31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/35 
Own-initiative Opinion on the Commission's agricultural proposals for implementing the 
Single Act 
(87/C 356/09) 
On 29 June 1987 the Economic and Social Committee, acting under the fourth paragraph of 
Article 20 of its rules of procedure, decided to draw up and own-initiative Opinion on the 
abovementioned subject. 
The Section for Agriculture and Fisheries, which was responsible for preparing the Com­
mittee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 5 November 1987 in the light of the 
oral report by Mr Flum. 
At its 250th plenary session held on 18 and 19 November 1987 (meetings of 18 and 
19 November) the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following own-initiative 
Opinion by 91 votes to 26 with 11 abstentions: 
1. Introductory remarks 
1.1. Agriculture is of vital importance to the Com­
munity, constituting a fundamental sector from an 
economic, social and strategic point of view. Thus a 
crisis in the agricultural sector is a crisis for the EC, 
which all sections of society must help to resolve. 
1.2. About 9% of those gainfully employed in the 
EC are still to be found in agriculture as farmers, family 
members and hired workers (in 1960 the figure — based 
on EUR 10 — was 18,4%). In 1985 the net value added 
at market prices in the agricultural sector was just 
under 71 thousand million ECU (EUR 10); the agricul­
tural sector used inputs at the market price of some 
55 thousand million ECU (EUR 10 — 1985). If the 
upstream and downstream industries are included, at 
least every sixth job is closely related to agriculture. 
1.3. 'Agricultural regions', that is to say regions in 
which the proportion of gainfully employed in agri­
culture is more than 50 % above the EC average, com­
prise about a third of the regions of the EC and contain 
23 % of its total workforce, but 58 % of those employed 
in agriculture. Some Member States, in particular the 
Mediterranean countries and Ireland, have a very high 
proportion of such agricultural regions. 
1.4. In the course of its deliberations on the perspec­
tives for the common agricultural policy (CAP) with 
reference to Commission document, the Committee 
dealt in detail with the historical development of the 
CAP, its successes and problems. The Committee would 
refer to these basic documents; two years have elapsed 
but the fundamental statements made in these docu­
ments still stand. It would however, point out that the 
special position of agriculture precludes a complete 
change of agricultural policy overnight. During its first 
decades the Community's institutions and bodies also 
failed to give a sufficiently strong warning against the 
CAP's excessive reliance on market and price policy as 
a means of safeguarding farm incomes and the conse­
quent disadvantages of increasing overproduction. The Committee has already pointed out on earlier 
occasions that a policy aimed at setting agriculture on 
a new course should certainly be able to call on extra 
funding for a specified period in order to create the 
basis for recovery and long-term stability in the sector. 
1.5. The decision taken by the Council of Agriculture 
Ministers on 13 July 1987 on the financing of guarantee 
expenditure after EC funds have been exhausted and 
the most recent proposals from the USA on the complete 
elimination of agricultural subsidies worldwide do, 
however, demonstrate that there has been a further 
tightening of the budgetary and trade policy parameters 
for the CAP. Such success as has been achieved to date 
in reducing surpluses has not yet been sufficient to 
balance EC revenue and expenditure. The Community 
continues to spend large sums on export refunds, 
storage and the destruction or denaturing of farm prod­
ucts. The high level of expenditure by the Community 
in this field has not benefitted farmers as a whole but 
rather boosted the incomes of particular people engaged 
in agricultural production and marketing and, more 
especially, the incomes of owners of warehouses used 
for storing surplus production. In addition, labour mar­
ket trends, which are so important for the process of 
structural adjustments in agriculture, remain extremely 
unfavourable. The fall in unemployment over the 
period May 1986-May 1987 was a mere 20 000, bringing 
the figure to 15,6 million. These labour market prob­
lems impede the process of conversion and adjustment 
in agriculture and hinder structural change in disadvan­
taged regions in particular. 
