Report from the Commission on the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals and determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and extending Regulation (EEC) No 338/91
Date: 1997-05-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: carcase, fresh meat, product quality, refrigerated product, sheepmeat

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels,  30.05.1997 
COM(97)  250 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

ON THE IMPLEMENTATION  OF COUNCIL REGULATION  ( E E C)  NO  2137/92 
CONCERNING THE COMMUNITY  SCALE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION  OF CARCASSES OF 
OVINE ANIMALS AND DETERMINING THE COMMUNITY  STANDARD QUALITY OF FRESH 
OR CHILLED SHEEP CARCASSES AND EXTENDING  REGULATION ( E E C)  NO  338/91 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION ŒCÏ 

amending Regulation  (EEC) No 338/91  determining the Community  standard 
quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and Regulation  (EEC) No 2137/92 
concerning the Community scale for the classification  of carcasses of ovine  animals 
and determining  the Community standard  quality of fresh or chilled sheep  carcasses 

(presented by the  Commission) 

1 

' '' !  ?/! 

( '6  F \ ^ t V^ 

'  t '  '}  '? 

11 *4V  '•,:' 

'•'ft.O 

'Â rl 

't,f-

"  ^  1 ."  '^  'is  *. 

1  , •«-+•*•  ', 

1  »  »Vl  ^  " 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

ON THE IMPLEMENTATION  OF COUNCIL  REGULATION  ( E E C)  NO  2137/92 
CONCERNING THE COMMUNITY  SCALE FOR THE CLASSIFICATION  OF CARCASSES  OF 
OVINE ANIMALS AND DETERMINING  THE COMMUNITY  STANDARD  QUALITY  OF  FRESH 
OR CHILLED  SHEEP  CARCASSES  AND EXTENDING  REGULATION  ( E E C)  NO  338/91 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The establishment  of market prices in the sheep sector is of particular importance as 
the Community market price is a central element in the calculation  of the annual  ewe 
premium,  Currently,  these  prices  are  recorded  weekly  at  Member  State  level 
according to a Community definition of standard quality of sheep carcasses agreed in 
1991 and set to apply until the end of  1997 marketing year.  They are then translated 
into the Community average market price. 

Conscious  of  the  need  to  improve  market  transparency,  the  Council,  in  1992, 
introduced  a carcase  classification  system  for  sheep.  This  classification  system  is a 
voluntary  at Community  level.  It provides a method  of grading  carcases  according 
to  set criteria and thus establishes the possibility  for producers to  be paid according 
to  these  criteria.  At  this  stage,  except  in  Finland  and  Sweden,  prices  recorded  in 
accordance  with  this  classification  system  are  not  used  in  the  calculation  of  the 
Community average market price. 

Among  the  long  term  objectives  for  the  Community  carcase  classification  scheme 
was that it should provide the basis for a new definition  of standard  quality of sheep 
carcases. 

With this in mind, Council Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 concerning the Community 
scale  for  the  classification  of  carcasses  of  ovine  animals  and  determining  the 
Community  standard  quality  of  fresh  or  chilled  sheep  carcasses  and  extending 
Regulation  (EEC)  No  338/91  determining  the  Community  standard  quality  of  fresh 
or chilled sheep carcasses, requires the Commission (Article 9) to  submit a report to 
the Council on its implementation by 31 December  1996 at the latest. 

The  scope  of  this  report,  therefore,  concerns  the  carcase  classification  of  ovine 
animals and also to  what extent the definition  of standard quality for  price reporting 
which  is  currently  in  place  until  the  end  of  the  1997  marketing  year,  could  be 
improved at the light of experience in carcase classification. 

Subject to the conclusions of the report, the Council  set  itself the goal  of making the 
use of the Community grid compulsory for all Community slaughterhouses  approved 
for  intra-Community  trade,  if  possible  during  the  1999  marketing  year  and  in any 
event before  1  January 2000,  without  prejudice  to  the  possibility  of  excluding  small 
slaughterhouses  situated  in regions where  the  impact  on the  market  price  produced 
by the volume slaughtered in such slaughterhouses is negligible. 

The accompanying proposals respond to the conclusions of the report. 

2-

2. 

S T A N D A RD  Q U A L I TY 

The current  definition  of standard  quality contained  in Council Regulation  (EEC)  No 
338/91  reads 

"lamb  of  less  than  one  year  old  at  slaughter  of  acceptable  fat  level  with  a  carcase 
weight or estimated  carcase weight of at least  12 kg." 

This  definition,  introduced  following  the  1989  reform  unifying  the  regime,  has 
applied  from  the  1991  to  the  1997  marketing  years  for  the  purposes  of  price 
formation  and premium  calculation. 

