REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON THE IMPACT ON EAGGF GUARANTEE SECTION EXPENDITURE OF: - MOVEMENTS OF THE DOLLAR/ECU EXCHANGE RATE - INCREASES IN THE CORRECTING FACTOR RESULTING FROM MONETARY REALIGNMENTS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN MONETARY SYSTEM - 1996 FINANCIAL YEAR
Date: 1996-11-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, European Monetary System, exchange parity, export refund, financial year

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 08.11  1996 
COM(96) 566  final 

REPORT  FROM THE COMMISSION  TO THE COUNCIL 
AND THE EUROPEAN  PARLIAMENT 

ON THE IMPACT ON EAGGF GUARANTEE  SECTION  EXPENDITURE  OF: 

MOVEMENTS  OF THE DOLLAR/ECU  EXCHANGE  RATE 
INCREASES  IN  THE  CORRECTING  FACTOR  RESULTING 
FROM  MONETARY  REALIGNMENTS  WITHIN  THE 
EUROPEAN MONETARY  SYSTEM 

1996 FINANCIAL  YEAR 

REPORT 

on the impact  on EAGGF  Guarantee  Section  expenditure in  1996  of: 

movements  of the dollar/ecu  exchange rate, and 
increases in the correcting factor resulting from  monetary realignments within the 
European  Monetary  System 

I. 

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 in ecus 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  discipline,1 
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. 

O J N oL  185,  15.7.1988, p. 29. 

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  in  the  Guarantee  Section  when  the  dollar  strengthens  are  to  be 
transferred  to  the  monetary  reserve.2 

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. 

Under  the  Interinstitutional  Agreement  between  the  Parliament,  the  Council  and 
the  Commission  of  29  October  1993  on budgetary  discipline  and  improvement  of 
the  budgetary  procedure,  the monetary  reserve  is  intended  to  cover  the  financial 
impact  on budgetary  expenditure  of  substantial  and unforeseen  divergences  in  the 
dollar  exchange  rate  as  compared  with  that  used  in  the  budget;  the  reserve  may 
also  be  used  when  the  agricultural  guideline  prevents  the  budgetary  cost  directly 
due  to  monetary  realignments  within  the  European  monetary  system  from  being 
absorbed.  In  that  agreement,  the  institutions  took  note  that,  if  the  agricultural 
guideline  were  exceeded  as  a  result  of  realignments  within  the  monetary  system 
and  the  lack  of  available  appropriations  within the  monetary  reserve,  the  Council 
would  take appropriate  steps to provide funds  for  the EAGGF  Guarantee  Section. 

Up  to  ECU  1  000  million  up  to  the  1994  financial  year  and  up  to  ECU  500 
million  from  1995  onwards. 
OJ  No  C  331,  7.12.1993,  p.  1. 

On 31 October  1994 the Council adopted a new Decision on budgetary discipline4 
which took account of the conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council and the 
inter-institutional  agreement.  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)). 

Under  Article  9 of the Decision  of  31 October  1994 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 
I  September  1992. 

This  report,  which  relates to the  1996 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 
II  of the Decision  on budgetary  discipline  of  31 October  1994. 

O J N o L 2 9 3,  12.11.1994,  p.  14. 

II. 

IMPACT  OF  THE  DOLLAR  ON  EAGGF  GUARANTEE  SEC H ON 
EXPENDITURE  IN  1996 

To gauge  the  impact  of  movements  in  the  dollar/ecu  rate  on  the  1996  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  1995  and  31 July  1996 and the  rate used  in the  1996 budget. 
The  rate  used  to  assess  appropriations  for  the  1996  financial  year  is  $  1  = 
ECU  0.79.  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  1995). 

The  following  table  gives  the  monthly  exchange  rate  gaps  recorded  in  the 
reference  period: 

Recorded rate 
1$ =  ... ECU 

Budget  rate 
1$ := ... ECU 

Gap 
in ECU 

a 

b 

c 

d  =  b -c 

August 
September 
October 
November 
December 
January 
February 

March 

April 
May 
June 
July 

Average  1.8.95-31.7.96 

0.7670 
0.7761 
0.7564 
0.7553 
0.7667 
0.7742 
0.7761 
0.7805 
0.7912 
0.8027 
0.7981 
0.7871 

0.7773 

0.7900 
0.7900 
0.7900 
0.7900 
0.7900 
0.7900 
0.7900 
0.7900 
0.7900 
0.7900 
0.7900 
0.7900 

-  0.0230 
-0.0139 
-  0.0336 
-  0.0347 
-  0.0233 
-0.0158 
-0.0139 
-  0.0095 
+  0.0012 
+  0.0127 
+  0.0081 
-  0.0029 

0.7900 

-  0.0127 

Gap 
i n% 

e  =  b/c 

- 2 .9 
-  1.8 
- 4 .3 
- 4 .4 
- 2 .9 
- 2 .0 
-  1.8 
-  1.2 
+  0.2 
+  1.6 
+  1.0 
- 0 .4 

-  1.6 

Over the period under consideration the average dollar rate, rounded  off,  was $ 1 
= ECU  0.78,  1.3% 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 
around  that  12-month  average,  between  a  minimum  of  $  1 =  ECU  0.7553  in 
November  1995  and  a maximum  of  $  1 = ECU 0.8027  in May  1996. 