1.6. The Committee noted with interest the Com­
mission's communication to the Council entitled 'Mak­
ing a success of the Single European Act. A new frontier 
for Europe' (doc. COM(87) 100), because it saw in it the 
beginnings of long-term effective agricultural reform. It 
comments below on a number of fundamental issues 
with regard to the agricultural reform needed in the 
Community. 
No C 356/36 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
2. Aims and principles of the CAP 
2.1. In the founding phase of the EC, security of 
supply was a priority of agricultural policy. There was 
no way of forseeing the scale and repercussions of the 
subsequent problems of surpluses brought about by 
technical progress and structural change. Despite the 
present surpluses and the cost of disposing of them, the 
aims and principles of the CAP developed in the early 
1960s must continue to hold good. Higher productivity 
in agriculture and, by means of this, an increase in the 
individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture 
remain particular objectives of the CAP. Now, however, 
more than previously, higher productivity should be 
achieved through a better balance between supply and 
demand, with particular regard to product quality, 
improved working conditions and certain environmen­
tal requirements. But higher productivity can no longer 
be attained through increased production; the objective 
should be a more efficient use of the factors of pro­
duction. Furthermore, it is necessary to gear production 
towards higher quality products to improve working 
conditions and to develop methods of cultivation and 
stockrearing compatible with the protection of the 
environment. The output of various farm products will 
have to be reduced, taking into account the employment 
situation and the consequent social costs, if supply and 
demand are to be brought into balance. The CAP has 
not achieved the aforementioned goal of ensuring a 
reasonable income for all those employed in agriculture, 
despite the fact that expenditure has risen considerably 
— as shown by the data on the value added of the 
agricultural sector. 
2.2. Among the objectives set out in Article 39 of the 
EEC Treaty, stabilization of the markets is the one 
on which least progress has been made. For a while, 
therefore, priority should be given to this objective in 
the reform of the CAP. Stocks should be reduced as 
quickly as possible to a level which is acceptable from 
the point of view of consumer policy and socially 
acceptable. At the same time it must be ensured that 
no new, unacceptably high surpluses are created. 
In the medium term other objectives have comparable 
importance in the reform of the CAP. Reform and 
accompanying measures must contribute to the attain­
ment of other goals; an assured income, social security, 
structural improvement in disadvantaged regions and 
protection of the environment are of particular concern 
for the farming community and rural areas. In addition, 
reform must ensure that consumer prices are reasonable 
and that supplies are permanently safeguarded. 
2.3. The Commission also intends that the single 
market, Community preference and financial solidarity 
should continue to be fundamental principles of the 
CAP. The Committee welcomes this clear commitment 
to the past development and the future of the CAP. 2.4. For the stability of the Community as a whole, 
of the agricultural regions and of agriculture itself, as 
well as in the interests of regional balance, it is more 
than ever necessary to accelerate European integration 
in all other policy areas too, e.g. through monetary 
union and a much more far-reaching alignment of for­
eign, economic, environmental, structural, social and 
transport policies. This would also make a decisive 
contribution to the elimination of distortions of compe­
tition. 
2.5. The Committee stresses the Community's obli­
gation, set out in Article 25 of the Single European Act, 
to make 'environmental protection requirements... a 
component of the Community's other policies', i.e. also 
of the CAP. The goal of economic and social cohesion 
set out in the Single Act is, for the CAP too, an objective 
of fundamental importance. This gives rise to new 
constraints — in addition to the well-known conflicts 
of aims inherent from the start in Article 39 of the EEC 
Treaty — with regard to the orientation of the CAP; 
these too will have to be taken into consideration. 
2.6. The reform of the CAP, too, must help to pro­
vide budgetary scope for the implementation of the 
Single European Act. 
3. Economic and political parameters 
3.1. The Committee broadly agrees with the Com­
mission's analysis of the economic and political par­
ameters for the development of agriculture. Since the 
establishment of the EEC the general economic environ­
ment and the situation on the agricultural markets have 
indeed undergone radical changes. 
