-DG vLî-7707 01
GRAPH 1

j IRELAND :EFFECT OFTHEINTERVENTION BUYING-IN PRICE ONTHEMARKET PRICE
(STEER li£parliv«cwt.)
25j _ j28
* *
24 : 24
23 1 V -J–23
22 1\ V 22tiiw \/
21 j I V 21
20 j 7- 20
IS MONTHLY AVERAGE MARKET PRICE •/ _v_y_\__ –_j_– 14–/ is\ A1.8.3? : \J
. îJÇÇ? \ /
jACTUAL INTERVENTION PRICE RECEIVED \J | |6
IBYFACTORIES >–r
0|j'f ,miam ,j,j,ai$ioínidJí ,f,miaimi4ijiaís ioinid|j :f,m'a im'j ^j'a's'0'n'dI
1973 1974 1975
SOURCEi REPORT OfREVIEW BOOT ONtlEf INTERVENTION ANO CATTLE SLAUGHTER PREMIUM SYSTEMS
•OUftUN -JULY 19/6 .ICCE-DG VIG/2-7707-52
•GRAPH 2

-2-
InMarch1975,theIrishMinisterofAgriculture setupareviewbodytostudy
theconsequences forIrelandofthecombined implementation ofbeefintervention
andslaughter premiumsdecidedonatCommunity level.Thisbodyhassubmitted
„<1>itsreport
Thereportrecognizes thatintervention buying-in priceswerealwaysmuch
higherthanmarketprices,butthatmarketpriceswouldhavedropped more
ifintervention hadnottakenplace.
Thefirmsauthorized tobuy-indidnotreflectintervention pricesat
producer level(seeGraph2).Thereportproposesthatinfuturefirmsthat
failtoobservetheintervention buying-in pricefixedbytheCommunity forthe
qualities inquestion shouldbeexcluded fromintervention ".
2.Withoutintervention ,marketpricesinFrancewouldhavebeenverydisturbed
Themethodusedtoanalysetheeffectsofintervention measures entailed
assessment ofwhattheposition wouldhavebeenonthebeefandvealmarket
withoutthem,andcomparison withactualpastperformance andthemost
likelyfuturedevelopment (basicscenario).
η
Theeconometric modelofthebeefandvealmarketinFrancewasapplied
fortheanalysis andtheresultsaregiveninGraphs3and4.
Thepricelevelcan'beassessedfromthedifference betweenproduction and
consumption shownonthegraphs.Themodelshowsthatwithoutintervention ,
priceswouldhavecollapsed in1974-1975-1976,there 1wouldhavebeenan
extremely firmmarketin1977-1978,anothercollapsein1979-80anda
strongrecovery in1981-82.1
iI
(a)pricespaidtoproducers wouldhaveplunged by18%in1974andby14%
in1975onaverage,withveryabruptdropsovertwoquarters :35%less
whenanimalswerecomingoffgrassin1974,and25%lessinearlyspring
11975,whicharethecriticalperiods.
(b)retaiIpricesforbeefandvealwouldhavedeclinedless,witha7%dropin
1974,9%in1975onaverage,andsharperdropsinthefourthquarter
of1974andthefirstquarterof1975(10%).
Thelevelofpricespaidtoproducers andatretaillevelwouldhave
revertedtothebasicscenarioin1976,andgonefarbeyonditin1977.
(1)ReportofReviewBodyonbeefintervention andcattleslaughter premium
Systems-July1976. ,

i. . ; ; ; ^ '
).iviHH^w^T^|'cwj«-naac.R »fclt:iPKn(31)rTin|M ()h|V] tHE'PRODUCTION OFMEASURES TAKEN INTHEBEEFi '
j , ? __^NDVEAL SECTOR* |
j 1000t./Quarter i– :r*lOOOtVQuarter
480 480
1 l 1 1 1 \
;SIMULATED PRODUCTIONOF ADULT BOVINE ANIMALS (CIP)**/| %
: 440 ; -J-\ [ 440/ \ l~BASIC_SC5_NAR^O ■
' I 400 AA V–/–\–\^_/- 400\\k I /T \ w
L L 1 /\V'A\ k / / \
.Urn-JUT ,-/J v-v.' :r...j ACTUAL PRODUCTION OFAQULT I\r\\//\\ A *!k / \
, ~1– !BOVINE ANIMALS (CIW'-I /\s«.//A/\^/|\ / \
j !' 360 v ^'-V 360
j-1 7 •. •/ \Js ' . \
1 / \ \
I / x / v~-
320 yN ]' *-, 320
i /^A / v
: 1 L
;; 1:1 !:,Μ : > '' ■ Μ ϊ , : , · 5
I I I 1 I I I L J
124oj *INTERVENTION .SAFEGUARD CLAUSE ANDCOWRETENTION PREMIUM (1975) ! J240 |**INTHE ABSENCE OFINTERVENTION ,OFSAFEGUARD CLAUSE AND OFTHE RETENTION PREMIUM (1975 )
' I I I I Ii.i i I i l I
0 ιιι ιιι ιιI III III III IιI ιιI IιI III IIι I'' 1Ρ
11970 '1971 11972 11973 11974 '1975 11976 11977 11978 '1979 11980 11981 11982
SOURCE :MODELE ECONOMETRIQUE D'EQUILIBRE DUMARCHE FRANÇAIS
' DEtAVIANDE BOVINE ICCE-OC -VIG/2-7707 tT
I
j1–----- * '- iGRAPH 3

J ,A-,YII/-R~V.Y''"' – -,WYXX^FJU UR7C >T ~ '.J. X,\#CW-IW-UI* .–'1––'–...., VJUCIP (j(IIIXIR:IkYTRtji- IJRRC »VTJCLP^()}jjJR »mim <>>■ -:WV ».vk^cs.i*n VT3C,PHR ,NI:R|,F)R,;<,H #C^-,W-,W-U .»AC^L NI^JP.»,T>M
7 / FRANCE :PRODUCTION /CONSUMPTION BALANCE INTHEABSENCE OFINTERVENTIONj j SAFEGUARD CLAUSE ANDOFCOWRETENTIONPREMIUM I
.1000tJQu.rtor " .
480 480
SIMULATED PRODUCTION OFADULT BOVINE ANIMALS <CIP)FL\ 9IMULMICU RNWWWVIIWII WR NWWUI BVVM^C «IIN««UA TWIR /R •"Y\
440 –-!f.\ 440
t \/ \
/s V ,
400 /–V \ 400 !'–•I ■,.I -fiAÀ .,, ..,i .L-\
•1 -t'' I r! ACTUAL^PRODUCTÍON I' IH '/Mi'"' ] 1' ;''' /'Vvw7rV'1"''|l".v"' Ir''
IOPADULT BOVINE ANIMALS <CIP)f \/I\ ./ A \v *1N/J VI\ j..^y I \_s-n
360 1 jTl V TJ^IMUI-AIIP .cpysuMPTiONr –V4V j|360 -=ff
■Μ ''·» > ' : ' » >: .ι ./ '' -V> ·: · 3V . ,^ Λ τΛ - :/ .■>'/■■ \// ι\ ι<·^– ι\.;/ U-v A\,fV. . V/
320Ky\–f–R – 1– 320
I \ //«ACTUAL consumption .I I Iv.J \ 1*1 /I*(ACTUAL CONSUMPTION . V
280 ha«c ^ 280Κ^Γνί ΛΑ7^1 :
I1 :I^ ίΛ. :Λ* ] :] ι 3 ι I:::
240 240
0Μ IΓ-Τ–ι 1–I–IΓΤ–|Γ–π 1IIΙ1ιι 1ιI ιII 1ΙI I.I IIι ιι'1°
1970 1971 1972 '1973 11974 11975 1976 1,1977 11978 11979 1980 11981 11982
SOURCE :MODELE ECONOMETRIQUE D'EQUILIBRE DUMARCHE FRANÇAIS
DELAVIANDE BOVINE
; ICCE-D0VI0/2-7707 t9
GRAPH 4

b
-3-
3.Inthemedium-term ,thankstomeatheldinintervention ,theCommunity has
themeansofregulating themarketbetter
U
?Table1intheAnnexsummarises intervention buying-in intheMemberStates.
Ci
InDenmark,theNetherlands andGermany,1976levelsappearsurprising unless
2theycanbeaccounted forbythedrought,andinGermany byadeviation from
uthegeneralpricemovement .IntheUnitedKingdom,intervention buying-in
hin1976wasabnormally highandmustbeduetopooradjustment ofthe
intervention buying-in priceatthebeginning ofthemarketyearcompared
Swiththeseasonally adjustedtargetprice.
«
a
il
a
i*
η
L:
τOntheotherhand,therelatively largequantities thatcontinue tobe
bought-in in1977despite ad.egreeoffirmness inpricescanbeexplained
by: f
η , Λ
-theeffectoftheapplication ofpermanent intervention ,
-theundervaluation ofstrongcurrencies intermsof"greenrates"which
Mmakesbuying-in pricesattractive compared withactualmarketprices
1 »(Germany). ,
^Thecontinuation ofintervention buying-in atatimewhenthemarketisagain
uentering aperiodofshortagepresents ^budgetary problems;ontheotherhand,
2theexistence ofrelatively largestocksmakesitpossibletoinfluenceprices
% I\wheneverproduction beginstodeclinewhichwouldpreventexcessive risesin
6prices,particularly intheeventofasharpriseinworldprices(asin1973).
Thisshowsthepartplayedbystockmanagement asamethodofregulating
£marketprices.Inthisconnection,thedestination ofthestockiscrucial.
£Ifintervention meatisexportedthereisnobrakingeffectonrisingprices;
L *?but,ifthemeatisplacedontheinternalmarketatthe;,-righttime,ithas
athemaximumeffect. ^
il
:p
;'4.Positive actiononmarketpricesofthepremiumfortheretention ofcows
^(France1975) ;
Y--
£In1975,premiums amounting to230Mu.a.werepaidout(ofwhich80Mu.a.
werefinanced bytheEAGGF),equivalent toanincrease of7%or14.4u.a./100kg
inthemarketpriceforbeefandveal. i\
(1)Marketpriceanddeficiency payments.
ft • •
f•
I
f, .<

! :–– .'.. .ι-.--
j I. FRANCE :INFLUENCE OFTHECOWRETENTION PREMIUM (1975 )ONBEEF j
I j " t .ANDYEAL PRODUCTION \
' :1000t./Quart«r –, ^J000t7Qu«rter^j
i
) •
j 480 480
\
i
440 h 440
A.BASIC SCENARIO
400 1 IACTUAL PRODUCTION OFjADULT j\ \/\f400
« .'BOVINE ANIMALS (CIP)' /\ /> i1 \AA /\
/VJ W\ />\ J360 1– 1 :/* V–r \T ^–\\/\ 360/ \/– > Y./ \J/w \-y '–i 1–, 1SIMULATED PRODUCTION OFADULT : I>
BOVINE ANIMALS (CIP)'*[ I I
3201 yk / J 1 1 »7=T1
280 – ^ 4-4 = 280
- ' I-...■. Il: -
240|–*WITHOUT THEPREMIUM FOR RETENTION OFCOWS 240wiinuu iintrntMiuM runntieixnuiN uruuvva r 1 i II
I I I I I I I | | I I J
'0–i–i–i 1–i–i 1–:–i ;–i–i––i–i–i–I–i–i–i 1–i–i 1–i–irn–i––i–'–i 1n iii iii|0
1970_ 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1S80 1981 1982
SOURCE :MODELE ECONOMETRIQUE D'EQUILIBRE DUMARCHE FRANÇAIS
DELAVIANDE BOVINE . [CCg-00 VIQ/2-7707 50
GRAPH 5