In general,  the dollar  rate tended  to  increase gradually  over the period,  with  the 
rounded-off averages for the last four months equal to or slightly above the budget 
rate. 

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  variable,  it  is  necessary  to  establish  for  the  period 
concerned 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  87 million  for  the  1996 financial  year. 

Annex  I gives  a detailed  calculation  of this expenditure,  which  breaks  down by 
sector  as  follows: 

Cereals: 
,c  -?ar: 
Kice: 
Non-Annex  II products: 
Fibre  plants: 
Islands and  most  remote  regions: 

TOTAL: 

(ECU  million) 
54 
10 
1 
6 
14 
2 

87 

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. There was therefore  no need to evaluate the impact of 
changes in the value  of the dollar  on refunds  for  those products. 

The  increase  in  EAGGF  Guarantee  Section  expenditure  in  1996  arising  from 
movements in the dollar is therefore less than the margin of ECU 200 million and 
so there is no need  to call  upon the monetary  reserve. 

111.  THE  IMPACT ON  EAGGF  GUARANTEE  SECTION  EXPENDITURE  IN 
1996  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 
s 
ecus. 

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  policy6  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.7 

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%. 
OJNoL387,  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 

7 

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  1996 of the monetary realignments within the European Monetary 
System 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  1 728  million,  made  up  as 
follows: 

Rise in the double rate (from  1.145  to  1.207): 
Cut  in  prices  and  some aids (-1.29%). 

TOTAL: 

(ECU  million) 
+ 2 051 
348 
+  1 703 

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 Decision  of 31 October  1994. 

It  should  also be pointed  out that the change in the correcting factor  also has an 
effect  on the gap between internal prices and world prices for agricultural  products 
expressed  in  green  ecus. 

The increase in the correcting factor  has raised internal  prices expressed  in green 
ecus and, consequently,  automatically  increased the main export refund  rates and 
the  rates  for  some  aids.  The  impact  of  the  increase  in  the  correcting  factor  on 
refunds  and  aids is estimated  at ECU  171 million. 

Overall, therefore, the monetary realignments that occurred in 1992 and 1993 have 
resulted  in  additional  expenditure for  the EAGGF  Guarantee  Section  in  1996 of 
ECU  1 874  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. 

markets. 

xuîation  of  the  impact  on  EAGGF  Guarantee  Section  expenditure  of change?  in the dollar:  1996 financial  year 

Average 
world  nrice 
recorded 

Technical 
adjustment 
coefRcient 

Average 
world  price 
used 

Weighted 
average  rate 

World  price  converted  into ecu 

Unit  impact 
of  gap  in rates 

Quantities 
concerned 

Total  budget  impact 

($/t) 

b 

($/t) 

(1  $  =  ..  ECU) 

c 

d  = b  x c 

e 

At  rate 
i*  = ECU  0.79 

At  average 
weighted  rate 
recorded 

(ECU/t) 
f = d x 0 , 79 

(ECU/T) 
fi  =  d  x e 

(ECU/t) 

(1000 t) 

_h =.LJ_. 

t 

0,75 
0,76 
0,76 
0,78 
0,78 
0,78 

109,8 
134,3 
93,2 
183,3 
248,9 
274,9 

104,3 
129,2 
89,7 
181,0 
245,7 
271,4 

5,5 
5,1 
3,5 
2,3 
3,2 
3,5 

(2) 
(2) 

3.585 
4.307 
2.059 
2.250 
142 
2.746 

ECU  (A) 
million 

. i ~ hxi 

19,7 
22,0 
7,2 
5,2 
0,5 
9,6 

Double rate 

k 

1,018 
1.018 
1,024 
1,021 
1,062 
1,014 

a 

A  REFUNDS  : 
Cereals  and rice 
-  Common  wheat 
-  Barley 
-  Other  cereals 
-  Starch 
-  Rice  (milled  equivalent) 
Sugar  (incl.  chemicals  industry) 
Milk  products 
-  Butter 
-  Butteroi! 
-  Skimmed-milk  powder 
- Other  in milk  equivalent 
Beef  and  veal 
-  Fresh  meat 
-  Frozen  meat 
Pigmeat 
-  Cuts  and sausages 
Eggs  and poultry 
-  Fggs 
-  Poultry 
Non-Annex  II  products 
-  Common  wheat 
-  Barley 
-  Other  cereals 
-  Sugar 
B.  AIDS 
Oilseeds (1) 
Fibre  plants  (cotton) 
Islands  and most-remote  regions 
-  Common  wheat 
-  Durum  wheat 
-  Barley 
•  Other  cereals 
-  Rice  (milled  equivalent) 
-  Sugar 
TOTAL  A + B 

