EUROOPAN YHTEISÖJEN KOMISSIO 
Bryssel, 14.11.1995 
KCMVl(95)517 1opull. 
KOMISSION KERTOMUS 
SEURAAVIEN SEIKKOJEN VAIKUTUKSETA EMOTRiN TUKIOSASTON 
VUODEN 1995 MENOIHIN : 
DOLLARIN/ECUN VALUUTTAKURSSIN MUUTOKSET JA 
EUROOPAN VALUUTTAJÄRJESTELMÄSSÄ TEHDYISTÄ 
VALUUTTAKURSSTTARKISTUKSISTA JOHTUVA KORJAUSKERTOIMEN 
KASVAMINEN 
VARAINHOITOVUOSI 1995 

KERTOMUKSEN YHTEENVETO 
seuraavien seikkojen vaikutuksesta EMOTR.n tukiosaston vuoden 1995 menoihin: 
dollarin/ecun valuuttakurssin muutokset ja 
Euroopan valuuttajärjestelmässä tehdyistä valuuttakurssitarkistuksista johtuva 
korjauskertoimen kasvaminen 
Talousarviota koskevasta kurinalaisuudesta 31 päivänä lokakuuta 1994 tehdyn neuvoston 
päätöksen 9 artiklan mukaisesti komission on esitettävä budjettivallan käyttäjälle jokaisen 
vuoden lokakuun loppuun mennessä kertomus seuraavien seikkojen vaikutuksesta 
EMOTR:n tukiosaston menoihin: 
keskimääräisen dollarin/ecun markkinakurssin muutokset edeltävän vuoden 1 
päivästä elokuuta kyseisen vuoden 31 päivään heinäkuuta suhteessa talousarviossa 
käytettyyn kurssiin, 
1 päivästä syyskuuta 1992 alkaen Euroopan valuuttajärjestelmässä tehdyt 
valuuttakurssi tarkistukset. 
Tämä varainhoitovuotta 1995 koskeva kertomus sisältää tietoja, joita voi käyttää 
arvioitaessa: 
pitäisikö dollarin/ecun valuuttakurssien muutosten vaikutuksen takia ehdottaa 
siirtoa rahoitusvarauksesta tai rahoitusvaraukseen, ja tarvittaessa asianomaista 
määrää, 
pitäisikö Euroopan valuuttajärjestelmässä tehtyjen valuuttakurssi tarkistusten 
vaikutuksen takia ehdottaa siirtoa rahoitusvarauksesta ja pitäisikö neuvoston , jos 
rahoitusvaraus on käytetty loppuun, toteuttaa aiheelliset järjestelyt EMOTR.n 
tukiosaston rahoittamiseksi uuden talousarviota koskevasta kurinalaisuudesta 
tehdyn päätöksen 11 artiklassa määrättyjen edellytysten mukaisesti. 
Dollarin/ecun valuuttakurssien muutosten osalta 1 päivän elokuuta 1994 ja 31 päivän 
heinäkuuta 1995 välisen jakson todettu keskimääräinen kurssi oli $ 1 = 0,78 ecua, joka 
on 12 prosenttia alle budjettipariteetin $ 1 = 0,89 ecua. Tämä dollarin arvon lasku aiheutti 
EMOTR:n tukiosastolle 543 miljoonaksi ecuksi arvioidun lisämenon, josta 343 miljoonaa 
ecua voitiin ottaa rahoitusvarauksesta. Maatalouden suotuisan taloudellisen suuntauksen 
ansiosta kuitenkin kaikki dollarin arvon laskusta aiheutuneet lisämenot voidaan rahoittaa 
EMOTR.n tukiosaston 1 - 5 lukuun kuuluvista talousarvion määrärahoista ja tämän 
seurauksena rahoitusvaraukseen ei tarvitse turvautua. 
o 
Syyskuun 1992 jälkeen tehtyjen valuuttakurssi tarkistusten, jotka johtuvat välittömästi 
siirtojärjestelmästä ja jotka voidaan mahdollisesti rahoittaa talousarviota koskevasta 
kurinalaisuudesta tehdyn päätöksen 11 artiklan mukaisesti, vaikutuksen EMOTR.n 
tukiosaston vuoden 1995 menoihin arvioidaan olevan 1524 ecua1. Koska kuitenkin on 
ollut mahdollista rahoittaa tämä meno EMOTR:n tukiosaston 1 - 5 lukuun kuuluvista 
talousarvion määrärahoista, ei ole tarpeen turvautua talousarviota koskevasta 
kurinalaisuudesta tehdyn päätöksen 11 artiklaan. 
Tämä 1524 miljoonan ecun määrä kuvastaa kaksoiskurssin nousun l,145:stä l,207:ään ja tähän 
liittyvän hintojen ja joidenkin tukien 1,29 prosentin vähennyksen nettovaikutusta. Lisäksi 
korjauskertoimen muutos johtaa vihreinä ecuina ilmaistujen maailmanmaikkinahintojen laskemiseen 
ja sen vuoksi tiettyihin tuontitukiin liittyvien kurssien nousuun. Tämän vaikutuksen arvioidaan 
olevan 263 miljoonaa ecua. 
REPORT 
on the impact on EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure in 1995 of 
movements of the dollar/ecu exchange rate, and 
increases in the correcting factor resulting from monetary realignments within the 
European Monetary System 
INTRODUCTION 
The value of the dollar affects a major proportion of EAGGF Guarantee Section 
expenditure. A number of production aids and almost all export refunds are fixed on the 
basis of the gap existing between Community prices, expressed in ecus, and world prices, 
generally expressed in dollars (USD). 
Other things being equal, a change in the value of the dollar in relation to the ecu 
automatically implies a change in the gap between Community prices and world prices 
and consequently a change in the production aids and export refunds concerned. If the 
dollar rises, the gap diminishes, leading to a reduction in expenditure, if the dollar falls, 
the gap widens, raising expenditure. 
The European Council of 11 and 12 February 1988, in its conclusions, expressed the will 
to take explicit account of the impact of the change in the dollar on agricultural 
expenditure. 
On that basis, by its Decision of 24 June 1988 concerning budgetary discipline1, the 
Council provided for the inclusion of ECU 1 000 million in a reserve of the general 
budget of the European Communities "as a provision for covering developments caused 
by significant and unforeseen movements in the dollar/ecu market rate compared to the 
dollar/ecu rate used in the budget". The latter is equal to the average market rate during 
the first three months of the year preceding the budget year. 