Graph 5shows that the premium had adefinite effect ontheretention of
animals .Without itproduction would haye risen byabout 50000 tonnes
inthesecond ,third andfourth quarters of1975 andthefirst quarter of
1976 .
Thus,atwo-fold benefit accrued toproducers' incomes .
-direct ,through the premium (implicit effect of7%)
-"indirect ,asaresult ofretention which ledtoanestimated price rise
Iof5%to7%.
for those who received the premium (80% :ofthe cows qualified forthe premium )
■ I
the cumulative effect of12to14% wassignificant .
Following theprice increase ,retail prices rose by2to3%>reducing
consumption by1to1.5%.Theslight rilse inretail prices wasdueto
thefact that thedistribution system absorbed some ofthe increase .
Losses entailed bytheprice increase duetogranting the premium were
mainly borne bythedistribution system whose profit margin shrank .
From 1977,asaresult ofpayment ofthe' premium in1975,prices were slightly
lower than they would have been without the premium .
Premiums thus had acertain regulatory effect onmarket prices .
1 u. *
Positive effect onmarket prices ofthe calving premium granted inItaly
since 1974
I
The amounts ofthe premium paid out (entirely borne bythe EAGGF )were as
follows ^^ineachmarketing year : '
'(i)1975/76:"140 mu.a.equivalent toanincrease of11 %or11.7.u.a./100 kg
I
•i inthe market price for beef andveal ,:
(ii)1976/77:61.6mu.a.equivalent toanincrease of4.4% or4.9 %u.a./100 kg
(iii)1977/78:77 mu.a.equivalent toanincrease of5.5.% or6.3% u.a./100kg .
(1)Including theeffect ofthedual rate .
-
V •
r' " '*
t! !
fl *I
l
M

F» -5-"
Information collected todate (seeAnnex Abelow )suggests that this premium
also had : '
j-aneffect ontheretention ofherds (fewer cowslaughterings -greater
1 ti
j number ofyoung fattening animals ),
-adirect effect onthe income ofproducers whoreceived the premium and an
!,• •/indirect effect onbeef andveal producers ingeneral ,theretention of
herds having resulted inhigher prices .
J t ***
^ Itisdifficult toestimate the economic aspect ofthetwofold effect with
anyprecision since noeconometric model similar tothat used for France
was available .
Ifaccount istaken ofthefact that retail prices inItaly remained among
the lowest inthe Community while the premium wasinapplication ,whereas
j( market prices were thehighest inthe -Community ,itmay beconcluded that
; therise inmarket prices caused bygranting the premium was absorbed by
Ί
j thedistribution circuit .
1 :» .
I
Likewise ,in1977 market prices inItaly rose Less than intheother
ι
Member States which would seem toconfirm theregulatory effect ofthis
' type ofpremium .
.i6.--The system ofvariable premiums applied inthe United Kingdom had astabilizing
effect onproducers' incomes butnoton market prices
Ρ
Table IIannexed shows that the monthly fluctuations inmarket prices in
rf ]
theUnited Kingdom were onaverage twice ashigh asinthecontinental
!- ii.
Member States .
>• fThegreater fluctuation ofmarket prices intheUnited Kingdom isalso shown
byGraph N° 1.
!
! The system ofvariable premiums failed tostabilize market prices inthe
I >
i United Kingdom which had been strongly affected byworld prices before
-,accession and bychanges inCommunity ,production since accession .
, .... . (1)
>Itistrue that the system ofvariable premiums effectively protected
•producers' incomes intheUnited Kingdom asshown inGraph N°6.
-'However ,thesystem ofguaranteed prices cannotprevent excessive price
". . ...fises ,ashappened in1973 under thejimpact ofthevery sharp upsurge in
•world prices ,orprior toaccession atwhich time theoutlook wasconsidered
very favourable ,nor canitprevent afall' inincome in ,aperiod ofcrisis
(Graph N°6). •
' f
i(1)"Deficiency payments "before accession .

IiV._ EEC:DEVELOPMENT OFTHEINDEX OFPRICES OFADULT BOVINE ANIMALS RECEIVED BY A
-– AGRICULTURALPRODUCERS IN'REAL TERMS * ~ •J' "^-... 3,
1970/71s100
140 1 140
A*ï\J • A4130 –– .1,–– ––– Χ\–––– «0
120 * ρ^_ 1ΛΤ\·χ–-Λ 120.4 /λβν'ίτν \ :α7νΛ «Λί.·"U/^J.NkX U ium ûr'
A\A7:/ \^X lSMfzl \v **\Κ\//}/ \.4\μ#*Α \\*<-100 ••-•• '-I h»ASWf >vi^-^ rrv /\NVr/\K - \'N
90/M 3K \ 90/ ■ ' N^„•––• BELGIQUE /BELGIË ! N"""
>>>>>> DANMARK
80 =– DEUTSCHIAND I 80
FRANCE I
ITALIA I
■•■++■+IRELAND
70 U LUXEMBOURG _L_ 70
–– NEDERLAND
| I I'****UNITED KINGDOM J
sIlNC LUD ING~b EFICIENCYPAYMENTS (UNITED KINGDOM )
6pl'" . : I I I I 1 I 1 1 >60
ioor»oooio*-Nfo*tipœj >«(O <D (O (O trt C0<D<0<O<O
σ>ο>σ>(Λσ >Γ- Τ" Γ Τ" «– *– Τ- ^ Τ- Τ- 1– 1– Τ" ^
SOURCE ::DGVI'MARCHES AGRICOLES * . [CCE-OG VIG/2-7707 .t7_
CRAPH 6

I;
Γ
; -6-!,
; ί
'II.INTERVENTION MEASURES AND THE SYSTEM OFVARIABLE PREMIUMS CAN SERVE TO
Ij FLATTEN THEPRODUCTION CYCLE j
'7.Conclusions ofthereport onpremiums granted inthe1974/75marketing year
(1)Iptherepott concerning theshort-term consequences forthe beef and
; vfial market ,the Commission concluded that :
; (a)The system oforderly marketing premiums had achieved itspurpose .
;
j: <Slaughterings hadbeen postponed fromthedifficult period (October -
ji November 1974 :animals coming offgrass )toaneasier period (December
- ?
1974,January ,February 1975).This delay inslaughterings wasallthe
I more significant inthat thedate ofslaughter oftheanimals (heifers
: and bullocks )could bechosen tosuit the market .
■
Cb)implementation ofthe system ofvariable premiums inthe United
t ;L Kingdom hadenabled certain ;slaughterings tobepostponed from* i
autumn 1975 tospring 1976,from amore difficult toaneasier period .'
I ~
Cc)Ontheother hand,itwas notpossible todiscern theeffect ofthe
' Ï _1 «._ • _• 1.. _^ •
; *slaughtering premium scheme ^(premium fixed at28u.a.)onproducers *
' Ashort-term behaviour ;itistrue that the main purpose ofthe scheme
v fi was income compensation . ?• <t r
3 ' S 1.'.......
I; Inthe very short-term ,however ,the number ofslaughterings went upatthe
I
,f endofeach month when there was asubstantial increase intheunit amount of
■ the premium .Producers anticipated these changes .(For example ,February 1975 ).
5 :
< The suddenif luctuations inslaughterings affected market prices ,partly
negating thebenefits ofthe premium andleading toincreased intervention
I* buying-in (February 1975,with^'80 000 ,tbought-in ,was arecord month ).
j; ^<d)implementation ofthecalving premium inItaly which cameintoeffect
I- insummer 1975 coincided with amarked decline influctuations incow
? slaughterings from that time .
ΤΤ)Report from the Commission tothe Council ontheapplication inthe Member
.States ofthe .systems ofpremiums ^fortheorderly marketing ofcertain
adult bovine animals forslaughter andofsystems ofpremiums for
jproducers ofbovine animals (Doc.,C0M(76)131 ,final ,7April 1976).

! EEC:DEVELOPMENT OFTHEGROSS INDIGENOUS PRODUCTION INDEX OFBEEF ANDVEAL * I
- ■•., 1960 =100 .......
240 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1240
I *
++
220 –* 220
DEUTSCHIAND *+
FRANCE * +
ITALIA V .
200 NEDERLAND J L (- 200
•–»»«UNITED KINGOOM»»» DANMARK L * *
♦++♦+IRELAND + +
180 UEBL I -J £ 180–EUR9 | //.. +
160 –-– i –.|'* /– – ;160
•* *• " f
140 - 1 / R– –I 140 :
100 100
. J
80 ^–^4 807?
1TOTAL CATTLE INCARCASE WEIGHTLI IUIALUAIILeINCAKCAdC WtlGHT I ..! iIL_L_.L.i ..1.Li__L.LL ..1-Li ILopr-NM^in«or;ooojps:N£2?jo<SC;ff<0 <ο<ο<θ(ύ<ο<ο <ο ω <ο Γ* Εί £ ίϊ £? & Ώ η σ>οι σι σ> σι ο) ω ο <π σ> σ> σ> $2 °2 ? ® £ Ρ ? *-I- τ- ί- «- Γ- Τ- ψ- Τ- Τ-»- .
SOURCE ::1960-1970 -OCDE 1971-1976 -EUROSTAT rcCE-DG VIG/2-7707 .U
GRAPH 7

' i'
I
£
!
-7- i
8.Inthemedium –term ,thegrant ofavariable premium ,byguaranteeing producers' '
incomes ,helped tostabilize theproduction cycle intheUnited Kingdom
I
Theconclusions oftheabove-mentioned report relate totheshort-term j
which istheonlyperiod ofobservation available fortheCommunity !
– . - I
premiums system . , j
Inthemedium term ,thevariable'premium system (deficiency payments before
!
accession )implemented intheUnited Kipgdom hadanundeniable stabilizing
effect onthecycle (seeGraph N°7).
Thegraph shows that theproduction cycle dips less intheUnited Kingdom ;
than inIreland where producers donotbenefit from national price support
(1)
measures .
Thequestion arises astowhether production intheUnited Kingdom fluctuates in
a.markedly different way from that ofcontinental Member States .
With regard tothis question (seeGraph ,N°8)ithasbeep noted that
deviations from theproduction trend have been much thesame since 1950 in
Germany ,France andtheUnited Kingdom .The most that canbesaid isthat
since accession theUnited Kingdom hasseen onedeviation exceeding the
previous highest in1962 /63. '' j
9.Intervention measures ,bysupporting market prices have also hadastabilizing |
effect ontheproduction cycle !
Γ< !
Based onthe econometric model ofthe market inbeef and veal inFrance aη ·
detailed analysis wascarried outforFrance which accounted for30%of
Community buying-in between 1974 and1976 .Without intervention measures :
(a)Beef andveal production would have risen in1974 and1975 by70000 t
through asubstantial running down ofherds duetofalling prices in
~1974 /75.Production would then have dropped sharply asaresult of
£therunning down ofherds inprevious years andthedecline inproduction
|Tinputs ofalltypes ofanimals in1974-75-76duetovery lowprices .
Then ,suddenly ,very high prices in1977 /78resulting from the low
production level would have induced astrong recovery inproduction
Iin1979 /80resulting' inasurplus that would have been greater than
'itwas in1974 /75.This would have been followed byadrop in
production in1982 .These upsanddowns areshown inGraph N°4.
- • • . «
C1.)Only meat exported totheUnited Kingdom qualifies fordeficiency payments .
• * .. r . '*
ι ·, · ι !
Π I Γ
t
i
t