3.2. Economic growth has slowed down and unem­
ployment has become one of the Community's main 
problems. Exceptional increases in production coupled 
with stagnating or even declining demand for agricul­
tural products have brought about serious problems of 
imbalance on agricultural markets. Other industrialized 
countries and, more recently, many third world 
countries are having to contend with similar difficulties. 
3.3. World markets are saturated, so that farm sur­
pluses can only be disposed of by means of substantial 
export refunds. This expenditure is an important con­
tributory factor in the permanent EC budgetary crisis, 
exacerbated by considerable fluctuations in exchange 
rates, and the continuing weakness of the dollar. Agri­
cultural surpluses are a particular threat to the develop­
ment of third world countries which are dependent on 
agriculture to build up their economies. The export 
refunds of the major economic blocs, the USA and the 
EC, are depressing world prices to such an extent that 
even the ability of developing countries to feed them­
selves is being impaired. 
3.4. Coinciding with the budgetary problems and the 
problems on the agricultural markets in the Com- * 
munity, the social situation of the majority of those 
31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/37 
gainfully employed in agriculture has deteriorated. This 
applies both to the incomes of many farmers and their 
families and to the income of agricultural workers. 
3.5. Price policy cannot be the sole instrument of 
market, income and social policy, especially while the 
markets are suffering from surpluses. 
3.6. These factors make it necessary to adjust agri­
cultural policy to the new situation. Reform objectives, 
conditions and instruments must be established for the 
CAP which help to provide both those working in 
agriculture and the upstream and downstream sectors 
with a reliable basis on which to plan for the future. 
4. Prerequisites for reform 
4.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's 
expressed intent of taking account of the special features 
of the agricultural sector in the reform of the CAP. The 
process of adjustment must therefore take place within 
the framework of the objectives of the CAP and its 
underlying principles. 
4.2. The distortions of the CAP have aggravated 
imbalances in agriculture in the Community. These 
imbalances exist both between different products and 
farms and between different regions. Any reform of the 
CAP must seek to eliminate such imbalances. 
4.3. As in other sectors, the process of adjustment 
must be carried out in a socially acceptable manner— 
in other words, the people affected must be offered 
options which, while not standing in the way of 
reductions in capacity, nonetheless ensure there is no 
unacceptable hardship. 
4.4. A reduction in surpluses and underemployment 
in agriculture release workers, especially in less well-
off agricultural regions. As their migration would lead 
to lasting structural weaknesses in these regions, new 
jobs should be created there. Priority should be given, 
for instance, to jobs in forestry and allied industries, 
in wood processing, the protection of nature and the 
environment, and the services sector. 
4.5. The CAP reform measures must take account of 
the fact that farms are predominantly family concerns. 
Consideration must also be given to the social situation 
of hired farm workers, of workers employed in related 
industries, and in first stage processing. 
4.6. In many regions of the Community agriculture 
has a special significance over and above the production 
of agricultural products and, in connection with the 
reform of the CAP, this special significance should be 
given greater weight in other Community policies. 4.7. Account must be taken in the CAP reform of 
the interests of tax-payers and consumers. As an 
example, the marketing of food products must not 
be jeopardized by the introduction of new taxes and 
additional tax burdens must not be placed upon con­
sumers. 
4.8. Finally, it is of decisive importance (a) that 
the difficult process of realigning the CAP should be 
accompanied at international level by appropriate treat­
ies and agreements within the framework of GATT, 
(b) that effective account be taken of the interests of 
third world countries, and (c) that all the Member 
States participate in the essential reform of the CAP 
with the same degree of commitment, especially in the 
reduction of surpluses. 