OJNoL 185, 15.7.1988, p. 29. 
l.V*î 
If the average value of the dollar in the period from 1 August of the preceding year to 
31 July of the current year falls in relation to the rate used in the budget, the additional 
budget costs are financed by a transfer from the monetary reserve. Equally, savings of 
up to ECU 1 000 million in the Guarantee Section when the dollar strengthens are to be 
transferred to the monetary reserve1 
Recourse is to be had to the monetary reserve when the said expenditure (or, as the case 
may be, the saving) exceeds a margin ('franchise') - ECU 400 million up to and including 
the 1994 financial year. Similarly, the amount of the transfer relates to that fraction of 
the impact which exceeds that margin. 
The Edinburgh European Council of 11 and 12 December 1992 confirmed that the 
monetary reserve would remain in place for the period 1993-99 but decided that the 
amount should be cut to ECU 500 million from 1995 onwards and the 'franchise' reduced 
from ECU 400 million to ECU 200 million. 
Noting also that the monetary movements between the Member States' currencies at the 
time would substantially increase EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure, the Edinburgh 
European Council agreed that adjustments should be made to the arrangements for the 
operation of the monetary reserve so as to make due allowance for the costs resulting 
from the monetary alignments between Member States. 
The Edinburgh European Council also agreed that if such an increase should cause 
agricultural expenditure to exceed the guideline and thus jeopardise the financing of the 
new common agricultural policy as already approved, appropriate measures would be 
taken by the Council to fund the EAGGF Guarantee Section. 
On 31 October 1994 the Council adopted a new Decision on budgetary discipline which 
took account of the Edinburgh European Council's conclusions". Articles 7 to 12 of that 
Decision contain the provisions relating to consideration of the dollar exchange rate and 
of the impact of monetary realignments. The Decision specifies that the special provisions 
relating to the financing of costs arising from monetary realignments within the European 
Monetary System will apply until the end of the 1997 financial year (Article 11(3)) and 
that the transfers from the reserve will only be used if the additional costs (due either to 
the variation in the dollar rate or to monetary realignments) cannot be met from the 
budget appropriations entered in Titles 1 to 5 of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (Article 
12(1)). 
Up to ECU 1 000 million up to the 1994 financial year and up to ECU 500 
million from 1995 onwards. 
OJNoL 293, 12.11.1994, p. 14. 
2T*r 
Under Article 9 of the Decision the Commission is required to present a report to the 
budgetary authority by the end of October each year on the impact on EAGGF Guarantee 
Section expenditure of: > 
movements in the average dollar/ecu market rate for the period from 1 August of 
the preceding year to 31 July of the current year in relation to the rate used in the 
budget; 
the monetary realignments within the European Monetary System since 
1 September 19921. 
This report, which relates to the 1995 financial year, contains information to be used to 
assess: 
whether, on account of the impact of changes in the dollar/ecu exchange rate, a 
transfer should be proposed to or from the monetary reserve and, if so, the 
relevant amount; 
whether, on account of the impact of the monetary realignments within the 
European Monetary System, a transfer from the monetary reserve should be 
proposed and whether, if the reserve is used up, appropriate arrangements should 
be made by the Council to finance the EAGGF Guarantee Section in accordance 
with the conditions laid down in Article 11 of the new decision on budgetary 
discipline. 
According to the statement by the Council when the common guidelines on the 
new budgetary discipline were adopted in October 1994, these are budget costs 
resulting directly from the existence of a switchover mechanism. 
II. IMPACT OF THE DOLLAR ON EAGGF GUARANTEE SECTION 
EXPENDITURE IN 1995 
To gauge the impact of movements in the dollar/ecu rate on the 1995 financial year, 
consideration must be given, pursuant to Article 7 of the Council Decision of 31 October 
1994, to the gap between the average rate recorded for the dollar between 1 August 1994 
and 31 July 1995 and the rate used in the 1995 budget. The rate used to assess 
appropriations for the 1995 financial year is $ 1 = ECU 0.89 In accordance with the 
Council Decision, this corresponds to the average rate in the first three months of the year 
preceding the financial year in question (January, February and March 1994). 
The following table gives the monthly exchange rate gaps recorded in the reference 
period. 
a 
August 
September 
October 
November 
December 
January 
February 
March 
April 
May 
June 
July 
Average 1.8.94-31.7.95 Recorded rate 
1$ = ... ECU 
b 
0.8176 
0.8095 
0.7932 
0.8042 
0.8225 
0.8060 
0.7946 
0.7594 
0.7455 
0.7569 
0.7511 
0.7437 
0.7844 Budget rate 
1$ := ... ECU 
c 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 
0.8900 Gap 
in ECU 
d - b - c 
- 0.0724 
- 0.0805 
- 0.0968 
- 0.0858 
- 0.0675 
- 0.0840 
- 0.0954 
-0.1306 
-0.1445 
-0.1331 
-0.1389 
-0.1463 
-0.1056 Gap 
in% 
e = b/c 
-8.1 
-9.0 
- 10.9 
-9.6 
-7.6 
-9.4 
- 10.7 
- 14.7 
- 16.2 
- 15.0 
- 15.6 
- 16.4 
- 11.9 
Over the period under consideration the average dollar rate, rounded off, was $ 1 = 
ECU 0.78, 12% below the budget rate. 
That reduction in the value of the dollar involved additional expenditure charged to the 
EAGGF Guarantee Section. 
The recorded average rate of $ 1 = ECU 0.78 is the arithmetical mean of the daily rates 
for the twelve-month period in question. The average monthly rate fluctuated greatly 
around that 12-month average, between a maximum of $ 1 = ECU 0.8225 in December 
1994 and a minimum of $ 1 = ECU 0.7437 in July 1995. In fact, the fluctuation became 
even greater towards the end of the period, with the average drop in the dollar in relation 
to the budget rate rising from about 9% for the first half of the period to about 15% for 
the second half. 
If an accurate assessment of the additional expenditure incurred owing to the depreciation 
of the dollar is to be made during a period when the gaps compared to the budget rate 
were large and highly variable, it is necessary to establish a weighted average dollar rate 
for every agricultural product for which expenditure in ecus is affected by the dollar, 
taking account of the seasonal variation in exports with refund or in quantities eligible 
for Community aid. 
On that basis, additional expenditure charged to the EAGGF Guarantee Section as a result 
of the depreciation of the dollar in relation to the budget rate is estimated at ECU 543 
million for the 1995 financial year. 
Annex I gives a detailed calculation of this expenditure, which breaks down by sector as 
follows: 
(ECU million) 
Cereals: 280 
Sugar: 112 
Rice: 5 
Non-Annex II products: 48 
Dried fodder: . 31 
Fibre plants: 57 
Islands and most remote regions: 10 
TOTAL: 543 
It should be noted that, like last year, it was considered that the refund rates for livestock 
sector products were influenced very little by the short- or medium-term variation in the 
dollar rate. As a consequence, there is no need to evaluate the impact of the dollar-rate 
changes on refunds for these products. 