The  practical  implementation, of  this  definition  involved  the  elimination,  from  price 
reporting,  of lightweight  carcasses  of between  9 and  11.9 kg  in  Spain,  Italy,  Greece 
and  Portugal.  Furthermore, the Commission  implementing  provisions  interpreted  the 
phrase  "acceptable  fat  level",  in  the  absence  of  carcase  classification  standards,  by 
the  application  of different  upper  weight  limits for  carcases  reflecting  Member  State 
production  practices.  These  limits  are  16 kg  in  Spain,  Italy,  Greece  and  Portugal, 
21.5 kg  in  Great  Britain,  Ireland  and  Northern  Ireland,  22 kg  in  France  and  Austria 
and 23 kg in Denmark,  Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Finland  and  Sweden. 

Since  its  introduction  in  May  1991,  price  reporting  based  on  standard  quality  has 
worked  well  insofar  as  its practical  operation  is concerned  (Commission  Regulation 
(EEC)  No  1481/86).  Except  in  respect  of  Italy  in  1991  where  prices  had  to  be 
adjusted  to  align  them  to  standard  quality,  prices  for  the  lamb  weight  categories 
included  in it have been recorded  without  difficulty. 

The  graph  in  Annex  1 shows  the  trend  in Member  State  prices  since  1981  and  the 
notable  convergence  which  occurred  on the introduction  of price reporting  based  on 
standard  quality in  1991. 

rj 

Nevertheless,  there  are  still  significant  differences  between  prices  in  the  different 
Member  States.  These  differences  arise  mainly  from  variations  in  production  and 
consumption  patterns,  seasonality  of  supply  and  degree  of  self-sufficiency  between 
Member  States  together  with  qualitative  differences  in  terms  of  carcase  weights, 
conformation  and  fat  levels.  In  addition,  there  appears  to  be  some  consumer 
preference  in  "importing"  Member  States  for  domestic  lamb  rather  than  for  lamb 
brought  in from  another Member State. 

•o* 

In  effect,  then,  even  within  standard  quality  there  are  some  qualitative  price 
differences  between  Member  States.  Elimination  of  these  qualitative  differences 
through  the  reporting  of  prices  of  the  same  qualities  of  carcase  would  increase  the 
transparency  of prices reported  under standard  quality. 

3. 

CARCASE  CLASSIFICATION 

3.1 

Regulatory  aspects 

Regulation  (EEC)  No  2137/92  establishes  the  provisions  concerning  the 
Community  scale  for  the  classification  of  sheep  carcasses  including,  in 
particular,  the  definition  of  the  carcase,  the  criteria  for  classification,  price 
reporting and  inspections. It establishes two classification  systems: 

3 

-  a  system  which  describes  both  conformation  and  degree  of  fat  cover, 

normally referred  to as the "SEUROP grid", 

-  a system which  may apply only to  lambs under  13 kg  and  which  describes 
weight,  meat colour and fat  cover, normally referred  to as the "A grid". 

Commission  Regulation  (EEC) No 461/93  laying  down  detailed  rules for  the 
Community  scale  for  the  classification  of  carcasses  of  ovine  animals  entered 
into  force  on  6 March  1993  with  provision  for  price  reporting  based  on 
classification  with effect  from  8 April 1993. 

At the beginning  of  1995 the Office  for  Official  Publications  of the  European 
Communities published  brochures issued,  in all  Community  languages  except 
Swedish and Finnish, by the Commission  explaining the Community scales  for 
the classification  of  sheep  and  of  light  lambs.  These  brochures  are  available 
from  the office  : Ref  : SEUROP  : CM-84-94-694; A grid  : CM 84-94-703. 

Since its introduction,  both  carcase  classification  and  price  reporting  thereon 
have been voluntary at slaughterhouse level. 

In  accordance  with  the  regulations,  control  visits  have  been  made  to  all 
Member  States  applying  the  grids  in  the  period  1993-1995  with  a  view 
initially  to  align  grading  standards  among  Member  State  experts  and  to 
ensure that these standards were adhered to in the slaughterhouses visited. 

3.2 

Implementation  at  Member  State  level  (See Annex  2 for  details  for  each 
Member  State) 

Carcase classification  based on the "SEUROP  grid" is compulsory  in Finland, 
France,  Sweden  and  Germany.  In  addition,  some  classification  also  takes 
place in Denmark,  Ireland and, to a much lesser  extent,  in the UK and  Greece 
under this grid. 

Spain,  Portugal,  Italy  and  Greece  all  indicated  their  intention  to  classify 
carcasses of lambs less than  13 kg weight via the "A grid".  To date,  however, 
classification  under this grid has taken  place to  a limited  extent  only in Spain, 
Portugal  and Greece. 

Virtually  no  progress  has  been  made  in  the  implementation  of  carcase 
classification  in Austria, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Italy. 