5. Instruments of CAP reform 
5.1. In its Green Paper the Commission set out a 
strategy, which it adopted following the consultations 
on that document. This strategy comprises the follow­
ing elements: 
— a restrictive price policy, 
— more flexible application of the guarantee pro­
visions, 
— adjustment of the intervention mechanisms, 
— a reinforcement of producer co-responsibility, 
— the introduction or tightening-up of quota rules, 
and 
— back-up measures in the form of income transfers. 
5.2. The Committee regrets that no analysis has so 
far been made of the potential impact of this strategy 
on the individual groups of people working in agri­
culture and on the regions of the Community, despite 
the fact that various parties—and in particular, the 
Committee—have expressly called for such an analysis. 
This analysis is particularly necessary as it is the only 
means of enabling 
— the degree to which the various instruments are 
applied to be properly regulated bearing in mind 
the reform parameters set out above, 
— the associated, non-agricultural measures to be 
determined at the same time. 
The Committee therefore views with concern agricul­
tural policy decisions which are not geared to finding 
appropriate solutions within the abovementioned 
reform parameters, but rather are determined exclus­
ively by budgetary pressures. In the Committee's view 
it is perfectly possible to take account of both aspects 
(budgetary considerations and the need to find appro­
priate solutions) at the same time. This is all the more 
necessary from a political point of view since it is the 
only way of promoting the necessary consensus of all 
parties concerned. 
No C 356/38 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
5.3. The Committee has already on earlier occasions 
expressed the view that greater importance should be 
attached to structural policy compared with market 
and price policies. Price policy must take a new direc­
tion and must send out the right signals to producers 
at a time when there are imbalances on the agricultural 
markets. As the Commission rightly notes, such a policy 
must help to create additional market prospects, par­
ticularly as regards uses currently excluded because of 
high costs. 
5.3.1. A price policy is needed which gives no 
(further) incentives for overproduction and removes 
existing surpluses. This aim can be more readily 
achieved by linking aid to the quantity and quality of 
agricultural products. Price policy must—with particu­
lar regard to Article 39(2)(a)—be backed up by income, 
market, social and structural measures. For a certain 
time restrictive pricing must be used to counter structur­
al surpluses until they are reduced to a reasonable level. 
Price policy must help to influence production trends 
and to bring them more into line with the market. 
Furthermore, such a policy will help to bring about a 
solution to the ever more serious disputes over trade in 
agricultural products on the world markets. It will 
also provide better prospects for the increased use of 
agricultural products for non-food purposes. 
5.3.2. The Community should avoid anything which 
encourages the production and marketing of imitation 
products and which jeopardizes the expansion and 
security of farmers' outlets in the food and raw 
materials sectors. 
5.3.3. The Council should also consider introducing 
improved measures to protect the EC market against 
imports of certain products and raw materials. 
5.4. A change in price policy on its own is not an 
acceptable way of eliminating the present surpluses and 
imbalances on the agricultural markets as this would 
jeopardize the livelihood of the majority of farms. It 
would lead to a loss of income for the farmer which is 
not justifiable on structural and social grounds. Price 
policy must be accompanied, inter alia, by measures to 
regulate the markets aimed at reducing the surpluses 
and reducing consumer prices. Of course, direct income 
support in line with social policy criteria will be needed 
to compensate the farmer for the consequent loss in 
income. 
5.4.1. Intervention buying no longer fulfills its orig­
inal function of providing a safety net for seasonal 
fluctuations in supply, but has become an additional, 
artificial outlet. There must be greater differentiation 
in the way intervention prices are geared to target 
prices, so that price acts as a regulator of production 
and provides an incentive for diversification and improvements in quality. As long as it is more profitable 
to put produce into store, recycle it and sell it at less 
than cost (with the cost of these measures being passed 
on to the taxpayer, i.e. the consumer), those producers 
and traders who are interested in new products and 
new outlets will not have a fair chance. The Committee 
therefore basically welcomes the Commission's inten­
tion to apply intervention mechanisms more flexibly. 