The financial impact of dollar movements on EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure is 
therefore ECU 343 million greater than the margin of ECU 200 million: 
Total additional expenditure: 543 
Margin: 200 
Expenditure exceeding the margin: 343 
The amount of ECU 343 million can be withdrawn from the monetary reserve pursuant 
to Article 10 of the Decision of 31 October 1994. Nevertheless, bearing in mind Article 
12(1) of the Decision, the Commission considers that owing to the favourable trend in 
the agricultural economy, all the additional expenditure due to the drop in the dollar rate 
may be financed from within the budget appropriations entered in Titles 1 to 5 of the 
EAGGF Guarantee Section. As a result, there is no need to call upon the monetary 
reserve. 
m. THE IMPACT ON EAGGF GUARANTEE SECTION EXPENDITURE IN 
1995 OF INCREASES IN THE CORRECTING FACTOR RESULTING 
FROM MONETARY REALIGNMENTS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN 
MONETARY SYSTEM SINCE 1 SEPTEMBER 1992 
Between the beginning of September 1992 and mid-May 1993 there were five monetary 
realignments within the European Monetary System. 
To gauge the impact of these realignments on EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure, 
two factors have to be taken into account. 
As a direct consequence of the monetary realignments since September 1992, the 
correcting factor (switchover) used for the purposes of the common agricultural 
policy rose by 5.4% from 1.145109 to 1.207509 from 14 May 1993. 
Other things being equal, this increase in the correcting factor is reflected in a 
corresponding increase in the double rate, the coefficient expressing the difference 
between EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure expressed, on the one hand, in 
terms of agricultural ('green') ecus, known as ECU(A) and, on the other, the 
expenditure charged to the budget (budget ecus), designated ECU(B). 
This increase in the double rate coefficient, from 1.145 to 1.207, thus leads to a 
corresponding increase in agricultural expenditure expressed in budget ecus1. 
Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92 of 28 December 1992 on the 
unit of account and the conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the 
common agricultural policy" lays down that where the correcting factor is 
increased, the prices fixed in ecus are to be reduced at the beginning of the 
following marketing year by 25% of the percentage of the change in the 
correcting factor. The other amounts fixed in ecus, with the exception of certain 
aids provided for under the 1992 reform of the common agricultural policy, are 
to be altered appropriately as the need arises . 
It should be noted that even though the correcting factor was abolished with effect 
from 1 February 1995, the impact of monetary realignments on EAGGF Guarantee 
Section expenditure continues to be felt because abolition was accompanied by an 
increase in prices and aids in green ecus of 20.7509%. Without the effect of the 
monetary realignments which occurred between September 1992 and mid-May 
1993 that increase would have been limited to 14.5109%. 
OJ No L 387, 31.12.1992, p. 1. 
Among the amounts excluded from the reduction are the majority of aids per 
hectare for arable crops, beef premiums, the amounts fixed in the context of 
accompanying measures and amounts of a structural nature or not affecting 
markets. 
By virtue of this provision and in line with the increase in the correcting factor 
between September 1992 and May 1993, prices and aids in ecus were cut by 
1.29%) by the application of a reduction coefficient of 1.013088 from the start of 
the 1993/94 marketing year in the majority of cases. The resulting reduction in 
EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure partially offsets the increase in 
expenditure resulting from the increase in the double rate. 
Bearing in mind these two factors, the impact on EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure 
in 1995 of the monetary realignments directly incurred by the existence of a switchover 
mechanism and potentially eligible for financing under the mechanisms decided by the 
Edinburgh European Council, as laid down in Article 11 of the 31 October 1994 Decision 
on budgetary discipline, is put at ECU 1 524 million, made up as follows: 
(ECU million) 
Rise in the double rate (from 1.145 to 1.207): + 1 868 
Cut in prices and some aids (-1.29%). 344 
TOTAL: + 1 524 
However, since it has been possible to finance this additional expenditure from within the 
budget appropriations entered in Titles 1 to 5 of the EAGGF Guarantee Section and 
within the agricultural guideline, there is no need to have recourse to Article 11 of the 
31 October 1994 Decision. 
It should also be pointed out that the change in the correcting factor also has an effect 
on the calculation of world prices for agricultural products expressed in green ecus. The 
increase in the correcting factor produces a decrease in world prices converted into green 
ecus and, consequently, an automatic increase in the main export refund rates and the 
rates for some aids. Generally speaking, this effect is seen for all products affected by 
dollar rate changes. 
The impact of the increase in the correcting factor on refunds and aids whose level is 
influenced by world prices is estimated at ECU 264 million. 
Overall, therefore, the monetary realignments that occurred in 1992 and 1993 have 
resulted in additional expenditure for the EAGGF Guarantee Section in 1995 of 
ECU 1 788 million, which, thanks to the favourable trend in the agricultural economy, 
has been covered in full within the budget appropriations and the agricultural guideline. 
Annex II gives the details of the calculation of these estimates. 