..DEVIATIONS FROM THE PRODUCTION TRENDS INBEEF AND VEAL – ■
120
110
100-
90
80
120
110
100-
90I I I 1
DEUTSCHLANDΒ j~Hm
filI i7
iX!□
80
130
120
110
100-
90
80
70
60FRANCE m MMM lJ Il ITT ^
i i– i–i– i– ;
UNITED KINGDOMI
II
l
j
I
Ii
i
II
Ij νià
Α/HilX s. *& Λ
¥Â– ^
ι–V\7\□Ψ
\
I C*
1950' 51 '52 '53 154 '55 156 '57 '58 159 '60 161 162 63 164 '65 66 167 '68 69'70 17-» 172 '73 '74 75 1976 |
OURCE :00VlC/1 * fcCE-DGVIG/2-7707.45 SOURCE : VlC/1
GfZJXJ>Li S

-8-
(b)Thecyclewouldhavebeenbothdeeperandshorter :
-deeperbecausesurpluses wouldhavebeenmuchgreaterandshortages
muchmoresevere; ■■■'<■
r-shorterbecauseperiodsofhigh."productionwouldhaveoccurredoneyear
soonerthatisin1979ratherthanin1980.Theproduction lowwouldhave
J7 "*
occurred in1977insteadof1978.
Cc)Therewouldhavebeenthefallowing effects onthemilkproducts market:
--aphenomenon *comparable toadisorderly slaughtering ofdairycowsin
,'1974-75-76,leadingtoaseveredeclineinmilkproduction from1975
to1978;
-in1977-78therewouldhavebeensubstantial build-up ofherdswhich
combined withtheimprovements inherdproductivity duetotheheavy
r»slaughtering in1974-75-76wouldhaveproduced surpluses in1980/81.
; !
Inaddition,thegeneraluncertainty concerning beefandvealproduction and
theabsenceofsupportmeasures wouldhaveaccelerated thechangeover to
milkproduction ofaproportion ofstockfarmsandtherebyincreased milk
production intheshort-term .
(i •:r
Whatwouldprobably havehappened hadtherebeennosupportmeasures in
Francein1974-75-76isanindication thatthemeasures wereeffective :both
iinsupporting producers' incomesin1974-75-76(seeChapterI)andin
stabilizing beefandvealproduction |ntheshortandmetliumterm.
III.THESHORTTERMIMPACT ONCONSUMPTION OFTHEVARIABLE PREMIUM SYSTEM
jANDINTERVENTION DEPENDSONTHEDIFFERENT REACTIONS TOPRICECHANGES
INTHEDIFFERENT MEMBER STATES
10.Intheshorttermthevariablepremiumsystemhadtheeffectofboosting
consumption intheUnitedKingdom
Apartfromthecyclicalvariations ,production follows asimilarpath
inallMemberStates(excluding Denmark)butconsumption fansoutwidely
jthelowerextremebeingfoundintheUnitedKingdom (GraphsN°9and10).
I »:
Deficiency paymentsdidnothelptoexpandbeefandvealconsumption inthe
mediumandlongterm.Intheshortterm,however,implementation ofthe
.variable premiumsystemboostedtheconsumption ofbeefandvealinthe
UnitedKingdom.'■ .*

! ' ; ~:v, , ... I -
•_J EEC:DEVELOPMENT OFTHECONSUMPTION INDEX FORBEEF ANDVEAL ." 1980 =100 ■■■ - . .
240 1 1 ! Ί 1 1 1 Γ 1 1 Τ 1 1 1 1 1 1 Γ 1 1240
i
4
220 – : 220
Deutschiand
France
ITAUA # *•,
200 Nederiand .«•'* • î-ï 200
•–•–»–•United kingdom | •*[ - fa*»»» DANMARK +
♦♦+♦♦Ireland II .•!
180 UEBL 4 k* 180
eur » y *
i 1 * *
,/ ♦ v
160 7^–– ! : i-i-H*-- 160i,
• • se
J ■ •• ':140 – 1 140
100- ι* =>– 100
80 80
601 I I I I 1 I I I I I I I IIII I L l60oj-Nco^into r* co o o r ^ co -** in <p !> S?
<0<0^0C0<D<D<Û^0<0<0 ^^ ,*^ s ^H ^,,,*^« ,'î s,»f s•P ,,, •O O o) O O O O 0)0)0)000)0)0)9)9)0)0)^ r> r r r- r r r rrr r rrr
SOURCE :1960 •1972-OCDE/1973-1975-EUROSTAT /1976-ESTIMATIONS ' [CCE-DG VIG/2-7707 .»

irr~– ■-– _ :
f I DEVIATIONS FROM THE CONSUMPTION TRENDS INBEEF ANDVEAL ' - -
iiLJ.J..J iiiiiiiiiiiiiMM irvi ir
. 110 DEUTSCHLAND ! | HO
| 100 jj!| J--*" ^f–fj~*T"T^l\l
90 - . 90
| 120 jj ■ 120
| no––FRANCE–_________ 110
j. 90 1 I I 90
Bffl I I I 1 j I11 I 1 I IIII I \ \il__J 1L_J I L 180
,MlL.J..I.L iiiiiil iiilil iiniii iir
120 UNITED KINGDOM | r 120
no––– –-–- –-– 7 110
90 1 ; ! 90
80 80
70 , : ! 70
60 : –60
1950' 51'52 153'54 '55 156'57'58 '59 160 161 162'63 164'65 I66 167'68 169 170 171 172 173 174 175'1976
I RnilRPF 0GVIC" , ?–SOURCE ■ ICCE-DO VIo
i GRAPH 10 I
' .. . i

(a)afall inmarket prices has more repercussions onretail prices inthe
United Kingdom than intheother Member States ;
(b)there isgreat elasticity between consumption andtheprice ofbeef
■'*and veal (over -1);
(c)price relationships between thedifferent kinds ofmeat attheretail
stage have adecisive effect onthe housewife 'sbuying decisions .
The high degree ofsensitivity ofconsumption tochanges inmarket prices in
the United Kingdom can beseen inGraph N°10which shows thedeviations
f£om thetrend ;inthe short term,consumption deviates from thegeneral
trend by-25%inthe United Kingdom compared with -5%inGermany and France .
This difference isaccounted for bythe :income support system (variable
premiums )inthe United Kingdom which acts asalever ontheother factors
mentioned above that make consumption more elastic inthis Member State .
I• .
Acomparison ofthetable inAnnex Bwith Graph N°10shows that inmarketing
? ..years inwhich the compensatory payment was more than 10%ofthe market price­
(1)namely in1962/63,1963/64,1967/68and 1975/76 ,consumption ofbeef and
veal went upinthe short term without radically changing the long-term
tendency tostagnation asshown inGraph N°9. The stimulatory effect of
the premium onshort-term consumption hadtheeffect ofcorrecting ashort-term
imbalance between supply and demand . >Thus theUnited Kingdom authorities
estimate that intervention buyihg-in was reduced byabout 140 000tin
1975/76and by7300tin1976/77through thegranting oftheslaughter premium
Without intervention ,consumption inFrance would have absorbed asmaller
proportion ofthe surpluses
A^quantitat iveanalysis wascarried outfor France using the econometric model
ofthe beef andveal market inFrance ,theresults ofwhich aregiven in
Graph N°11.
Theanalysis shows that without intervention :
(a)Consumption would have grown by6%in1974,8%in1975 and 5%in1976,
?that is80000t,100000tand60p00 trespectively .Thefigures
reflect ashort-term elasticity of0.4,and0.6inthe long-term compared
« :* M
nwith retail prices (expressed inreal terms ).
(^)After that,developments would becyclical andfollow production .In
-particular ,in1977,with only aslight decline inconsumption inthe
ι-
face ofvery high prices and consequently lower production the French
Γmarket would beindeficit ;-
r
(j)Itwasthe same in1956/57.^
(2)In1976/77.thepremium wasgranted only for avery small amount and avery
limited period . ,]•

"Γ"!
480
440
400
360
320
280
240FRANCE :DEVELOPMENT OFBEEF ANDVEAL CONSUMPTION INTHEABSENCE OFINTERVENTION
*1Γ .~:■*i*rÎ >}F
Quarterr–1000 uc
*
*
I:,:I^.I
.. _i
SIMUI
:R.> :I.... !
_ATED CON !
It •
ÎUMPTION »»
I «/ 11 1• !
Ν>
Λ*· "S*.
s ' : 3 . _
>i :VI :3 »/
F'"'"•
.••■ ••*
ASÏC SCENA»W• I
S•» I
lr-f
• •^.S
\\ •••• MIB TRIO*SE
\· 1
tr\
*CTÙAL COINSUMPTION'Ν
ISJ - - .
–
I 1
*!WITHOU11 1
RINTERVENT–
riON _[
II I! I
é480
440
400
360
320
280
240
1970I– I–I
1971I–I–R
1972ΤVI
1973Γ–Γ–Γ
1974■Tl"T
1975i–r–r
1976T-I–R
1977 1978-RR-R
1979T'r
1980 1981 1982
FONTE :MODELÉ ÉCONOMÉTRIQUE DEQUIIIBRE DUMARCHE ÏRANÇAIS
DELAVIANDE BOVINE

(c)asbeef consumption inFrance isrelatively inelastic ,retail prices
would have todrop considerably for consumption toincrease bysome
additional tens ofthousands oftonnes .
The same analysis would probably have given similar results for the other
continental Member States where the consumption /price elasticity ismuch
the same .
* 11 i
•f
NEITHER PREMIUMS NOR INTERVENTION MEASURES HAVE SO FAR HAD ANY NOTICEABLE
EFFECT ONTHE TRADE STRUCTURE OFTHE COMMUNITY WITH NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES
NON-UNIFORM APPLICATION OF PREMIUMS DOES HOWEVER CREATE ADANGER OF
IRREGULARITIES ININTRA-COMMUNITY TRADE
Widespread application ofCommunity intervention did notalter the structure •
ofimports into the Community in 1974/75/76compared wtth the previous
period . « n
Table III annexed shows Community trade with non-member countries .
F(a)Usually about onequarter ofimports (expressed asdarcase weight )
are live animals ,about one quarter isfresh andchilled meat andhalf
rlsfrozen meat .
J.nthecrisis period ,1974-76 ,these proportions remained much thesame.
The Community maintained theexisting equilibrium between traditional
suppliers -although for lesser quantities -despite application ofthe
»i v
:protective clause .
(b)Before thecrisis ,more than half ofall Community exports were fresh
i-i . :
meat andonly 30%frozen meat (mainly Irish meat bound for the United States ).
n . . «i
^Since thecrisis ,90%ofCommunity exports have beenof,frozen meat,mainly
from intervention stocks .
Xc)Intervention buying-in hasnot impeded the development ofintra-Community
„trade .In1972/73/74this trade accounted for less than 1000 000t.
Π
;in1975itrose to1.3million tonnes but was abitless in1976 (1.1million
tonnes ). Thevitality ofintra-Community trade islargely duetothefact that
theItalian deficit ,-particularly ofyoung fattening cattle ~remained
Substantial ,even during thecrisis .