It would, however, warn against constant changes of 
direction within a financial year which would alter the 
data on which participants in the market base their 
plans. It also opposes any intervention in the cultivation 
and marketing of new products or products with indus­
trial uses if this could distort competition. 
The Commission should examine whether and to what 
extent a reduction in the quantitites bought into inter­
vention—by the imposition of quantitative and quali­
tative restrictions according to product and region— 
could contribute to an effective cutback in surplus 
production and at the same time satisfy specific regional 
conditions and the requirements of social and structural 
policy. 
5.4.2. A long-term market policy should be 
developed for each agricultural product. The measures 
introduced in the milk and beef sectors demonstrate 
this. In particular the Committee would like to encour­
age the Commission to continue its policy of putting 
emphasis on the production of high-quality products. 
It should, however, apply intrinsic quality criteria to a 
greater extent. 
5.4.3. Cereals surpluses have recently developed into 
one of the Community's main problems. The Commit­
tee proposes that producers should be obliged, within 
a certain time, to reduce farmland production (cereals 
units). The Commission should stipulate the requisite 
deadline and offer alternative methods of implemen­
tation, commensurate with the specific conditions in 
each country. For instance, the reduction in production 
could be achieved through less intensive cultivation 
(by banning, taxing or rationing yield-boosting inputs). 
This would, at the same time, help to counteract the 
threat to the environment from fertilizer and pesticide 
pollution of ground water. Agricultural land could also 
be taken out of use or put to other uses. 
Small farms would be exempt from this requirement 
provided they were the principal occupation of their 
owners. In addition, those farmers and farmworkers 
hit by production curbs would be granted appropriate 
income support for a certain time on a degressive scale 
according to farm size, the yield capacity of the soil, 
regional farm rent levels and social criteria. Not least, 
it must always be ensured that such measures do not 
harm the environment. Comparable measures should 
be taken where necessary for other agricultural prod­
ucts; in particular, further measures are needed to 
31. 12. 87 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 356/39 
reduce the surpluses of animal products. A study should 
be undertaken of whether, inter alia, stockrearing 
should be tied to the land resources of farms. 
5.5. Environmental damage—whose principal cau­
ses include various industries, households and trans­
port, but also modern farming methods—strikes at 
the very roots of society. At the same time agriculture 
is one of those sectors of the economy seriously affected 
by damage to the environment. Pollution should in the 
first instance be prevented and more heavily penalized 
economically, in accordance with the polluter pays prin­
ciple. Ecological improvements brought about by agri­
culture should be specially rewarded, for which new 
criteria are needed. 
5.6. The Committee views technical advances and 
biotechnology in particular with great concern; techni­
cal progress and the resultant economic growth must 
no longer be achieved at any price. The repercussions 
must be examined before new developments are intro­
duced; they must be both socially and environmentally 
acceptable. There are some developments in agriculture 
which need to be regulated by social policy measures. 
5.7. Many of the problems particularly affecting the 
CAP today cannot be solved at all or only very inad­
equately within the framework of the internal agricul­
tural policy; the Committee has pointed this out on 
many occasions. Thus cutbacks in production and sub­
sidized exports of EC farm products can only succeed 
if accompanied by agreement within GATT on limits 
to the import of agricultural products and in particular 
of feed substitutes. The measures which the EC could 
take to remedy this situation should, before they are 
implemented, be prescribed in identical provisions by 
all the major economic powers, e.g. within the context 
of the GATT negotiations. 
5.7.1. Major infringements of the principle of Com­
munity preference stem from the initial phase of the 
CAP. In today's changed situation the bitterness about 
the effects of these infringements is understandable, just 
as there is a clear need to find contractual solutions 
where commitments have been enfered into vis-a-vis 
third parties. 