Annex I - Calculation of the impact on EAGGF Guarantee Section expenditure of cnanges in the dollar: 1995 financial year 
Average world 
price 
recorded 
(S/t) Technical 
adjustment 
coefficient Average world 
price 
used 
(S/t) Weighted 
average 
rate 
recorded 
IS: Ecu World price converted into ecu 
At rate 
IS = ECU 0.89 
(corr. factor = 
1.207509 
(Ecu/t) (1) At average weighted 
rate recorded 
(corr factor = 
1.207509 
(Ecu/t) (1) Unit impact 
of gap 
in rates 
(Ecu/t) Quantities 
concerned 
lOOOt ECU (A) million Total budget impact 
Double rate ECU (B) milion 
a g h = f-c j = hxi l = )xk 
A REFUNDS 
Cereals and rice 
- Common wheat 
-Durum wheat 
-Barley 
- Other cereals 
- Starch 
- Rice (milled equivalent) 
Sugar (incl. chemicals industry) 
Milk products 
-Butter 
- Butteroil 
- Skimmed-milk powder 
- Other in milk equivalent 
Beef and veal 
- Fresh meat 
- Frozen meat 
Pigmeat 
- Cuts and sausages 
Eggs and poultry 
-Eggs 
-Poultry 
Non-Armex II products 
- Common wheat 
-Barley 
- Other cereals 
-Sugar 120 
158 
106 
85 
100 
365 
354 
120 
106 
100 
354 1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.60 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.50 
0.50 
0.50 
0.50 
0.75 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 120 
158 
106 
85 
160 
365 
354 0.82 
0.81 
0 81 
0.81 
0.81 
0.78 
0.79 88.4 
116.5 
78.1 
62.6 
117.9 
269.0 
260.9 81.5 
106.0 
71 1 
57.0 
107.3 
235.8 
231.6 6.9 
10.5 
7.0 
5.6 
10.6 
33.2 
29.3 
120 
106 
100 
354 0.78 
0.78 
0 78 
0.78 88.4 
78.1 
73.7 
260.9 775 
685 
646 
228.7 10.9 
9.6 
9.1 
32.2 14410 
1610 
7930 
5150 
2521 
137 
3070 
692 
412 
1375 
488 99.4 
16.9 
55.5 
28.8 
26.7 
4.5 
90.0 
7.5 
4.0 
12.5 
15.7 1.226 
1.210 
1 236 
1.235 
1.233 
1.187 
1 244 
1.226 
1.226 
1.226 
1 226 122 
20 
69 
36 
33 
5 
112 
B. AIDS 
Oilseeds (2) 
Dried 'odder (3) 
Fibre plants (cotton) 
Islands and most-remote regions 
- Common wheat 
- Durum wheat 
-Barley 
- Other cereals 
- Rice (milled equivalent) 
-Sugar 192 
1742 
120 
158 
106 
85 
365 
364 0 70 
032 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 135 
557 
120 
158 
106 
85 
365 
354 0 80 
081 
078 
0.78 
0.78 
078 
0.78 
0 78 99.5 
4105 
88.4 
116.5 
78.1 
62.6 
269.0 
260.9 89 4 
373 6 
•75 
102 1 
685 
549 
235.8 
2287 10.1 
36.9 
10.9 
14.4 
9.6 
7.7 
33.2 
32.2 2500 (4) 
1280 
290 
18 
128 
304 
17 
22 25.3 
47.2 
3.2 
0.3 
1.2 
2.3 
0.6 
0.7 1 222 
1.20C 
1 218 
1.213 
1 218 
1.218 
1.216 
1.218 31 
57 
4 
0 
1 
3 
TOTAL A + B 543 
N B. : On the basis of the figures in the Table, a change in the dollar rate of 10% would lead to a change in expenditure of ECU 576 milion (not counting oùseeds) 
(1) The correcting factor represents the difference between the "green" central rates of the ecu (agricultural ecu) and the central rates of the normal ecu 
(2) Because the reference price recorded in ecus for oilseeds in 1994/5 exceeded the forecast reference price by more than 13% the hectare aids in that sector were reduced by 5% (13% less the 8% margin). 
The average dollar rate during the period used to record the reference price was T = ECU 0.81. 9% lower than the budget rate. Without that drop T-, the aoi'.ar the reference price recorded in ecu would have exceeded 
the forecast reference price by more than 24%, leading to a reduction in hectare aids of 16% (24% - 8%) For that sector, then, the change in the dollar m relation to the budget rate prevented an additional 
11% reduction in the aids (16% -5%) The impact of not reducing the aids is assessed at ECU 285 million. 
(3) Excluding the intervention price for barley which is included in the basket but is not affected by changes in the exchange rate. 
(4) Quantities for which aid was granted in 1995 under the arrangements in force up to 31 3 1995. £.» 
EXPLANATORY REMARKS TO ANNEX I 
Column (a) of the tables gives all the budget headings which are affected explicitly and 
directly by movements in the value of the dollar. 
Column (b) gives estimated average world prices in dollars for the period concerned. 
They correspond either to average selling prices of Community products when exported 
or to prices used for the calculation of the various aids. 
These prices are multiplied by an adjusting coefficient (column (c)) indicating the 
weighting of the world price used to determine an aid or refund. For example, 1.6 times 
the world price for maize is used in the determination of the production refund for starch. 
Column (d) gives average world prices in dollars corrected by the adjusting coefficieni 
Column (e) gives the average dollar/ecu exchange rates recorded, established by heading 
on the basis of a weighting taking account of the seasonal nature of the quantities eligible 
for export refunds or Community aids. 
Columns (f) and (g) give the corrected average world prices converted into ecus using the 
exchange rate adopted in the budget of $ 1 = ECU 0.89 and the recorded weighted 
average rates in column (e), allowing for the correcting factor (switchover) in both cases. 
The unit impact of the lower value of the dollar is given in column (h) in ecus per tonne. 
This unit amount multiplied by the estimated quantities qualifying for aids and/or refunds 
during the period under review (column i) gives the impact in millions of agricultural 
ecus (column (j)) and in millions of budget ecus (column (1)). 
- 10 
ANNEX II a - Estimate of the financial impact of change in the double rate (DR) resulting from monetary realignments: 1995 financial year 
Chap. 
a 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 Sector 
b 
Arable crops 
Sugar 
Olive oil 
Dried fodder and dried vegetables 
Fibre plants 
Fresh fruit and vegetables 
Processed fruit and vegetables 
Wine 
Tobacco 
Other sectors 
Milk and milk products 
Beef and veal 
Sheepmeat 
Pigmeat 
Eggs and poultry 
Other animal product aid measures 
Fisheries 
Non-Annex II products 
ACA 
MCA (1) 
Food aid 
Interest for prefinancing (1) 
Distribution to deprived persons (1) 
Measures to combat fraud (1) 
1990 accounts clearance (provision) 
Rural development 
Other measures 
Titles 1. 2 and 3 
40 
50 Income aids 
Accompanying measures 
Total EAGGF Guarantee Section Appropr. 
requirement 
1995 
Mio Ecu (A) 
c 
12554.4 
1484.2 
745.2 
284.9 
732.0 
988.2 
565.9 
781.6 
842.6 
399.8 
3389.3 
3317.2 
1705.4 
117.0 
158.4 
93.5 
47.3 
489.2 
p.m. 
61.3 
p.m. 
439.5 
16.5 
29213.4 
29.0 
885.7 
30128.1 Appropr. 
requirement 
X 
1.145 
d=cx 1.145 
14375 
1699 
853 
326 
838 
1131 
648 
895 
965 
458 
3881 
3798 
1953 
134 
181 
107 
54 
560 
p.m. 
70 
p.m. 
503 
19 
33448 
33 
1014 
34495 Appropr. 
requirement 
x n 
1.157 
e=cx 1.157 
14525 
1717 
862 
330 
847 
1143 
655 
904 
975 
463 
3921 
3838 
1973 
135 
183 
108 
55 
566 
p.m. 
71 
p.m. 