-Il­
ls.Differences intheapplication ofslaughter premiums has increased therisk of
irregularities' inintra-Community trade
Problems caused bydifferences intheapplication ofpremium systems in
Member States have been pointed out bythe Commission onseveral occasions ,
particularly inthereport onthe EAGGF Guarantee Section -beef and veal
„(1) » ••sector . -j
Inthis report the Commission noted that thefollowing irregularities occurred
*inthe1975/76marketing year through Member States applying different premium
systems .
-1-double payment ofpremiums .
>;-receipt ofboth the premium andintervention .
I I'
I
Itwaspossible tocommit these irregularities byexploiting certain difficulties
rof,administrative control inconnection with intra-Community trade .Theι
Commission staff has not been able tofind aneffective solution for these
n
problems .Consequently ,the Commission instructed the Directorate-General
for Financial Control tolook into theapplication ofthe premium systems
t'in"Member States .Ontheconclusion ofthis investigation the Commission
-confirmed that although there was some risk ofirregularities ontheterritory
ofthe Member State that granted the premium duetodifficulties inimplementing
(national provisions ,therisk was much »greater inconnection with intra-
rCommunity trade^. *' ^
M .. ,
InNovember 1976,the Commission informed Member States ofthe conclusions
h
oftheinvestigation and stressed that °thedanger ofirregularities would be
!.largely eliminated ifthefollowing principles were borne inmind in
applying premium systems :
.1
(|)maximum standardization ofsystems /
(b)automatic deduction ofthe amount ofthe premium from theintervention
•"buying –inprice , <
(c)inthe case ofintra-Community trade ,payment ofthe'premium bythe
– r r
?lMember State where the animal was Slaughtered : 1
C1)Doc COM (76)370final ,21July 1976,seeinparticular pp85to91
C2)Doc SEC (76)3845,27October 1976
" I
« r »! " |
n i
!: ' !■
» » ■ !
^ 1 n j
r .... |
i

n
y
K-12-
ifthisprinciple couldnotbeappliedforotherreasons,apenaltyshouldbe
; t. -,
imposed onanimporter whofailedtocooperate byreturning thecustoms-
documents .
14.In1975theriskofdistortion inintra-Commumty tradeduetothevariable
<? >
premiumintheUnitedKingdom waglessseriousthanhadbeenfeared
Inthebeefandvealsector,Franceisthemaincustomer oftheUnited
Kingdom,taking30%to40%ofexportsfromthatMemberState.
Itwasprecisely theFrenchauthorities whoexpressed theliveliest apprehension
arstothedisturbance oftradethatwouldbecausedbythevariable premium
•* (1)grantedintheUnitedKingdom
,'M -ï
Tftepurposeofthefollowing analysisistoestimateto.whatextentthese
r (2)ffearswerejustified .
r '
(a)Inthefirsthalfof1975consignments fromtheUnitiedKingdom'were
'
naverage;8to13t/month(3to4000tbFrance).Meatexports were
relatively stablealthough duringthatperiodthepremium (fixed
1<n m "• ' •■
premiumplusvariable premium )haddoubled.
However,theredidappeartobeacorrelation betweentheamountof
!!
thepremiumandexportsofliveanimalstoIreland.
(p)exportswereveryhighinthesecondhalfof1975,bothofliveanimals
|;(Ireland,andtheappearance ofanunusualflowtowardsFrancefrom
September )andmeat.Duringthatperiodexportsroseineachsucceeding
*
month(particularly toFrance),whiletheunitamountoftheslaughter
V! '** '
rpremiumdeclinedsteadily.
£•
(c)Inthefirsthalfof1976,exportsremained highwhiletheunitamount
K #•-• ■ .. m l t» ' t
joftheslaughter premiumgradually movedtowardszero.
C1)AtthesametimetheDanishandIrishauthorities fearedthattheirexports
wouldbeaffectedbythevariablepremium. ^
(2)Fieldofsurvey:
nA.TablesIV,VandVIannexed:'
Movement byweekandbymonth<^ftheamountofslaughter andorderly
marketing premiums grantedbytheCommunity from1974to1976.
3B.TableVIIannexed:
MonthlyoverseastradefiguresoftheUnitedKingdomin1975 -.and1976.
?
C
k

I,
h-13»
V. AljAGIVEN LEVEL OFINCOME SUPPORT ,AVARIABLE PREMIUM SYSTEM IS,FROM THE
BUDGETARY ASPECT ,MORE COSTLY THAN INTERVENTION .HOWEVER ,THIS SYSTEM IS
ECONOMICALLY JUSTIFIED BYTHE BENEFITS TOCONSUMERS "
15.Cost-benefit analysis ofthevariable premium system and anintervention •
system inthe United Kingdom
? . ~ (1)(a)Twosituations will becompared forthe 1975/76marketing year .
r,Situation I:theactual situation ^inwhich there i«verylittle
"'intervention andCommunity premiums aregranted .Thetotal cost
I,
■f]ofthese measures was£103.5 million (197million u.a.)ofwhich
i.£56.5 million (107 Mu.a.)was payable bythe EAGGF and £47million
f• 'A
(90 Mu.a.)payable from United Kingdom national funds asfollows :
f* > ' ,-J*
l, ^(i)'fixed premium (EAGGF ) . ; £49 miUlion (93 Mu.a.)| !! û L ,
(ir)variable supplemeïitary premium
hs (National Budget ) w - £47million (90Mu.a.)
-,Ciii)private Storage aid (EAÈGF )- £7miliion (13Mu.a.)
x(iv)buying-in byintervention agencies ~
T (EAGGF ) 11 £0.5 million (1Mu.a.)
\ ' - •
iForthe 1975/76marketing year the^average market price for clean cattle
swas£20.20 /cwt (75.74 u.a./t00kg);and theaverage rate ofthepremium
- ~ .(2)was 10.50 u.a./100 kg ,which represents 7.2% ofthe market price .
C "* •h ^Situation II:Nopremiums andbuying-in atthelevel required tomaintain
, K
the market price ofclean cattle atthe level ofthebuying-in price for* -V
ithat category ofanimal ,i.e. £23/cwt;this means that the market price
should have been increased by£2.80 /cwt,i.e. byanaverage of14%over
3themarketing year .Given theelasticity ofthe market price inrelation
ntoinputs (-1.3)inorder toattain market equilibrium ,itwould have been
f -necessary for supply todecrease by11% (14=11x1.3),i.e. 140 000tJ
*
>1xshould therefore have been withdrawn from the market bymeans ofbuying-in
τ -ϊ
operations ,which would have resulted inexpenditure of105 Mu.a.for
theEAGGF^(weshall suppose thatthesituation regarding private
storage aid hasnot changed ). ; ' »s zthe EAGGF (weshall suppose that thesituation regarding private
!
J
(b)Comparison ofthe budqet costs inboth situations •
(i)Situation I:197 Mu.a.,ofwhich 107 Mu.a.forthe EAGGF
(ii)Situation II:105 Mu.a.(intérventiori )and 7Mu.a.(private Storage );
K
' i.e. atotal of112' KU.a.borne entirely bythe EAGGF .''
r

-13a-
From abudgetary point ofvi£w,thevariable premium 'system isalmost
twice asexpensive asintervention . ,
(.1)Onthebasis ofthe information contained inadocument given tothe
Council Secretariat bythe United Kingdom Delegation :Document S/1615/75
(CSA 218)of21November 1975 . '
from May 1975 toApril 1976 *
Onthe assumption that theintervention meat would have been exported
tonon-member countries (netloss of750 u.a./tl.In"the case of
sale ontheinternal market during an
might have been less .'easy "period ,"theexpenditure
I

-14-
i
Asregards the EAGGF ,however ,the twosituations have the same financial
repercussions . » ~
(c)Benefits tothe consumers andforthedistrib ution system
Xhe absence ofpremiums would have meant aloss forUnited Kingdom consumers
Estimated at£125 million ,i.e.~240 Mu.a.owing toa7%increase inretail
prices which would have resulte,d from the ?14%rise inthe market price .Thisv
surplus issufficient tocounterbalance completely the budget cost ~ofsituation I
(197 Mu.a.asagainst 240 Mu.a.). Consequently ,ifaccount istaken ofthis
– it
benefit ,thevariable premium system iseconomically much more advantageous
than intervention .
Strictly speaking ,however ,itwould benecessary tomake the comparison not
»for adifficult year,butover acomplete production cycle ;insituation I
" - " '!the market price ,inaneasy year,will rise higher and'more quickly than in
situation II;consequently ,consumers will not only ,nolonger derive any
benefits from thevariable premium System ,butwitl ever*beatadisadvantage ,
^tleast atthebeginning oftheso-called "easy"period .Over aproduction
cycle thebenefits for the consumer aretherefore less than would appear at
first sight unless itispossible ,bybuying onthe world market at -advantageous
•Ï (1)prices ,tooffset major increases ininternal market prices... ..._ ^–
16.'Cost-benefit analysis ofacombined variable premium-intervention system and a •
•|5ure intervention system x I I
(a)Twosituations will becompared forthe United Kingdom forthe 1976/77
„marketing year : " -~ u : :
fSituation I:theactual situation ,inwhich ,during the1976/77
*marketing year,thevariable premium provided forin!Regulation (EEC)
pN°797/76waspaid only during the ,period from 15March to30May1976.
%During this period theaverage market price forcle^in cattle was£25.68 /cwt
(88.75 u.a./100kg)andthetaverage rate ofthepremium Was£1„13 /cwt
~ (3.9u.a./100 kg)i.e. 4.4% ofth^market price .Thetotal expenditure
Ρ .
^wasabout £8.8 million forJthepremium ,borne entirely bythe
,! ?United Kingdom National Budget .Community financing' wasprovided for
< - «s n
<1 sonly from 1August 1976 totheendofthemarketing year (25%pfthe
r .. . ri
;;expenditure was borne bythe EAGGF ).
.I : ... :l
(1.)Policy followed byUnited Kingdom 'before accession ,whenithad avery
substantial shortfall .
s . ..." ■ ■
L :« ii 1