Several  reasons  have  been  put  forward  for  the  slow  progress  in  the 
implementation  of carcase classification.  Among these are: 

- 

in  many  Member  States,  producers  sell  their  lambs  live  in  livestock 
markets or directly off farms to slaughterhouse owners or traders and have 
no further  interest  in them. The transaction  and  payment  is on  live lambs. 
In the UK and  Spain up to 80% of trade takes place in this form; 

-  where  producers  do  sell  directly  to  slaughterhouses  they  often  sell  their 
lambs  in  lots  based  on  an  agreed  price  per  kg  carcase  weight.  Thus,  the 
producer's  interest,  with  the  exception  of  certain  producer  groups,  in 
grading may be academic rather than  financial; 

T 

- 

in  some  Member  States,  slaughterhouses  are  municipal  rather  than 
privately/co-operatively  owned  so that  grading  facilities  or  personnel  may 
not  be  present; 

-  slaughterers'  and  wholesalers  sometimes  suggest  that  the  Community 
classification  system  is not  relevant  in dealings  at  the wholesale/retail  side 
of  their  businesses  where  a  simple  grading  into  first/second/third  quality 
tends to be the norm; 

-  disagreement  between  slaughterhouses  and  producers  as  to  who  carries 

out and who  pays for the  classification; 

-  virtual  absence  of a. strong  slaughter  sector  in Member  States  from  which 

there is a traditional  important live export trade. 

However,  it  is  recalled  that  many  producers,  and  in  particular  producer 
groups,  are  keenly  interested  in  classification,  even  if  occasionally  they  are 
reluctant  to  have  payment  based  upon  it.  They  generally  consider  that 
classification,  and  the rewards  relating to  payment on good  quality  lamb,  is a 
useful  tool  in achieving  improvements  in the  quality  of the  product  sold  both 
for the domestic  and export  market.  In that  sense, classification,  could  in the 
longer  term  lead  to  better  producer  prices  and  quality  more  in  line  with 
consumer  demand. 

4. 

PRICES AND QUALITY  OF PRICE  REPORTING  BASED ON  CLASSIFICATION 

In  Annex  3, price  tables  for  1995  and  1996  and  graphs  comparing  grid  prices  and 
prices  based  on  standard  quality  and  including  different  grid  qualities  for  1996  are 
set  down.  However,  the  quality  of  the  prices  reported  by  Member  States  where 
classification  take place is variable due to several  factors. 

Only  prices  in  Sweden  and  Finland,  where  classification  is  compulsory  and  where 
price  reporting  according  to  the  grid  covers  most  or  all  lamb  production  can  be 
considered  satisfactory.  Indeed,  these  prices  are  used  in  the  calculation  of  the 
Community  weekly  market  price  (Regulation  (EEC)  No  1841/86)  which  in  turn  is 
used for premium calculation  purposes. 

In  France,  where  classification  is  compulsory,  eight  slaughterhouses  representing 
10% of national  production  have agreed  to  report  prices  paid  according  to  the  grid 
in the framework  of a national  observatory. 

Elsewhere  the  representativity  of  prices  and  the  geographic  representativity  of  the 
slaughterhouses  concerned  is open to question. 

In  Germany,  although  14 slaughterhouses  take  part  in  price  reporting  according  to 
classification,  only 3% of total  German production  is concerned. 

In  Ireland.,  although  20%  of  total  national  throughput  is  classified,  only  two 
slaughterhouses are involved. 

In  Great  Britain,  only  two  slaughterhouses  representing  less  than  1%  of  national 
slaughterings provide prices. 

Indeed,  the  representativity  of  the  throughput 
in  these  slaughterhouses  in 
comparison to the national throughput is open to question.  It appears that individual 
producers  may  sell  their  better  lambs  using  classification  as  a  payment  basis.  In 
addition,  there  is  a  tendency  for  producer  groups,  normally  containing  the  more 
quality oriented producers, to use classification. 

In  Spain  six  volunteer 
In  relation  to  the  "A  grid",  a  similar  pattern  emerges. 
slaughterhouses  provide  prices. 
In  Portugal  three  slaughterhouses  provided 
information  in  1995 but the number of animals classified  was small  while in Greece 
just one slaughterhouse provides information. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The lack of progress in several  Member States in implementing  carcase  classification 
and price reporting based thereon over the past four years is disappointing. 

Carcase  classification  is  widely  developed  only  in  Finland,  Sweden  and  France. 
Elsewhere,  with  the  exception  of  Germany,  it  is  dependent  on  the  goodwill  of 
producers  and  slaughterers.  For  different  reasons,  including  a  preference  for  live 
markets  and for  selling  lambs to  slaughterers  at  a fixed  price  per  kg,  a majority  of 
producers  seem  to  be  reluctant  to  sell 
lamb  via  the  classification  system. 
Slaughterers, too,  seem to be reluctant given the relatively few  volunteers in several 
Member States. 