509 
19 
33799 
34 
1025 
34858 Appropr. 
requirement 
X 
1.195 
f=cx 1.195 
15003 
1774 
891 
340 
875 
1181 
676 
934 
1007 
478 
4050 
3964 
2038 
140 
189 
112 
57 
585 
o.m. 
73 
p.m. 
525 
20 
34912 
35 
1058 
36005 Appropr. 
requirement 
X 
1.205 
g=cx 1.205 
15128 
1788 
898 
343 
882 
1191 
682 
942 
1015 
482 
4084 
3997 
2055 
141 
191 
113 
57 
589 
p.m. 
74 
p.m. 
530 
20 
35202 
35 
1067 
36304 Appropr. 
requirement 
x 
1.207 
h=c x 1.207 
15153 
1791 
899 
344 
884 
1193 
683 
943 
1017 
483 
4091 
4004 
2058 
141 
191 
113 
57 
590 
p.m. 
74 
p.m. 
530 
20 
35259 
35 
1069 
36363 Impact DR 
Sept. '92 
realignment 
(ECU million) 
i = e - d 
150 
18 
9 
4 
9 
12 
7 
9 
10 
5 
40 
40 
20 
1 
2 
1 
1 
6 
1 
6 
0 
351 
1 
n 
363 Impact DR Impact DR Impact DR Impact DR 
Nov.'92 Jan.'93 May'93 all 
realignment realignment realignment realignments 
(ECU million) (ECU million) (ECU million) (ECU million) 
j = f-e 
478 
57 
29 
10 
28 
38 
21 
30 
32 
15 
129 
126 
65 
5 
6 
4 
2 
19 
2 
16 
1 
1113 
1 
33 
1147 k = g-f 
125 
14 
7 
3 
7 
10 
6 
8 
8 
4 
34 
33 
'17 
1 
2 
1 
0 
4 
1 
5 
0 
290 
0 
9 
299 l = h-g 
25 
3 
1 
1 
2 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
7 
7 
3 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
57 
0 
2 
59 m = h-d 
778 
92 
46 
18 
46 
62 
35 
48 
52 
25 
210 
206 
105 
7 
10 
6 
3 
30 
4 
27 
1 
1811 
2 
55 
1868 
(*) Tne realignments of 13 and 1 7 September 1992 were considered together.<as the former lasted onlv four days?" 
(1) Appropriations fixed in ECU (B) million. 
mjs/impacf/trad95-baisse 
ANNEX II b - Estimate of the financial impact of the reduction in prices in ecus following monetary realignments: 1995 financial year 
Chap 
a 
10 
11 
12 Sector 
b 
Arable crops c 
-refunds .1993/94 
-refunds .1994/95 
- Storage 
- buying-in 
-sales 
- final stock 
- financial costs 
- refund: use of stark 
- refund: use of maize 
- refund: use of wheat 
- Portuguese production aid 
Total for Arable crops 
Sugar 
Total for Sugar 
Olive oil 
TOTO', 'O-- Olive oil - Refunds 
- Reimbours. storage costs 
- Refund chemical industry 
-Refunds .1993/94 
-Refunds .1994/95 
- Production aids 
- Consumption aids 1993/94 
1994/95 
- Refund use canning industry 
- Sales, intervention « 
d 
1.88 million t x ( 120.507 Ecu/t x -1,29%) or -1.6 Ecu/t -3.0 
18.32 million't x ( 110.933 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -1.4 Ecu/t -25.6 
-28.6 
5.1 million t x ( 110.93 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -1.4 Ecu/t = -7.1 
14.9 million t x ( 110.93 Ecu/t- 113.5 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or 0.03 Ecu/t = 0.4 
6.1 million t x 0 Ecu/t = 0.0 
10.2 million t x ( -1.4 Ecu/t x 6.00% ) or -0.1 Ecu/t = -1.0 
-7.7 
0.85 million t x ( 110.93 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -1.4 Ecu/t x 1.6 = -1.9 
1.2 million t x ( 110.93 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -1.4 Ecu/t x 1.6 = -2.7 
0.47 million t x ( 110.93 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -1.4 Ecu/t x 1.6 = -1.1 
1.1 million t x ( 108.0 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -1.4 Ecu/t x 0.65 = -1.0 
-6.7 
2.892 million t x ( 530.15 Ecu/t x -1 29% ) or -6.8 Ecu/t = -19.7 
83.6 million t x ( 530.15 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -6.8 Ecu/t x 6.0%/12 = -2.8 
0.2 million t ( -6.8 -0.04 ) or -6.84 Ecu/t = -1.0 
20000 1 x ( 1944.93 Ecu/t x -1.29% or -25.1 Ecu/t = -0.5 
6400C t x ( 1610.2 Ecu/t x -1.29% or -20.8 Ecu/t = -1.3 
-1.8 
1993/94 see Annex p. 16 
38610C* x ( 399.177 Ecu/t x -1.29% or -5.1 Ecu/t = -2.0 
756000 t x ( 101.309 Ecu/t x -1.29% or -1.3 Ecu/t = -1.0 
-3.0 
500X * x ( -20.8 Ecu/t +( -5 1 Ecu/t x 33% ) + 
( -1.3 Ecu/t x 67% ) or -23.3 Ecu/t = -1.2 
105000* x ( 1610.2 Ecu/t x -1.29% . or -20.8 Ecu/t = -2.2 
r * Impact of 
price cut 
Ecu (A) mi 
e 
-286 
-7.7 
-6.7 
-43.0 
-19.7 
-2.8 
-1 0 
-23.5 
-18 
-5.2 
-3.0 
-1.2 
-2.2 
-13.4 DR 
f 
1.230 
1.240 
1.231 
1.244 
1.229 
1.235 
1 208 
1.157 
1.209 
1.205 
I 219 Impact of 
price cut 
Ecu (B) mil 
g = exf 
-35 
-10 
-8 
-53 
-25 
-3 
-1 
-29 
-2 
-6 
-4 
-1 
-3 
-16 
12 
Chap Sector Impact of 
price cut 
Ecu (A) mi DR Impact of 
price cur 
Ecu (B) mil 
b 9 = exf 
Dried fodder artificially dried 
sun-dried 4.50 million t 
0.44 million t x ( 178.61 Ecu/t x 
x ( 178 61 Ecu/t x -1.29% Ecu/t) 
-1.29% -or -2.3 Ecu/t 
25.0 Ecu/t x 
or -2.0 Ecu/t -1.29% ) •10.3 
-0.9 
Total for Dried fodder •11.2 -11.2 .226 •14 
14 Fibre plants 
1994/95 
- fibre flax 
aid/ha 1.33 million t 
89000 Ha x ( 
x ( 1027.9 Ecu/t x .29% Ecu/t) or 
774.9 Ecu/t x -1.29% Ecu/t) or -13 3 Ecu/t x 
-10.0 Ecu/t 0.8 = -14.2 
-0.9 -14.2 
-0.9 1.200 
.233 -17 
•18 Total for Fibre plants -15.1 
15 Fresh fruit and 
vegetables - fin. comp, withdrawals 
- cauliflowers 