-15-
Furthermore ,during this period ,,1230.0twere bought in:atthe average
buying-in price of£26.65 /cwt (92.10 u„a./1Q0 kg),representing an
? ... . _(2)expenditure of9.2 Mu.a.for the EAGGF
Ρ
Situation II:asimulated situation ,inwhich there are"nopremiums and
y
there isincreased intervention tooffset producers' los-s ofincome .
5 * •i
1 Qnthe assumption that the market wou(,d have been supported solely by
intervention ,the United Kingdom authorities have estimated that forthis
period :
Γ Γ; "
(i)the average market price would have been £26.65 /cwt (92.10 u.a./100 kg),
; f"therefore 3.8% higher ; '
(ii)19600twould have been bought ih,i.e. +7300t,which would have
r» ,,
resulted inadditional expenditure of5.5million u.a,payable bythe
EAGGF . -
•ι* Γ." ;·Ι
(b)Compa rison ofthe budg etcost ofthe two situations :5
k(i)Situation I:£8.8 million ,i.e. 315.5 Mu.a.fortheNational Budgetr
; inthe form ofavariable premium and9.2 Mu.a.forthe EAGGF inthe
Z form ofintervention ,i.e.,atotal of24.7 Mu.a.
1 Situation II:9.2 +5.5 "=14.7 /Mu.a.intheforn )ofintervention .
\ From abudgetary point oftview,«ithe combined system isalmost ,twice
« .I
* asexpensive asintervention alone .
f From thepoint ofview ofthe EAGGF ,however ,the combined system isless
i< r* expensive (9.2 Mu.a.asagainst 14.7 Mu.a.).
fitisinteresting tonote that insituation I,ifthe EAGGF hadfinanced 25%of
the premiums ,the EAGGF cost ofthe combined system would have been :
25%of15.5 +9.2 =13.1 Mu.a..
fii.e.asimilar amount asforsituation II.
.7
-(c)"Benefits tothe consumer andforthedistribution syste1m _ .
Situation IIwould have given rise toaloss forUnited "Kingdom consumersï ! !
^estimated at£8.3 million (14.6 Mu.a;)owing totheri-se inretail prices
iwhich would have resulted from the 3.8% rise inthemarket price .Ifthis1 ) *
benefit forthe consumer andfordistribution istaken jnto account ,
I·. '·' Ί Π
situation I(24.7 -14.6 =10.1 Mu.a.)becomes more favourable economically
...ithan situation II(14.6 Mu.a.).Strictly speaking ,however ,itshould be
necessary tomake the comparison over ,,awhole cycle ;insituation I,the
^market price will rise more quickly than insituation IIandtheinferences drawn
Vin point 15apply also tothis case .
(2)Onthe assumption that intervention meat would have been exported to
non-member countries (netloss of.^50u.a./t). 1
a s. ■:

J -16-
«
17.Cost-benefit analysis ofthe combined "premium forthe retention ofcows
1ntervention"system andofapure intervention system ■-.
' (3)Twosituations will becompared for*France for 1975 :r"
tSituation I:
i-Actual situation :application oftheretention premium ,andintervention .
Situation II: h
Simulated situation :nopremiums /andintervention atahigher price level
®'inorder tooffset theloss-of incdme forstockfarmsfs :12to 14%ofthe
1 •
market price (seepoint 4).
*. .. . -(1)(b)Budget cost arising fromthe twosituations(supplem entarybudget )
"Situation I:230 Mu.a.ofwhich 80Mu.a.payable bythe EAGGF (seepoint
:; ...... .. ^ ...... :
*Situation II;ifthere hadr been nopremium /itwourd have been necessary
« _r . ...rtoraise the intervention price from 12to14%inorder toobtain a
x »
• 1 comparable income forstocfefarmers .'Onthebasis ofthedual assumption
' that : 1 '
j.(i) a14%rise intheintervention price results inanequivalent rise
inthe market price , :
(ii)'itispossible tostore theadditional quantities bought in.
s Theeconometric model ofthe French market irvjbeef andveal shows that,
insituation II,public storage would have increased by70to80%,
i.e. 100 000tin1975,following therise in;theintervention price .« n
, The cost ofthis additional storage would have been 100 Mu.a.
(2) . . . .../(1000u.a./t) .From abudgetary point ofview,situation I
gives rise toanadditional ,cost which istwice ashigh asfor
J & - . i
>. situation II.Atthis level the premium fortheretention of
, cows isthe more expensive system (230 Mu.a.asagainst 100 Mu.ai,
! 1
l but from thepoint ofview ofthe EAGGF ,itisradvantageous
(80 Mu.a.asagainst 100 Mu.a.).
Ä. 1
i _(c)Benefits toconsumers andfor thedistri bution system
Thegranting ofthe premium enables theinterventipn price tobelowered
andthereby prevents a7%price yvcrease (seepoin^4).This ;,phenomenon
benefits the consumer and ^distribution ,which canbeevaluated by
calculating the consumer 's;economic surplus .
(3)This surplus isabout 150 Mu.a.for 1975 .'
(1)i.e.,abudget inaddition totheusual budget fortheintervention already
affected . ,
-(2)Thestorage costs inthis~case afiehigher than fortheUnited Kingdom ,since
thebuying-in price ishigher ,r.
(3)This surplus happens tocorrespond exactly tothenational financing ofthe
premium .. .«• . • • .r>

Strictly speaking ,however ,this calculation should bemade for awhole
cycle .This evaluation isdifficult tomake ,however ,forthe real medium -
term impact ofthe two systems -premiums and intervention -onproduction
isnot known .Onthe assumption that both systems would have anequally
stabilizing effect inthemedium term ,theconclusions ofthecost-benefit
analysis would beinfavour ofthepremium system :80Mu.a .(230 150 )
asagainst 100 Mu.a .
Comparison ofthe costs and benefits ofthe variable premium and intervention
systems inthe case ofFrance
r
Ifavariable premium system hadbeen applied inFrance instead ofintervention
in1974-75-76,this would have resulted inadrop inmarket prices ;(seepoint 2).
r >.(
(a)Two situations will becompeared on'aneconomic basis :
sSituation Iisthat which actually existed in1974-7^5-76:intervention was
carried out andthepremium fortheretention ofcows wasgranted in1975 .
; m M
Insituation II,intervention isreplaced byavariable premium system to
offset the loss ofincome resulting from price reductions .t
(t>) (i)Cost ofsituation I: r
i Itissufficient todetermine the cost ofthe support measures carried out
inFrance in1974 -75-76. The intervention measures covered 384 000 t
ς ι >, Τ Π
(173000 tin1974 ,-124000 tin1975 ,87000 tin1976 );the cost is
evaluated at1000u.a. /t,i.e. ,anoverall cost of384 Mu.a .Tothis
1 . .. . .... *cost should beadded that ofthepremium fortheretention ofcows :
t p '
r230Mu.a.(ofwhich 80Mu.a.payable bytheEAGGF ).Thetotal cost
<ofmarket support isabout 614 Mu.a .for 1974-75-76. '
(il)Cost ofsituation II :
' .• M
Thecost ofthevariable premium ^ystem inFrance oyer thethree years
ofover-production maybecalculated onthebasis oftheprice reductions
which should have been offset inorder tomaintain \stock farmers' incomes .
iThereductions given below arethose indicated bytheeconometric model
ofthe French market inbeef and veal .
i a *
? - r*
? t
P 5
ê

-18-
• ;;Domestic Production :
(■000t) ::Price reduction :
: '/.' /«:Variable premiums *
:(million u.a.) ;
:1974 1 :; 340 : 0 :: 0
:1974 2 :: 362 : 15 : .- 99 :
:1974 3 : 362 : 20 : 132 :
:1974 4 : 411 : 134 : • 236 :
:1974 total : 1.475 : 18 : 467 :
:19751 :: 388 : 20 : 141 •
:1975 2 :347 : ■7 : 49 ;
:1975 3 :348 : 8 57
:1975 4 =: 383 : '20
L): 156 ;
:S1975 total : 1.466 14• *3403• M " •
:;1976 total : 1.500y: κ 0 0
il Premiums -total .................. 870
(c)Comparison ofthebudget_cost sofboth situations
" H
Thetotal amount ofthe variable premiums tobefinanced would be870 Mu.a.
forthe 1974-75-76period .The absence ofpremiums in1976 isexplained bythe
fact that the market price would beat-the same level as-that reached with a
system ofsupport byintervention .Thris result has ageneral bearing :a
market the support system ofwhich isbased onvariable premiums will show
arapid recovery inprices atthe endoftheperiod ofovei–production ,
whereas thepresence ofpublic stocks ,will halt this rise,andconsequently
(prevent atoosharp recovery inproduction . ,,
Qnastrictly budgetary level ,%thevariable premium system istherefore
more expensive than intervention (cost ofsituation I:614 Mu.a.,cost of
situation II:870 Mu.a.). From thepoint ofview ofthe EAGGF ,the cost
ofsituation Iis464 Mu.a.(intervention 384 Mu.a.,premium for the
Retention ofcows 80Mu.a.);thecostofsituation IIwill depend onthe
.percentage which would befixed forthe EAGGF contribution .
(d)-Benefi ttotheconsumerandforthedistr ibution system
Thebenefit tothe consumer andfor thedistribution system is,however ,
considerable over theperiod under consideration .Thedistribution system
-benefits from thedrop inprices ,bynotpassing itoninitsentirety ,and
.-consumers buyadditional quantities ofmeat atalower .price .
^Thecombined distribution andconsun ,,:<:ionsurplus wasevaluated at400 Mu.a.
Cin1974 and327 Mu.a.in1T^5 .Fr ■ ow'ng toanidentical price level .

thetwosituations come tothe s^me thing fordistributors and consumers .
The deduction ofthis surplus from the budget cost ofthevariable premiums
(870-727 =143 Mu.a.)gives aclear advantage over these three years
tothevariable premium system compared with theintervention system
(^43Mu.a.asagainst 614 Mu.a.). Oneshould ,however ,look attheeffect
over awhole cycle .In^rder todoso,~ one would need toknow the -
medium-term impact of ,evariable premium system ,since this system has
never been applied inFrance .
Onthe assumption that avariable premium system would have aless stabilizing
influence inthe medium-long term ,itwould beadvisable toadd tothe above
balance-sheet aninstability cost which would betothe detriment ofconsumers
outside over-production periods .' ^ ? H
Twofactors suggest that thevariable premium system has less ofastabilizing
effect iriFrance than the intervention ■system :
(1)Despite the existence ofaguaranteed price ,adrop inmarket price
nwould cause stockfarmers torevise their production plans downwards .
« . . .. Mresulting inadrop inproduction .Inturn,this drop inproduction
^would provoke asignificant price rise and amajor recovery in
production .
Ρ
(2)Theintervention stocks play therole ofreserve supply inthat
Member State for imports from non-member countries are low;atthe end
ofaperiod ofover-production ,tfieintervention stocks thus prevent
. htoo sharp arecovery inprices andtherefore arapid andsubstantial
recovery inproduction inthe medium term .
1

/-20-
ANNEX A
Amlica_t;i.on '"nItaly ofth»s/stem fortLpb->th of'rlvs
SUMMARY OFTHE COMMUNITY RULES
1.Thesystem ofpremiums forthebirth ofcalves wasintroduced inItaly
on3March 1975 inaccordance with Regulation (EEC)N°464/75;this system
applied forthe whole ofthe 1975/76marketing year .
Thepremium ,which totalled 56u.a.per head,waspaid intwoinstalments
of28u.a.each,thefirst onthebirth ofthecalf andthe second one
year later ifthecalf wasstill alive .
2.The premium system introduced under Regulation (EEC)N°464/75was
continued into the 1976/77marketing year under Regulation (EEC)N°620/76.
Certain changes were introduced ,however ,the main change being that the
amount ofthe premium wasfixed at28u.a.payable inone instalment when the
n J ' 1
calf reached the ageofsix months .
3.The system ofpremiums inItaly forthebirth ofcalves has been
re-introduced again for the 1977/78marketing year under Regulation (EEC)
NO871/77;therules for theapplication ofthis system are the same as
3those adopted during the preceding marketing year ;however ,the premium
has been fixed at35u.a.per head .r n