5.7.2. Considerable efforts on the part of the Com­
munity and its trading partners are called for, given 
the threat to the functioning of the world agricultural 
markets posed by the huge surpluses in a number of 
important farm-produce exporting countries, the con­
siderable price fluctuations for farm produce on inter­
national commodity exchanges and the currency fluctu­
ations themselves. The Committee supports the Com­
mission in its intention to orient its negotiating strat­egies—inter alia in GATT—to the requirements of 
economic efficiency, solidarity and regional planning 
and to resist the temptations of protectionism. But 
curbs on production within the EC must not be under­
mined by imports from third countries. 
5.7.3. A situation similar to that of Community pref­
erence applies with regard to the agromonetary prob­
lems arising from the Member States' monetary policies 
in the absence of economic and monetary union. The 
Committee recognizes the difficulties confronting the 
Commission and the Council as they tackle the dual 
task of: 
— adjusting the specifically agricultural arrangements 
to the general monetary system, and 
— preventing the abolition of the monetary compensa­
tory amounts from exacerbating inflation, unac­
ceptable hardship from arising and preventing tend­
encies towards overproduction from being encour­
aged by monetary factors. 
Since the problems involved are so complex, it does not 
seem likely that it will be possible to counteract the 
effects of monetary policy on the agricultural sector 
solely or mainly with agricultural policy instruments. 
At the same time, the Committee recognizes that green 
rates will have to be abolished in order to enable the 
unified market proposed in the Single European Act to 
become a reality. 
5.8. The policy aimed at putting the agricultural 
markets in order requires sacrifices from those working 
in agriculture. These sacrifices will be tolerable only if 
the conditions set out in point 4 are met. In this respect 
the Committee welcomes the Commission's statement 
that its proposals must take account of the different 
agricultural situations in the Community of Twelve. 
Regional, sociostructural and natural factors and the 
typical farm size must be considered. 
5.8.1. If these structural differences are ignored, the 
trend towards renationalization of the CAP that are 
already evident will inevitably be boosted and in the 
interests of Europe, this must not be allowed to happen. 
The measures backing up reform of the CAP thus take 
on considerable importance. 
5.8.2. The Commission has already devised market 
policy measures—a levy on milk producers, aids for 
small cereal farmers, consideration of regional policy 
aspects in the application of production quotas— 
which mark the first stages of a differentiated, more 
socially balanced agricultural policy. The less price 
policy is able to meet the demands of income and social 
policy, the stronger the latter policies must be, either 
in their own right or in a supporting role. For instance: 
No C 356/40 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 12. 87 
— there is a greater need for income transfers to the 
owners of small agricultural enterprises in disadvan­
taged farming regions or to farmers and their 
employees in areas where farming should be pre­
served for ecological reasons. The amount of these 
payments should be aligned on the income of the 
other inhabitants of the region, 
— measures should be introduced to align social secur­
ity in the Member States, 
— farmers who have to give up their farms for structur­
al reasons should receive assistance such as that 
received by the unemployed in other sectors of the 
economy. 
The Committee endorses the Commission's view that 
there must be limits to such differentiation in agricul­
tural policy if the principle of the single market is not 
to be violated. The Committee therefore welcomed 
the submission of the Commission document, which 
provided for: 
— an additional instrument for supplementing 
incomes, 
— a framework for measures at national level, and 
— an early retirement scheme for those working in 
agriculture. The Committee is at present preparing 
an Opinion. We would refer to this document and 
earlier comments. 
5.8.3. The Committee reiterates calls it has already 
made for: 
— support for mountain areas and less-favoured areas, 
— constructive voluntary measures for improving the 
environment, and would once again urge the stepp-
ing-up of efforts in the area of agricultural research 
and extension services, which should concentrate 
principally on promoting the production and mar­
keting of industrial raw materials and envi­
ronmentally benign products with alternative uses. 
Similarly, the basic and advanced training of the 
agricultural workforce—particularly in connection 
with the introduction of new socially and envi­
ronmentally acceptable technologies—is extremely 
important. 