- tomatoes 
- aubergines 
- peaches 
- nectarines 
- apricots 
- Dears 
- grapes 
- apples 
- iemons 
- mandarins 
- satsumas 
- Clementines 
- oranges 
- o'ocessing of citrus fruits 
- oranges 
- lemons 
- mandarins 
- sammas 
- clémentines 170000 
50000 
500 
800000 
190000 
54932 
90272 
20212 
628729 
20000 
5000 
1000 
40880 
220275 t x 
t x 
t X 
t X 
t X 
t X 
t X 
t X 
t X 
t X 
t X 
t X 
t X 
t X 0.86 
0.84 
0.93 
084 
09 
i97 
1150000 t 
470000 t 
60000 t 
160000 t 
40000 t x ( 
x ( 
x ( 
x ( 
x ( Bying-in price 
95.3 Ecu/t x 
86.6 Ecu/t x 
71.1 Ecu/t x 
240.4 Ecu/t x 
262.5 Ecu/t x 
237.4 Ecu/t x 
147.3 Ecu/t x 
198.8 Ecu/t x 
134.8 Ecu/t x 
249.5 Ecu/t x 
230.7 Ecu/t x 
124.1 Ecu/t x 
185.9 Ecu/t x 
217.2 Ecu/t x 
109.2 Ecu/t x 
106.2 Ecu/t x 
106.1 Ecu/t x 
40.5 Ecu/t x 
87.3 Ecu/t x -1.29% ) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29%) or -1.2 Ecu/t 
-1.1 Ecu/t 
-0.9 Ecu/t 
-3.1 Ecu/t 
-3.4 Ecu/t 
-3.1 Ecu/t 
-1.9 Ecu/t 
-2.6 Ecu/t 
-1.7 Ecu/t 
-3,2 Ecu/t 
-3,0 Ecu/1 
-1.6 Ecu/* 
-2.4 Ecu/* 
-2.8 Ecu/* 
-1.4 Ecu/t 
-1.4 Ecu/t 
-1.4 Ecu/t 
-0.5 Ecu/* 
-1.1 ECU/T 1.085 
0.781 
0.779 
0.799 
0.869 
0.835 
0.682 
0.564 
0.871 
0.543 
0.717 
0.621 
0.594 
0.734 -0.2 
0.0 
0.0 
-17 
-0.5 
-0.1 
-0.1 
0.0 
-0.9 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
-0.1 
-0.4 
-4.0 
-1.6 
-0.7 
-0.1 
-0.1 
0.0 
-2.5 -4.0 1.206 -5 
-2.5 
ii_ 1.208 
Total for Fresh fruit and vegetables -6.5 
13-
Chap 
a 
15 
16 
17 
18 Sector 
b 
Processed fruit and 
vegetables c 
- processing aids fruit 
- processing aids tomatoes 
- peaches 
- pears 
- prunes 
- dried figs 
Total for Processed fruit and veg. 
Wine 
Total for Wine 
Tobacco 
Total for Tobacco 
Other plant sectors - distillation of wine 
- market support 
- voluntary preventive 
- compuls. table w. 1993/94 
- compuls. table w. 1994/95 
- other than table wine 
- compulsory dist.by-product 
- aids use grape musts 
- tobacco pemiums 
- Flue cured 
- Light air cured 
- Dark air cured 
- Fire cured 
- Sun cured 
- Basmas 
- Katerini et simil. 
- Kaba Koulak el. 
- seeds 
- production aids hops 
- refunds rice 
Total tor Other plant sectors d 
2602500 t x 95% x ( 127.3 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -16 Ecu/t = -4.0 
582000 t x ( 72.6 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -0.9 Ecu/t = -0.5 
102800 t x ( 174.6 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -2.3 Ecu/t = -0.2 
45000 t x ( 618.9 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -8 0 Ecu/t = -0.4 
17000 t x ( 279.3 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -3 6 Ecu/t = -0.1 
-1.2 
Omill.HL x ( 2.03 Ecu/HLx -1.29%) or -003 Ecu/HLx 11.5 = 0.0 
5.2 mill. HL x ( 1.47 Ecu/HLx -1.29%) or -0.02 Ecu/HL x 110 = -1.1 
8.1 mill. Hi. x ( 0.20 Ecu/HLx -1.29%) or 0.00 Ecu/HL x 10.0x30%= 0.0 
Omill.HL x ( 0.99 Ecu/HLx -1.29%) or -001 Ecu/HL x 10.0x80%= 0.0 
3 mill. HL x ( 0.54 Ecu/HLx -1.29%) or -0.01 Ecu/HL x 8.5 = -0.3 
1.1 mill.HL x ( 0.42 Ecu/HLx -1.29%) or -0.01 Ecu/HL alcohol at 100 = -1.1 
50 mill. HL x ( 1.76 Ecu/HLx -1.29%) or -0.02 Ecu/HL = -KO 
-3.5 
124260 t x ( 2533 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -32.7 Ecu/t = -4.1 
74120 t x ( 2103 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -27.2 Ecu/t = -2.0 
46490 t x ( 2124 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -27.4 Ecu/t = -1.3 
8130 t x ( 2199 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -284 Ecu/t = -0.2 
29700 t x ( 2001 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -25.9 Ecu,* = -0.8 
26100 t x ( 3465 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -44.8 Ecu/t = -1.2 
22250 t x ( 2940 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -38.0 Ecu/t = -0.8 
19550 t x ( 2101 Ecu/t x -1.29%) Or -27.1 Ecu/t = -0.5 
-10.9 
301200 t x ( 224 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -2.9 Ecu/t -0.9 
28760 -A x ( 417Ecu/Hax -1.29%) or -5 4 Ecu-T -0.2 
154000 t x ( 319.6 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -4 1 Ecu/t -0.6 
-1.7 
r-Impact of 
price cut 
Ecu (A) mi 
e 
-4.0 
-1.2 
-5.2 
-
-3.5 
-10.9 
-10.9 
-1.7 
-1.7 DR 
f 
1.208 
1.207 
1.211 
1.135 
li 87 Impact of 
price cut 
Ecu (B) mil 
g = exf 
-5 
-1 
-6 
-4 
-12 
-12 
-2 
-2 
14-
Chap Sector Impact of 
price cut 
Ecu (A) mi DR Impact of 
price cut 
Ecu (B) mil 
20 Milk and milk prodJ Refunds 
- But*er 
- Butteroil 
- Skimmed-milk powder 
- Cheese 
- 0*her p-oducts 
Storage skim-milk powder 
- buy:ng-in 
- sales 
Aids skimmed milk 
- powder for calf feed 
- liquid for calf feed 
- casein 
Private storage butter 
. Remainder 1994 
. aavances1995 
. Increase 1994 
Public s'cage butter 
-buy-g-in 
- sa'es 
Specie measures butter 
- for casf-y products 
- for ice cream 
- for institutions 
- concent'ated butter 
- social butter 
School m:k 