RESULTS OBTAINED FROM THE CALVING PREMIUMS
Numerous difficulties arose intheapplication ofthe premium system
provided forinRegulations (EEC)N°s 464/75and 620/76.Theadoption
ofnational implementing provisions ,followed bythepreparation and
adoption bythe autonomous Italian regions ,oflaws forfinancing the
system ,appreciably slowed down its implementation .Furthermore ,special
problems arose inone region (Sicily )where actual livestock numbers
greatly exceed those officially recorded .
2,Pursuant toRegulation (EEC)N°464/75,2.800 000applications
for premiums have been dealt with bytheregions upt<?31July 1977 .
•Thefirst instalment ofthe premium waspaid inrespect of2500 000
calves andthe second was paid inrespect of246 000 calves .
• · · κ
f-
3".Pursuant toRegulation (EEC)N°620/76,1200 000applications
for premiums had been lodged with the regions upto31July 1977 .
Tfiepremium wasbeing paid .inrespect of246000calves .
ECONOMIC IMPACT
r ■ ■ A t
The introduction ofthe premium for thebirth ofcalves ledtoanincrease
inItalian cattle numbers .These ,which had been dropping steadily forseveral
years ,increased from 8243 000in1974 to8529 000 head ofcattle in
1975 and 8813 000 head in1976 . The number ofmale animals under one
year old,excluding those intended forslaughter ,increased from 481 000
in1974 to558 000 in1975 and to592 000 in1976 .The number offemale
animals under one year old increased from 958 000in1974 to985 000in1975
andto 1022 000in1976 .This phenomenon isparticularly interesting in
thelight ofthefact that intheothep Member States herd numbers areat
present falling ,asshown inthefollowing table . "

-22-
Development ofcattle numbers
(December census )
Cattle total thousand head )
: ' Year •: 1971 : 1972 : 1973 : 1974 : 1975 : 1976 :1977 ::1978
:Country■ «
■ a :(provisional )::(forecast ^grojection ):
:EUR-9 :71.693 : 74.823 :78.861 :79.346 77.290 76.872 : 77.000 ::79.685 :
: variation ,inA fi ' +4,4: +5,4 : +0,6 ::-2,6 : -0,5 : +0,2 : +3,5 :
:EUR-6 ':50.582 : 52.307 :54.572 :54.790 :54.280 : 54.192 : 54.100 :: 55.635 :
:Germany :13.638 : 13.892 :14.364 :14.430 :14.493 : 14.496 : 14.500 : 14.565 :
:■France - :21.698 ::22.557 ;23.949 :24.300 .:23.641
J: 23.333 :: 23.400 : 24.500 :
Italy :8.669 : 8.805 : 8.487 : 8.243 : 8.529 : 8.813 :: 8.700 : 8.700 :
:Netherlands :3.748 : 4.111 : 4.668 : 4.714 : 4.606 : 4.528 :: 4.500 : 4.800 :
:Belgium :2.643 : 2.750 : 2.896 : 2.889 :: 2.805 : 2.823 : 2.800 : 2.870 :
:Luxembourg : 186 : 192 : 208 : 214 :: 206 : 199 : 200 : 200 :
:United Kingdom :12.917 : 13.760 :14.925 :14.914 ::13.991 : 13.667 13.900 : 14.500 :
:Ireland :'5.516 : T5.946 :j,6*408 : 6.497 ::5.964 : 5.949 : 6.000 : 6.650 :
:Denmark :2.678 : 2.810 : 2.956 : 3.145 ::3.055 ; 3.064 : 3.000 : 2.900 :

-23-
ESTIMATED COSTS CHARGED TOTHE EAGGF UNDER THE SYSTEMS OF PREMIUMS '
FOR THE BIRTH OF CALVES
«
Total cost per system
1.Regulation (EEC)N°464/75:
5.000 .00C x28 UC=140 MUC (1)(2.800.000 +2.200.000 )
2.Régulation (EEC)N°620/76:
2.200.000 x28UC 61,6"MUC CD
3.Régulation (EEC)N°871/77:
2.200.000 χ35υΰ =77 Μυΰ (1).
(1)Without the effect ofthe dual conversion rate .
Cost per calendar year
• «iRegulation 464/75 :[Regulation 620/76 :Regulation 871/77 : Total :
Year
:First ::Second :G R
instalment :instalment J
:1975 :i «
:Heads . :: 123.000 : : 123.000 :
:Mu.a. • »
:without DR; 3,4 :TL •ο,Η :
:1976 :I 4
► I
:Heads ::1.775.000 : :,1.775.000 :
:Mu.a. : : : ι
:without OR: 49,7 :» i: 49,7 :
:1977 :: (1):: (1): (1) : : (1) :
:Keads : 902.000 ::1.200.000 ::1.200.000 : : 3.302.000 :
:Mu.a.
:without DR: 25,3 :: 33,5 :: 33,6 : : 92,5 :
:1978 : : (2):: (2) :: (2) :: (2) :
:Heads : :1.000.000 ::1.000.000 ::1.500.000 . :: 3.500.000 :
:Mu.a.» i
without DR :► 4ί 28,0 : 28,0 : 52,5 :: 108,5 :
:1979 : : (2) : (2) :
:Heads :» *: 700.000 . : 700.000.' :
;Mu.a. • «» a• m
> •
.without DR:» ι
» «ι ι
» i
i <: 24,5
Β I: •24,5 :
» •• •
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
(1)fstiaate .
C2>forecasts *

ANNEX B
Analysis oftheincome support system
forproducers introduced inthebeef
andveal sector intheUnited Kingdom
I –– 1
II
Brief description ofthe support measures n
r-,
.A-Avariable supplementary premium ,ispaid perunit ofweight onthe
i -
i presentation tothecertification centre ("auction market ")ofeither
theeligible animal ("clean cattle ")orthecarcases ofthese animals
y - • . -
(dead weight certification centre ).
Theamount ofthis premium isequal tothedifference between the
guaranteed price ,seasonally adjusted ,andthemarket price forthe
week under consideration .pHowever ,aceiling maybeplaced onthe
amount ofthis difference .
Z i .
Although itistheoperator presenting the animal (orthe carcase )
tothe certification centre whoactually receives thepremium ,it
isgenerally recognized that thepremium goes indirectly tothe
producer ,because theprice hecharges forthe animal isimplicitly
increased bytheamount ofthepremium tobereceived bytheoperator .
(a)From 1947 to1973 this premium wasgranted under thenational
11 . «*<
system ofguaranteed prices fixed annually (Annual Review ),
(b)After 1974 itwasgranted within theframework oftheCommunity
rules . "
B.Direct aid ispaid toproducers inaccordance with thenumber of
r<
cattle present onthe holding .'
(a)Atnational level :
yr f*
calfsubsidy schem eJ\in existence since 1946 ;asubsidy is
granted (stage A)forevery male orfemale calf ofover
(1)eight months ofanybreed -except exclusively dairy
,i n
females (Jersey ,Guernsey ,Frisian andAyrshire )-suitable
forrearing formeat production .Animals refused atstage A
\ i< 'tmayqualify forthepremium onslaughter (stage ,B)ifthecar
isofgood meat quality .

Atpresent ,theunitamount ofthecalfsubsidy is£8.50/head formales
and£6.5Q /head forheifers ,in"theca^eofcalves born after 27March
1975 andcarcases certified after 1April 1976 This scheme isdueto
expire attheendofthetransitional period (lastpayments :calves born
up.to 1April 1977 ).
(ii)Beefcow„subsid ^_scheme :inexistence since 1966 ;asubsidy isgranted for
^achcowintended solely orprincipally formeatproduction andnotsituated
'inahillregion accorded entitlement "tothe"hill cowsubsidy "(seeiii).
Atpresent itamounts to£11/head (amount unchanged since 1971).This
scheme isduetoexpire attheendofthetransitional period (lastpayments :
cows present onthefarm on1January 1977).
■(iii)Hi11_£ow_subs|d^_s cheme :inexistence since 1941;asubsidy isgranted for
%very cowkept allyearround inahillareaandintended mainly formeat
production ."Hill"cowsrepresent morethanhalfthet©tal number ofcows
■for meat production . :< 1
Thissubsidy hasbeenabolished (theI'astmarketing year inwhich itapplied
was1974/75;unit amount £24.5G /head )andreplaced bythepremium
i referred tounder b)below . ?
H . I
b)AtCommunity level _ _
Pursuant tothe"hillfarming "Directive ,the"Hill CowSubsidy "wasreplaced by
thepremium perL.U.provided forinArticle 7ofthatDirective (1,cow=1L.U.).
Theunit amounts ,fixed within thelimits laiddown bytheDirective ,were as
follows : ,
» , r
In1S>76thepremium was£29perL.U.with aceiling of£28.4,3 perha(exactly
50u.a./ha,orthemaximum allowed ynder tjieDirective ). ^
(1)Reduced tosixmonths inhill areas ..nrrM .p<1
(2)Exceptionally ,during the1975/76marketing these amounts wereincreased
by£10perhead .

■fi
n
«
-26-
II.'ECONOMIC IMPACT OFTHE SUPPORT MEASURES
I*–––– -■'1 I–– I ■– – !–– ––– »–»
Table VIII attached hereto shiws the .development ,since 1962/63,ofall
"direct support measures granted intheUnited Kingdom both atnational
and Community level ,andtheir relationship tothemarket price .This
•table shows that :
r-(a)thedirect support measures amounted tobetween 10% and 30%of
f*.
e the market price forcattle ,depending ontheyear .Ofthis
i'total :
H p. A
10 . ..
J (i)'thedirect subsidies ,paid inproportion tothe number of
ςcattle present onthe holding ,account for afairly constant
percentage ofthe market price ofcattle :10to15%
(average :12.4% ). However ,theaidtohill cows isonthe
.
•" increase (theoretical ly,tanly such aid wi11continue after
thetransitional period ). «
U ">
(ii)compensatory payments vary greatly ;they exceeded 10%ofthe
i . ..... kmarket price intheyears when production increased sharply
(62/63-63/64-67/68-75/76). Onaverage ,they represented
7.4% ofthe market price-in the 62/76period .
•m • . \
•;Ob;)The measures introduced bythe United Kingdom ensured astable income
' perunit ofproduction (atconstant prices )until' accession .
A •:
i Aslarge direct subsidies were fcontinued atthe beginning ofthe
transitional period ,coinciding with asubstantial increase inthe
(1)market price ,producers' incomes rose sharply ;this was
responsible forthe abnormally toigh increase inrtieat production inthe
>■ United Kingdom in1974/75andin1975/76.The 1974/75crisis ledto
atemporary drop inincomes ,a§shown ingraph N°6.
(1)Anincrease which took ffrlace parallel tothe shahp rise intheguide
price forthemarketing years 73/74and 74/75.