5.8.4. The Committee welcomes the Commission's 
intention to take special account of the need to create 
non-agricultural jobs, particularly in rural regions, and 
to devote greater efforts to this matter in the context 
Done at Brussels, 19 November 1987. of its regional policy. Combatting mass unemployment 
in the Community is one of the most effective ways of 
facilitating the structural adjustment process in the 
agricultural sector. The Committee also considers it 
essential to improve coordination between Community 
policies and national job-creating measures. Jobs which 
help to protect the natural environment call for special 
support from the Community. 
5.8.5. The Committee would reiterate the introduc­
tory and general comments it made on the 1987/88 
farm price proposals. 
5.9. Rational budgeting is particularly important in 
a period when agricultural policy is being adjusted. 
5.10. The subsidy frauds which are repeatedly noted 
by the Budgetary Control Committee on the basis of 
investigations by the Court of Auditors must be coun­
tered more energetically than hitherto for economic, 
legal and, last but not least, European reasons. This 
kind of 'mis-allocation' of Community resources under­
mines confidence in the European institutions which is 
so urgently needed right now. 
6. Concluding remarks 
The path ahead in agriculture and agricultural policy 
has become more difficult. This path can be travelled 
only in a spirit of constructive cooperation and under­
standing for the concerns of those most seriously affec­
ted — the people working in agriculture and the rural 
community. The Community will only master the crisis 
in agriculture if, together with its trading partners, 
policies are applied which will contain production of 
commodities currently in structural surplus. These poli­
cies will, no doubt, have to include a series of measures 
of which a prudent prices policy must be one. But price 
policy in agriculture acts only slowly and urgent action 
is required to control surplus production without 
further damaging farmers' incomes. This means that 
greater emphasis must be placed on production con­
trols. 
In the Committee's view, everything must be done to 
ensure that the method chosen to solve the problem 
meets with the approval of the Community's citizens. 
The answer to this question will be a good indication 
of whether, by 1992, Europe will have a social dimen­
sion and a political affirmation of the basic European 
idea or whether we shall merely have a Europe of free 
markets. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alfons MARGOT 
^LL^D^ ^hc^ljourn^lo^rh^Furoro^nC^ornrnunin^ ^o^^^^l 
fourth paragraph of Article^of the rules of procedures 
The following amendments were rejected by the plenary session. 
Add the following point ^.^^b^ 
^Ta^payers and consumers need to understand that CA^ has already tal^en into account their interests 
considenngthat as much as70% of the finalcostof foodproducts isaccounted for by processmgand 
retailing costsB 
^or^^against^O^ abstentions^. 
^nsertanewparagraph^.^^a^ worded as follows^ 
^TheC^admstment measures concermngtherestorationof a balancebetweensupply anddemandare 
necessary but are not enough. Simply complying with the laws of supply and demand is not the best way of 
reforming the eA^, 
The CA^ must continue to act asaguide for developing the Community. 
The main instrument of reform will have to be the introduction of ^ planning and ^ crop forecast 
management. 
The Community must be able to decide what it wants to produced and where and how it should be produced. 
Such choices will determine the way in which the instruments of the CA^ will be used^pncesmntervention^ 
product duality pohcy^e^ternal trade policy^structuralaidmncomeaid^ etc. 
^lanl^et^ acrossthe^board measures should not be used^ instead^ support should begiven toestabhshed 
programmes withmgaregional dimension and as part ofaconsistent European economic and social policy. 
The aim of such programmes shouldbe to define the form to be given to agriculture as regards products^ 
social aspectsmhe environment and the management of the countryside. 
All theinstrumentshstedheremustprovidea^guidedguarantee^frameworl^for implementing suchpro^ 
grammes and supporting rural populationsmhus contributing to regional developmentB 
^or.^against^^,abstentions^. 
Add the following to point ^B7.t^ 
^The Committee would support the Commission^sproposals for the rebalancing of agricultural support under 
which there would beagreater element of protection from imports of cereal substitutes^ oilseeds and protemsB 
^or^^against^L abstentions^.