Portuquese oroduction aid 187153.3 t 
62960 t 
272230 t 
4.18 million t x 
6.39 million tx 
0 t 
71000 t 
620000 t 
390666.7 t 
4623333 t 
135000 t 
95800 t 
75000 t 
1000 t 
80000 t 
369933 t 
90667 t 
40000 t 
20800 t 
10000 t 
393000 t 
1.35 million t 
0.28 million t x ( 
x ( 
x ( 
40% 
60% 2753.6 Ecu/t x -1.29% ) or -35.5 Ecu/t 
2753.6 Ecu/t x -1.29% x 1.22 ) or 
1724.28 Ecu/t x -1.29% ) or -22.2 Ecu/t 
x ( 257.4 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -3.3 Ecu/t x 
x ( 257 4 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -3.3 Ecu/t x x 90% 
-43.3 Ecu/t x 90% 
0.946 
0.946 
1724.28 Ecu/t x 
1724.28 Ecu/t x 
600 Ecu/t x 
48.6 Ecu/t x 
63 Ecu/t x 
1724.3 Ecu/t x 
2753.6 Ecu/t x 
2753.6 Ecu/t x 
2753.6 Ecu/t x 
2753.6 Ecu/t x 
2753.6 Ecu/t x 
2753.6 Ecu/t x 
2753 6 Ecu/t x 
2753.6 Ecu/t x 
2753,6 Ecu/t x 
259.958 Ecu/t x 
16 67 Ecu/t x 
12.50 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or 
1.29% ) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29%) or -22.2 Ecu/t 
22.2 Ecu/t 
-7.7 Ecu/t 
-0.6 Ecu/t 
-0.8 Ecu/t 
-1.29% x91%x7%x0.20 
-1.29% x91%x7%x0.33 
1.29% x 90% ) or 
) or 
) or -0.3 Ecu/t 
-0.7 Ecu/t 
32.0 Ecu/t 
-1.29% x 
1.29% ) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29% ) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29%) or 
-1.29%) or 90%) or 
35.5 Ecu/t 
-35.5 Ecu/t 
-35.5 Ecu/t 
-35.5 Ecu/t 
-35.5 Ecu/t 
-35.5 Ecu/t -32.0 Ecu/t 
-1.29% xO.95 ) or 
-1.29% ) qr. 
-1.29%) or -3.2 Ecu/t 
-0.2 Ecu/t 
-0.2 Ecu/t -6.0 
-2.5 
-6.0 
-5.2 
-120 
-31.7 
0.0 
1.6 
1.6 
-4.8 
-0.2 
-3.7 
0.0 
-0.1 
2.4 
2.3 
0.0 
2.8 
28 
•13.1 
-3.2 
-1.4 
-0.7 
-0.4 
18.8 
-0.3 
-0.1 
-0.4 -31.7 
1.6 
-4.8 
-0.2 
-3.7 
2.3 
2.8 
rnirii for V/lk i~y~:G milk -18.8 
-1.3 
-0.4 
-542 1.243 
1.235 
1.237 
1.241 
1.236 
1.246 
1.227 
1.221 
1.223 
1.220 
1.236 
15 
Chap 
a 
21 
22 
33 Sector 
b 
Beef and veal c 
- Refunds 
- fresh meat + live animals 
- Public storage 
- buying-in 
Total for beef and veal 
Sheepmeat Pemiums 1994 
. Heavy ewes 
. Light ewes 
. 50% ewes 
. She-goats 
Pemiums 1995 
. Heavy ewes 
. Light ewes 
. She-goats 
Total for Sheepmeat 
Food aid 
Total for Food aid 
GRAND TOTAL - refunds cereals 
- refunds rice 
- refunds sugar 
- refunds skimmed-milk powd 
- refunds butteroil d 
664666.7 t x ( 2280 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -29.4 Ecu/t = -19.5 
200000 t x ( 2280 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -29.4 Ecu/t = -5.9 
49.25 mill, head x -1.29% x 4229.5 Ecu/t x 0.93 x 0.016 x 1 = -40.0 
16.795 mill, head x -1.29% x 4229.5 Ecu/t x 0.93 x 0.016 x 0.8 = -10.9 
1.498 mill, head x -1.29% x 4229.5 Ecu/t x 0.93 x 0.016 x 0.5 = -0.6 
8.176 mill, head x -1.29% x 4229.5 Ecu/t x 0.93 x 0.016 x 0.8 = -5.3 
-56.8 
of wich 68% under 1995: -38.6 
51.294 mill, head x -1.29% x 4229.5 Ecu/t x 0.93 x 0.016 x 1 = -41.6 
17.995 mill, head x -1.29% x 4229.5 Ecu/t x 0.93 x 0.016 x 0.8 = -11.7 
8.176 mill, head x -1.29% x 4229.5 Ecu/t x 0.93 x 0.016 x 0.8 = -5.3 
-58.6 
ofwich 51% under 1995: -29.9 
70000 t x ( 110.9331 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -1.4 Ecu/t = -0.1 
50000 t x ( 319.6 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -4.1 Ecu/t = -0.2 
5000 t x ( 530.15 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -6 8 Ecu/t = 0.0 
20000 t x ( 1724.276 Ecu/t x -1.29%) or -22.2 Ecu/t = -0.4 
1000 t x ( 2753.6 Ecu/t x -1.29% x 1 22 ) or -43.3 Ecu/t = 0.0 Impact of 
price cut 
Ecu (A) mi 
e 
-19.5 
-5.9 
-25.4 
-38.6 
-29 9 
-685 
-0.1 
-0.2 
0.0 
-04 
0.0 
0.7 
-282.8 DR 
f 
1 236 
1.247 
1.208 
1.213 
1 224 Impact of 
price cut 
Ecu (B) mil 
g = exf 
-24 
-7 
-31 
-47 
-36 
-83 
-1 
-344 
-16 
production aids 1210 
(Art. 5(1)) reduced by the 
Art. 5(2) and (4) deductions ANNEX: OLIVE OIL PRODUCTION AIDS 
CALCULATION WITHOUT REDUCTION IN THE RATES 
1993/94 marketing year (MGQ.=1350000t) 
Total production in marketing year 1491 000 t 
242000 t of which for small producers who have already received the aid 
Calculation ot aid rate for producers other than small: 
EUR10:(( 893.1 ECU/tx 0.905 )- 2.40% (register))- 1.50% (quality) = 777.1 
ESP :(( 667.2 ECU/t x 0.905 ) - 2.40% (register))- 1.50% (quality) = 580.7 
PORT :(( 667.2 ECU/tx 0.905 )- 2.40% (register))- 1.50% (quality) = 580 7 
Total Paid 
Calculation of expenditure marketing year in1994 
EUR 9 0.552 Mio t x 0.81 (1) 777.4 ECU/t 348 0 
GREECE : 0.323 Mio t x 0.75 (1) 777.4 ECU/t = 188 - 129 
ESP 0.588 Mio tx 0.93 (1) 580.7 ECU/t = 318 - 234 
PORT 0.027 Miotx 0 65 (1) 580.7 ECU/t = 10 - 4 
Total 1.491 Miot 861 368 ECU (A) 
million 
493.0 
347.3 
57.9 
81.5 
6.3 
493.0 DR 
1.155 
1.143 
1.148 
1.210 
1.200 ECU (B) 
million 
569.6 
397.0 
66.5 
98.6 
7.6 
569.6 Require­
ment 
without 
reductior 
570 Require­
ment with 
reduction 
564.0 Impact 
of rate 
reduction 
-6 
L. 