M
W
TABLE ?
ANNEXES

TABLEI
tr -. jr
Intervention buying-in ,1973f1974»1975»1976inthe"beefandvealsector
~nI IfTotal1973/76 1 I
1973 1974 1975 1976 Ia)absolutévalué *)$>(1977(1)
\ .Jtonnes[: l
(Germany19828 8851055515101.903 265756 21.05[29282 1
IBelgium '1:*1511- f1081417432''4773 >33.019 .2.63 7
ILenmark424093927945866 127554 10.10 8060I
|ifinance -7VaT–^#-ri-506J72230;12489286365 383993 30.41
IItaly212353682321334 79404 6.28 6476
IIreland .'255911925113777568473 328058 25.98 32358
ILuxembourg 38 38
INetherlands9153 66916642 26464 2.10 8354
IUnitedKingdom 204 117116866 I18241I1.45 4276
: -J : J
CEE 22893J
4638064135563
362260"l262515 100 88813
(l)Situation fromJune1977

>
TABLEII
ANNUALAVERAGE OFMONTHLY (JHANGESINMARKETPRICES (EXCLUDING VAT)
OPADULTBOVINEANIMALSPER100KGOFCARCASEWEIGHT2
1
iU.K. Franoe ;
iGermany
IItaly
1969 4.5 2.3 i 0.6
1970 3.9 2.3 0.9
1971 4.1 iM' 1.0
1972 3.5t£•42.4(6months)2.6
1973 2.3 J-.3 1.3~ -l.l
1974 4.4 1.3 0.8 2.8
1975 6.3 3.1 1.3 ■1.6
1976 3.8 1.8 1.4 1.2
Average69/76 4.1 2.0 1.4 1.5
Wholesale stage,ex-market orex–slaughterhouse
O1972/76forGermany
2 ^
i? *

TABLEIII
FOREIGN TRADEOPTHECOMMUNITY
(in*000tonnes)
carcaseequivalent
Period
Trade '1971 1972 1973
i1974I
1975 •1976
ImportsfromnoxMnember
countriesI
I
i
I
Beefand.veal
ofwhioh:652 943 951 356 141 255
liveanimals 170 190 168 102 35 54
(thousandhead) (957)•(1046).(845)(517)(183)I(260)
Freshorchilled meat 153 203 -.235 83 29 49
Frozenmeat 329 550 548 171
177 154
Exports 110 58 !75 1].78 I
1217 171
Netbalanceoftrade II
542' |I
885 !876 178-76 84
y
Source:DOVT-C–1
:

TADLEIV
SubjeottApplicationofthesystemofpremiumsfortheorderlymarketingofcertainbovineaiiimals
Marketingyear1974/1975
(inu.a.)
Member
StateEntiy
into
foroeFixedamounts(u.a./head)• ICommunications
totheCommission
onthenumberof
animalsentitled
tothepremium ICommentsAUGUST 5SP.OCTOBER NOV.DZC.JAK.FEB# MAR.CH APR.
1to67to31
Germany 1.11.74 28(1}33.2*1 .37,j37.65(1)3030 124O.SO6
Belgium
3 :1.9.74 30(240242(2)C2(2)52.5C?:j63.00?\:72.50?)60,44 »327,167
Denmark 1.11.74 28(1)33.25a :j37.6oa)|,37.65003030 327.977
Ireland...5.-8.74 ,.20(2).3^2 14024,0,801640.801Cj51.oui61.221$71^125 30,,30:396,995 (3
Luxembourg 1.9.74 304042 4252.50 6373-50 8080 28,626 (2
Netherlands 1.10.74 402)42(2)<52-(2)52.50S)63(2)i73.50?)'65-45 238.231
United V:
Kingdom!
5.8.74\20(2)3C&)40(2)42(2)42(2)|G3(2)73.50?)30302,660,306 "
TOTALIInuI522C.:C;I
1)-Maximum -amountstaken ,overbyEAGGP,account -being ,takenofthederogation providedforin:Article1(3)ofRegulation
(EEC)No2504/74.
2)MaximumamountsdecidedbytheCouncil,accountbeingtakenoftheincreaseintroduced from1October1974*
3)Prom3to15Maroh1975theunitamountwasfixedat49.8u.a.

TABLEV
UNITAMOUNTOPPREMIUMS GRANTED TOPROIXJCERS OPB0VTN3ANIMALS BTTHEMEMBERSTATES
Marketingyear1973/1976
tua/head
! f–––––––––––– –irixedunitamounts I
I*MemberState }May
1973June
1975July
1275August
11275September
1275October
1975i/ovember
L975 IDecember
1975January
1976 IFebruary
1216
[Germany 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 i28
IBelgium I28 28 28 28 28 28 I28 28 28 28
IDenraark 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 I28 28
IIreland , 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28
Luxembourg 80 80 62 44 58 80
i80 171
Netherlands
UnitedKingdom
*ixedpremiumvariable n45
1'la;
2840
j;.
28
19,3335
••i1.*
28
72,7428
28
60.8828
Π">Λ
28
40,4128
:28
44,4528
'28~
19.3828
1'28
1,7528
J28 1
028
28'^
1?,90I1'-•**-
total 25 47,33 100,74Ή 68,41 72,4547,38 29,75 2340,90I
Marketing year75/76
Prance premiumforretent :ionofcows:9*941u.a.chargedtoEAGGFand18.462u.a.tothenationalbudget(additional
nrerainm i
Itatypremiumforthe
birthofcalves 56u#a.chargedtoEAGGP(50%atbirth,50$oneyearlater)

TABLEVI
Γ '
CHANGES IKTHEUNITAMOUNT OPTHEVARIABLE PREMIUM GRANTED INTHEU.K.
u.a*/head)
monthamount
fixedauthorized Regulation
November 74
December 74
January 758*06
7.64
21.28110.65
82.20
47.42Commission Regulation (EEC)N°.3028/74of29«11«74
(nationalfinancing )
JFebruary758.44 31.61 CouncilDecisionof27*2.75(nationalfinancing)
Maroh 75
April 750
050
50CouncilRegulation (EEC)N°462/75(extending the
orderlymarketing premium(nationalfinancing )
May 75
June 75
July 75
August 75
September 75
Ootober 75
November 75
Decfember 75
Januaryf6
February 160
19.33
1^71
40.41
44.45
19.38
1.75
0
12.90!52 !
|52 !52'
52
52
52
52
52
52
52CouncilRegulation N°464/755inadditiontothe
jplaughtejr premium(100financedbyEACGP)anadditional national premiumisgranted(nat_ional_
timnqihg )
(averageweightperheadt453Kg)
Il i
I
Maroh76;
!r |25.35i-15
77.06(1)
15-31
45l
(l)CouncilRegulation (EEC),N°390/76extending
theRegulation (EEC)N°464/75uptothe14.3.76
April 76
May 76
"–nopremii18.24 ;
9.66
übsubseque :
L97«-45
I45
ntlyCouncilRegulation (EEC)N»797/76
TheBumofthemarketprice -andthepremiummustnot
^exceed x
–onaverage85%oftheguideprice
r–atanytime88$oftheguideprice{O.P.applica­bleintheUnitedKingdom)
'Financing : ^
■a)from15«3to31.8.1976 snational
b)toiheendofthe76/77marketingyeart25%
EACGFguidancesection^averageweightperhead!
460-Kg) .
rî
May 77
J^ne 77
ïf•
F0
045 CouncilRegulation (EEC)N«-870/77
Saneconditions asforRegulation (EEC)N°797/76
except ,for:
financing 25$EAGGF,guidancesectionforthe
wholemarketing year1977/78.
(averageweightperheads'460Kg)

U'IFJ'I VII«IUKEXPORTS OFLIV5CA1TL2,B^FANDVKAL1975
DFCSÎS T0:
22C
Of«Uoht
Ccriizj*•/
Tïtic»
X'.zX,
ti'.lvrltaia
-icA^
fcjiSiïk
Xnlud
0*t«Jr ?
7ottl
OÍ«áioht
Cor-iny
SVaac»
Italy
Cotitrlani »
Zal/hix
BJiiï-jl:
IrolxsJ
ai«r
Totaljuaiz:
îa«f
*
ClUU T*U
*otoo&oa tvs^oa
10,9393,7857,816
2J3
8120
a1,567
4,557
218
471
210
10,7233,557 23
881:2ó*;141
11,8704,0537,557
JVLT
>:3 ?I=af _>
♦
CxXtla t<-l
*otenues tc^-joo
8,6752,3548,075
343
1,817164
238
4,5571,739
314119
«iS392,5131,245
5,374
2J3
;709
369
22
362
8,4371 Fzz&ixr I ttlHGB AP21L 1 m JT-'Î 1
CÊ.%
Se«•
1oart»♦
Ycid
toirrcflCitU«
tcanotZi®f
♦
ï-îU
tOOZOSC*UW
*0tO££»0Boof
♦
Teal CtttU
Coteur.étIo#f
♦
TjU
torja»♦
fa to*u:««tos.".:
9,2973,334 5,21710,8214,2026,7416,5522,1855,5045,2011,5815,0433,0698635,040
1,183 1,144 923 706.!
740:
239 863,223 1,006 4514,678 422 2164,120 VA 1293,549I2671243,12?
«97 370 26 221 749 54264 547« 1C3I19412256
336 397 ! 223 209 5ί-
105 ISS 343 323 SA
8,7753,1*3 307.7792,713 74,$541,761 103,8351,369 122,101«4 9-
410 ISA71•1£oAl-343150187 I373 161 91445 203 285[202«β115!
9,707 3.5135.«7 11,1644,3526,923 |
I6,925 2,«65,955 5.««1,724 5,333 3,271$6S5,175
23CU37 ISEPEIC^Î ocrora 1072X23 [EZC^CSt
>.i
Jotocajc♦
Toa
toz^o*»;
c*m#í.»tcnn»jTeil
tors00c&ttl*
5otoare»£>»f
♦
Taal
torioa>3 1?
C&ttl«
*5oien^aa
1«cof
♦>
Totl
toi^eab«.'
'--.♦)---
1CiUU Usl
Zotouute"
10,701 2,84310,001 20,648 3,84311,78336,9a 4,87515,935145,103 5,93114,845I>5,6323,70815r<s'0
2,344 2,101I
I. 2,730! 3,117I-3,717
537 2635,428 2,SOO3S96,4199,622 8028,84015,178 9546,774t3,121 9711,615
1,691 150 6363,044 2J91,023 4,423 406IMS 2,451 1992,0745,7633621,5'-1.
-«41 1,505 1,913 1,873 -1,655
607 639 .79T 740J 761
5,5902,245 57,5972,814 1210.63}3,011 815,133 4,069 107.8341,839 U
885324 163 514'.245 576 676 249 6S4 449 227 129 6232f02-0.j
H.5Ï6 3,16710,164
3a,1624.C6312,359 37,597 5,12416,629I46,552 6,15814,974 Β«,2553,55315,7»