139 
170 
118 
145 
315 
348 

154 
137 
117 
340  , 

, 

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 

139 
170 
118 
232 
315 
348 

154 
137 
117 
340 

1.913 

0,244 

466,8 

159 
185 
136 
145 
315 
340 

1,00 
1,00 
1,00 
1,00 
1,00 
1.00 

159 
185 
136 
145 
315 
340 

0,78 
0,78 
0,78 
0,78  J 

0,77 

0,78 
0,78 
0,78 
0,78 
0,78 
0.78 

121,7 
108,2 
92,4 
268,6 

368,8 

125,6 
146,2 
107,4 
114,6 
248,9 
268.6 

120,1 
106,9 
91,3 
265^2  j 

359,4 

124,0 
144,3 
106,1 
113,1 
245,7 
265.2 

J 

1,6 
1,3 
1,1 
. 3 , 1. 

9,4 

1,6 
1,9 
1,3 
1,5 
3,2 
3.4 

650 
475 
1.320 
530 

1.469 

294 
16 
121 
313 
18 
20 

1,0 
0,6 
1,5 
L«J 

13,8 

0,5 
0,0 
0,2 
0,5 
0,1 
0.1 

1,021 
1.021 
1,021 
1,015 

j 

1,015 

1,021 
1.021 
1,021 
1,021 
1,021 
1.021 

8  : 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 361  million  (not counting  oilseeds). 

)  Because the  reference  price recorded  in ecus for oilseeds  in  1995/96  exceeded the  forecast reference  price  by more than  12%  the hectare  aids  in that sector were reduced by 4% (12% less the  8%  margin). 

The  average  dollar rate  during the period used to record the reference  price was  1S= ECU 0.76, 4% lower than the budget rate.  Without that drop in the dollar, the reference price recorded  in ecu would have exceeded  5 %  reduction  in the 
aids  (9-4%)  The  impact  of not  reducing the  aids  is assessed  at ECU  124 million. 

^-ted  with  'a\  nrd  with  zero  refund. 

ECU (B) 
million 

l  =  i xk 

71 

22 

22 
7 
5 
I 
10 

1 
1 
2 
2 

14 

1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
87 

Î6  I 

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  coefficient. 

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 0.79  and  the  recorded  weighted 
average rates  in column (e). 

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)). 

to 

ANNEX  II - Cost of  monetary  realignments  between  September  1992 and May  1993  :  1996 financial  year 

Sector 

b 

Arable crops 
Sugar 
Olive oil 
Dried fodder  and pulses 
Fibre plants 
Fresh fruit  and vegetables 
Processed  fruit  and  vegetables 
Wine 
Tobacco 
Other plant  sectors 

Milk and  milk  products 
Beef/veal 
Sheepmeat 
Pigmeat 
Eggs and poultry 
Other animal  product  aid  measures 

Fisheries 
Non-Annex  II products 
Food aid 
Interest  on advance  financing 
Distribution  to  deprived  persons 
Anti-fraud  measures 
Clearance 
Rural  development 
Other  measures 

a 

10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 

16 
17 
18 

20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 

26 
30 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 

Titles  1. 2 et 3 

40 
50 

Income  aid 
Accompanying  measures 

Total 
EAGGF-Guarantee 

Change  in 
double  rate 

Monetary 
reduction  in 
prices 

Sub-total 

Impact  of  change  in 
the  correcting  factor 
on refunds  and  aids 

c 

d 

e  = c  - d 

816 
89 
107 
19 
43 
47 
34 
43 
49 
16 

189 
346 
72 
7 
8 
5 

2 
25 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
25 
12 

1.956 

2 
93 

2051 

26 
29 
35 
0 
21 
6 
7 
4 
14 
2 

102 
32 
55 
0 
0 
0 

0 
13 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

348 

0 
0 

348 

790 
60 
72 
19 
22 
41 
27 
39 
35 
14 

87 
314 
17 
7 
8 
5 

2 
12 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
25 
12 

1.608 

2 
93 

1.703 

(1) 

f 

79 
38 
0 
0 
27 
0 
0 
0 
0 
7 

0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

0 
20 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

171 

0 
0 

171 

Total  impact 

g  = e + f 

869 
98 
72 
19 
49 
41 
27 
39 
35 
21 

87 
314 
17 
7 
8 
5 

2 
32 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
25 
12 

1.779 

2 
93 

1.R74 

!! 

(1) 

Impact  on refunds  and aids for cereals, less quantities  exported  with tax  and with zero  refund.  In the case of oilseeds,  it is estimated  that, if there had been 
no change  in the con-ectmg factor,  per  hectare  aids would  have been  reduced by  a further  6%. The  impact  of this further  non-reduction  in aids is estimated 
at ECU  142 million. 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(96) 566 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03  09 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-96-564-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-10906-1 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

u