17 
ANNEX II c - Calculation of the impact on world prices of changes ;^ r^e correcting factor: 1995 financial year 
Average world 
price recorded 
(S/t) Technical 
adjustment 
coefficient Average world 
price used 
(S/T) fWerage weightec 
rate recorded 
Ecu Ising average weight» 
rate recorded 
(corr. factor = 
1.145109 
(Ecu/t) (1) World price converted into ecu 
sing aver age weights 
rate recorded 
(coa. factor = 
1 207509 
(Ecu/t) (!) Umt impact 
of the gap 
in the rates 
(Ecu/t) Quantities 
concerned 
10001 ECU (A) million Total buoge' mpoct 
Double rate ECU (B) milion 
h = f-g l = jxtc 
A. REFUNDS 
Cereals and rice 
- Common wheat 
-Durum wheat 
-Barley 
- Other cereals 
- Starch 
- Rice (milled equivalent) 
Sugar (incl. chemicals industry) 
Milk products 
-Butter 
-Butteroil 
- Skimmed-milk powder 
- Other in milk equivalent 
Beef and veal 
- Fresh meat 
- Frozen meat 
Pigmeat 
- Cuts and sausages 
Eggs and poultry 
-Eggs 
-Poultry 
Non-Annex II products 
- Common wheat 
-Barley 
- Other cereals 
-Sugar 120 
158 
106 
85 
100 
365 
354 120 
158 
106 
85 
160 
365 
354 0.82 
0.81 
0.81 
0.81 
0.81 
0.78 
0 79 85.9 
111.8 
75.0 
60.1 
113.2 
248.6 
244.2 81.5 
1060 
71.1 
57 0 
107.3 
2358 
231.6 4.4 
5.8 
39 
3.1 
5.9 
12.8 
12.6 14410 
1610 
7930 
5150 
2521 
137 
3070 63.4 
9.3 
30.9 
16.0 
14.9 
1.8 
38.7 
120 
106 
100 
354 1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
0.50 
0.50 
0.50 
0.75 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 120 
106 
100 
354 0.78 
0.78 
0.78 
0.78 81.7 
72.2 
68.1 
241.1 77.5 
68 5 
646 
228 7 4.2 
3.7 
3.5 
124 692 
412 
1375 
488 2.9 
1.5 
4.8 
6.1 M45 
1 145 
1 145 
1 145 
1 145 
1 145 
1.145 
1 145 
i 145 73 
11 
35 
18 
17 
2 
44 217 
B.AIDS 
Oilseeds (2) 
Dried fodder (3) 
Fibre plants (cotton) 
Islands and most remote regions 
- Common wheat 
- Durum wheat 
-Barley 
- Other cereals 
- Rice (milled equivalent) 
-Sugar 192 
1742 
120 
158 
106 
85 
365 
354 0 70 
032 
1.00 
1.00 
i.OO 
1.00 
1.00 
1.00 135 
557 
120 
158 
106 
85 
365 
354 080 
0.81 
0.78 
0.78 
0.78 
0 78 
0.78 
0.78 94.3 
3940 
81.7 
107.6 
72.2 
57.9 
248.6 
241.1 89 4 
373 6 
775 
102 1 
685 
54.9 
235.8 
228 7 4.9 
204 
42 
5 5 
37 
3.0 
12.8 
12.4 2500 (4) 
1280 
290 
18 
128 
304 
17 
22 123 
26 1 
12 
0.1 
0 5 
0.9 
0.2 
0.3 
TOTAL A * B 264 
( 1 ) The cor ec ting factor represents the difference between the "green" centrai rates of th© ecu (agricultural ecu) and the central rates of the normal ecu 
(2) Because the reference price recorded in ecu for oilseeds in 1994/95 exceeded *r,e 'orecast reference price by more than 13%. the hectare aids in rr>e sector were reduced by 5% (13% less the 8% margin) 
The ave-oge dollar rate during the period used to record the reference price was ' S = ECU 0.81,9% lower than the budget rate. Without that drop in tne dollar the reference price recorded in ecu would have exceeded 
the forecast reference price by more than 24%, leading to a 16% reduction in hectare ads (24% - 8%). Without the change in the correcting factor the reference price recorded in ecu would have exceeded 
the forecast reference price by an additional 7%, leading to a corresponding add^onal reduction in aids. The impact of not reducing the aids is estmaJed at ECU 172 million. 
(3) Exclude ig the intervention price for barley which is included in tne Daske* but is net affected by changes.in the exchange rate. t * 
(4) Quant--es for which aid was granted in 1995 under the arrangements in ^orce up to 31.3.1995. 
ISSN 1024-4492 
KOM(95) 517 lopullinen 
ASIAKIRJAT 
FI 03 
Luettelonumero : CB-CO-95-555-FÏ-C 
ISBN 92-77-95256-3 
Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisten julkaisujen toimisto 
L-2985 Luxemburg 
i?