j•~i"sa *•
–-•--Ti?[£AUVIIb) .. IK.EXFOKTSOPLIVECATTLE,FSFANDVEAL1975
ΙΚΚ3Ϊ3 ΤΟ·ιJAXUARÏ
C&tll«
Kotonr.fts5î«ft
V0*1
tcr.ieaFSsRUAKT
C»ttls
Kotonne*BaafA
v«.-a
tonnoaUSCH
Cattla
KotonnasBoef*
V«Al
tonnasArRXb
Cattla
HotonnasBas?«
Voil
tonna*KAT
Cottlo
Kotenn«iBaaf«
Vaal
tonnaa■JliE
Cattl*
Kotonnasî<-tfil
V..-1
tcunci
ΓΠ
ofvhichtI22,8/53,<0011,475 15,924 3,21410,553 22.110 4,77713,649 15,071 3,0οο 10.CS2Μ7.525 3,ioO7,88418,762 1,9528,154
Caroany 3,103 3,190 4,<05 2,643 1,517 1,017
ÎTiir.ca 5,225 3975,499 5,<«>5 4934.Ko4,677 4315,3422,421 2985,0735,809 4C83,9267,335 6034|Sî2
It*lr ,5,283 300 5°ô5,374 3217ô5j5,650 377 6234,192 239 4152,127 10O 4213,7^2 230 84
*lotsjrlands 1,541 1,835 I 2.221 1,09o 1.128 S42 153&7
B«lg/Luy 4,123 2o7 6501,609 ".17"5û32,745 1,052 8594,2421,248 7006,8052,008 8204,5lo 657 75Ô
Eenauk 83 45100 64 60I121 39 20
Ireland 6,9702,430 6,2582,170 7,7222,851 3,875 1,174 1,573 442 1,5# 215 75
Otsar 754'223 55728 218 327'254 122'1352-228754>-2491138!55475 2227^
23,639 3687t',530 120,652 3,43210,530|22,364 4,859'14,20115,699 3,12010,331i7,to3 3,2158,35913,934 2,036e,n1
JULI
C«til*
113toace*ffaaf*
Tail
tOUI03I
i AUCUST
| ;
Kotoutes3««f4
Veal
torneaSSFT3BSR
-,Cattla^,
KotonaesBoafJL.
Vaal
tCMCt0CT0BE8
...Cattla^
Sotona<«B««fà.
vaal
tonna*ïovEsa
Cattla
KotonnasBaaf4
Tool
tonnessssnsa
;.Cattla,
Kotoana*leif4
"Va.U. >
tor-T,»
rs«
•fvbleiit.14,083 9924,90320,374 1,191 5,«4041,449 2,472 6,73133,956-2,4375.ï°38,070 2,3727,353 !23|3o8
I1,3555,^1
Cerco&r I 1,2o0 1,432I
1#496i_ m970 1,590«1,412
Fruu« I5,314 3252,46010,070 5433,66022,215 1,2284,43220,142 1,1553,97016,671 1,0245,0723,382 6643,416
itay 3,213 221 963,586 212 4,768 293 1346,003 342 248,471 451 5,957 314 I
Satïserlacd »I 5S2•258 236 271 377 £21
Bals/Lux 2,871 147 4433,963 222*3089,923 504 3867,844 401 2897,o62 391286I4,369 251 323
Scuaifc i 20 I28 47:i•13 23
Iraliad I1,667 2CXÏ 1,471 146 1,246 236 1,427 354 3,io® 379 2,563 334
Oth*r 342 148 154 122 50 200 537 249 185 »7 35178 513 163 511 376 144 115
Total 14,425 1,1405,05320,406 1,2416,04941,936 2,7216,910 39,0532,4725,7o838,533 2,5357.664 24.244 2,032 5,536

•ΪΓ_.Ι· jr
TABLEAU N#VIIo) l'KE::PO;»IÔCPLIVScahl:;,V-sfAI:DVJL\L1977
JAirUAKK I r.-u-CiiπI 1,1
Λ?ι·.ΙΪ »
3ί-ΧΡΟΛίοτο»:C-it'l
ILie
I
IUcefatu
VenlCatt
Ilo I3ccifand
VcolCsttie rfccfar:l
VealCat'
1 1tio r.c?frjvi
7cal
! •Nolonncs Ibonnes Ko îor-iies Tomieo So bonnes 1ormes!lî0 |loimsa1onr.c3
S* i^•y* I15,35s 1,113 4,73313,473 1,00?4,643 16,549 1,471 5,335 14,799 1,313 4,430
Iof-..'hich: I
0!.il–rjî^'r,J
IConrariy I 1,100 753I'_1,^09 72?
"- •
y:.'?ÎXCf),r–r.-7|-5,W:'355',-,5,953 ;,3,766J\^,2?61,-4,003-5rP21„;–J343,663-;5,620 .437JIO(!)•
;7 J
! 3,675 204
,1.3,539 187I565,479 304 193,667.1*2 3
?!
jj.Krthorlcnis607 31 323 δ?0 AS 3351,372 69 364 1,325 70 159
HücljjivjyLux 3,3ro 325 3153,432 263I3073,0?2 323 4102,324 437 •j*
;Donaark 25 19 !0– ί- I!21
1,
iIreland 1,3^6 1"9 ,16.I,y53 270 1301,655 2J6 1611,140155]|2?7
kJihsr
r. •255 92 240 3C4 102 262 440 124 244 !1041
I'253
i
allcountries
!__115,607 1,210 4,$7313,C62 1,104j4,505
I16,SS9 1,536 5,959 15,043 1,422 4.6C3
> . 3 * 3
r
ί:
I
is
lî-

TABLEVIII 1HRBCTSUPPORT MEASURES CFANT2D INTICUKTTED KINGDOM FORTHEPRODUCTION OPBEEPANDVEAL
I
S««••■■■■■a
S62/63I
I I!63/64*
164/65s:65/66i
l1*66/67:
! t67/68:
s■·■·■··· ■«
:68/691
I S69/70:
I""o'/'n>
I71/72!
I"72/73:
t73/741
»74/75:75/761
rForecasti176/77
tEstlLûtS
A)Producersubsidies
T)Calfsubsidy
2)Beefcowsubsidy
3)Hillccwsubsidy
4)Hilllivestock compensatory
allowances(l )
1»17.7
1
15.41 1
:19.4I
I-1
15.6:
1
1-t
120.4
5.722.7
6.7
II t
24.7J
2.5:
7.51
1
-s
11
22.6i
2.9I
8.7I:26.8
ι4.0
!10.3
t27.3I
4.9«
11.8 129.1
5.8
13.9(
:31.0 S
6.7t
114.7l
t
t
tt
31.9I
7.1»
15.5I
I33.9I
9.1I
J.6.9I
I
I
>48.9
22.1
35.4I I
I59-5 I
:12.0 ι
15.5 ι
I I
t17*0 1
I 126.9
11.5
29.0
tTotal
tc.)Inmillion£
tb)inBillionu.a.
I0)inu.a./lOOkgliveveight■ 1
t23.1 1
164.71
■3.9125.01
70.01
4.0ιι
26.1ι
73.1:
4.8ιI
29.4J
£2.3ι
5.3ι34.7i
97.2:
6.0:ι
34.2ι
95.8ι
5.6ιi i
!41.1I
I98.6I
ι6.1ιt
44.0ι
105.6i
6.5«I
45.7i
109.7i
6.3ii
52.4«
125.4 «
7.4iI
54.5s
130.8 1
8.2i59-9«
129.4 «
7.9«
•106.4
221.3
10.6I
s94.0
«179.5
ι8.3l
\69.4
ι121.4
ι6.4
»
S
SB)Compensatory payments (2;
tâ)inaillion £
1bjinBillionu.a.
»e)inu.e./lOOkgliveveight1
1
30.51
85.41
5.111
140.8;
114.2:
6.5:1
9.81
27.4!
1.81I
5.0!
14.0I
0.9I19.6!
54.9i
3.4:41.1i
115.1 1
6.6 ιι
19.3i
4ô.3i
2.9<i i
:26.2ι
ι62.9 <
3.9ιι
31.0i
74.4i
4.3i[ I
2.8■
6.7«
0.4>I
1.0:
2.4:
0.15:I
t
I
I56.4
117.3
5.6( I
:89.9
1178.9
t8.38.8
!15.4
ι 0.8
I
ICjTotalA)+B)
la)inoillion£
tb)inmillionu.a.
t0)inu.a./lOOk£liveveight1
53.61
150.1 1
9.0I1 f
65.8:
184.2:
10.5:35.91
100.5:
6.61i
1
34.4ι
96.3ι
6.2ιI i
I 'S
154.3i
ι152.1:
ι9.4:75.3i
210.9 I
12.4 Ij.,:
60.4:
144.9i
9.0:>I
70.2ι
168.5ι
10.4ι1
76.7:
184.1ι
10.6ιι ι
55.2i
132.1ι
7.8:t
53.5i
133.2s
8.35st
59.9t
129.4:
7.91162.8
338.6
16.2I
:183.9
:358.4
:16.61
:78.2
!199.6
ι7.2
lD)Inrtlfcnous meatproduction
1^bcefandvoal)(3)
tinthousand tonnes1 «
1>»1
•9031<
t
9411819 «3511-,ϊ»
ι ι
:864>•i»1-
915 ■1>8691 t
:'-j
:876I/].
942I •
I t
t''ï
:919«t
v
86313'»5
6865">TM
1132t
1>i■
t1165
•t
1_!__.3■
:1025
t*
IE)AveYapsgarketprice(4)
Iinu.a./lOOkglivcweight• a
f 1
«34.71y a
t
:34.7!a
I
43.2 1:45-5 11 «
142.9139.3 11 :
!42:4 11 1
i44.4146.4 11
:54.7«63.6tt
76.2170.0I
:72.4I
193*2
1
■
:P)Totnlreceipts(C)♦(E)
I1/Ina.l./100kglivewelght* 1
t 1
I43.7<I •
t
45.2»a
I
49.8:i
1
51.7 11 1
!52.3 XI
51.7 II I
l I
151.4:I ·
I I
55.0t1
57.0 1) ·
1 1
i62.5171.95 «1
C4.1186.2«89.0 iI
1105.4
I
tC)Subsidies asaf-ofthemarket
tprice A
I B ,■ <
t11.#1
s 1I ·
XI,5*t
ta
II.»ι
-111.6*:
::14.1#I
! I14.2?i
ii14.4?■
i -ii14.6?:13.6?:
i13.5?»
i i12.9?«
i10.3?:
t15.1?:11.5Κ:
Sι6.5?
I
I '
.iH)Côanenaatcry oavnentoas'ai»of
1themarketorice B
S EI l
s 1
t14.7^i
t 1i 1
13.755!
:1
1
4.2*s
11
1
.2>?11 «
1 t
:;7.V:
lI
l
17.355,1
1t 1
1 1
t6.8/C1
\ 1î t
i t
8.7*1
s1
1
59.3*:
1I t
t t
0.7*«
tt
S
0.2*i
lt
t
r«
'J'I6.0*1
1
111.558
zt
Io.e;
t
t
II)Totalaidmeasuresasa>of
tthemarketprice Ct I
t 1
t25-9*1
t 11 1
30.23eî
S<
I
15.3?:
Ii
13.0:
1t
1
:22.Û>t
i...31.5*It I
I i
ι21.2#ι
! !i i
I
23.3#:t
I
22.9#"t
I S
14.2^I
tt
I
13.1#1
1't
10.3#!
:23.1*t
t
t23.0*
:1
:7.3#
on(orderlymarketing proaiuaandtheslaughter preaApplication ofthe"KillFancing"Directive totheUnitedKingdom
Deficiency paymentsbeforeaccession andCommunity premiumssinceaccesolon (orderlymarketingproaluaandtheslaughterpresiua).Otherexpendit
paidbytheEACGF-Cturontee Sectionwasasfollows:74/75*^7*3Billion75/76■£26.1Billion*Thisexpenditure wasnotIncludedinthetable be
Including cattleonthehoofimported fromIroland.
Arithmetical averageofthe64referencemarkets(calendaryear.e.g.66/67•66).Forthe^u.a«conversion thegreenrateuosusedasfrom3973um).Otherexpenditure (refunds,intervention )
.udedinthetablebecauseitdoesnotbenefittheproducor.
SourcesDrawnuponthebasisofofficialdatasuppliedbytheUnitedKingdomDelegation.