This  lack  of  progress  raises the  question  not just  as to  whether  the  Council  should 
continue to pursue its goal  of making use of the Community grid compulsory  before 
January 2000 but whether it should pursue any such goal  at all.  It could be argued 
that,  if such a widespread  lack  of interest  in classification  exists,  then the need for a 
Community classification  scheme is itself questionable. 

Nevertheless, the Commission  points out that, unlike in most other sectors,  prices in 
the sheep sector have a direct bearing on the level  of the annual premium and hence 
on  the  amount  of  Community  expenditure  devoted  to  the  sheep  sector  each  year. 
Such 
Thus,  it  is  essential  that  transparency  be  evident  in  reported  prices. 
transparency is greatly increased when qualitative differences  are removed from price 
comparisons. 

The Commission believes that the goal  set  itself by the Council  of making use of the 
grid  compulsory  is  not  feasible.  However,  It  does  not  feel  that  non  use  of 
classification,  at this stage, in some Member States,  should  lead to  its abandonment. 
The  positive  aspects  of  classification  with  regard  to  price  transparency  and  indeed 
the improvement  carcase quality lead the Commission  to  conclude that  classification 
is  of  value  to  the  sector  and  that's  its  use  should  be  developed.  The  Commission, 
therefore,  concludes  that  the  inclusion  of  prices  of  classified  carcasses  within  price 
reporting  for  the  establishment  of  the  Community  average  market  price  and  hence 
premium calculation is desirable. 

With regard to standard quality, it is clear, as indicated,  that it has worked well  in so 
far  as  its  practical  operation  is  concerned  but  that  important  price  differences  still 
exist  between  Member  States  with  part  of  those  differences  relating  to  qualitative 
factors. 

6. 

PROPOSALS 

With regard to carcase classification,  the Commission  proposes that the Council  set 
aside the goal it set itself subject to the conclusions of this report of making the use 
of the Community grid compulsory for all Community  slaughterhouses  approved for 
intra Community trade,  if possible  during the  1999 marketing year and in any event 
before  1  January 2000. 

In  effect,  this  means  that  carcase  classification  would  remain  a  voluntary  tool  at 
Community level to be used Where it is seen to have a benefit for the sheep industry. 

Against  this  background,  the  Commission  proposes  that  the  current  definition  of 
standard quality be left unchanged in the future. 

However,  the Commission  does wish to  see  carcase  classification  incorporated  into 
the price reporting mechanism for standard quality in accordance with progress with 
its implementation in the various Member States and intends within the framework  of 
its own competence to pursue this aim.  It believes that this step will assist in making 
prices  more  transparent  and  in  explaining  differences  between  market  prices  in 
different Member States. 

The Commission intend, therefore, where possible to include in the price reported for 
standard quality for each Member State a percentage reserved for  prices  established 
according to the Community classification grids.  Thus, a relatively small and varying 
percentage  between  Member  States  inclusion  of  prices  of  classified  carcases  is 
envisaged. 

In order to  achieve  this  aim,  some  modification  of  Commission  Regulations  (EEC) 
No  1481/86  on  price  reporting  and  (EEC)  No 461/93  on  the  detailed  rules  for 
carcase  classification  will  be  required  in order to  incorporatcprice  reporting  under 
both  classification  grids  to  price  reporting for the  calculation  of Member  State and 
Community  market  prices used  principally for the purposes  of premium calculation. 
In  addition,  a  technical  modification  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No 2137/92  will  be 
required in order to permit the splitting of carcase category C in the A grid for price 
reporting purposes. 

Finally,  the  Commission  signals  its  intention  also  of  re-examining,  within  its  own 
competence,  the  operation  of  the  Community  inspection  group  provided  for  in 
Regulation  (EEC)  No 2137/92  with  a  view  to  making  it  more  effective  and  less 
costly  by reducing  its  size  and by concentrating  on  Member  States  where  reported 
prices include prices for classified animals. 

The  Commission  intends  to  finalise  its  amendments  to  the  above  mentioned 
Commission  regulations  after  discussion  of  this  report  and  the  adoption  of  the 
accompanying draft regulation by the Council. 

The accompanying proposal entrains no financial  consequences. 

Only the Union has power to act as regards the measures proposed.  These proposals 
extend the duration of an existing regulation and modify to a second regulation. 

Annexes 

Prix de la viande ovine - Prices of sheepmeat - Preise fur Schaf-Fleisch 

650 

550 

o 
o 

3 
O  450 
LU 

00 

<D 

i 

a)  350 

> 
3 
O 

250 

150 

1981  1982  1983  1984  1985  1986  1987  1988  1989  1990  1991  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996 

0) 
3 
3 

X 
(D 

•  B 

+  DK 

B GR 

• 

• 

Irl 

I 

+  NL 

OO 

•  P 

^  FIN 
•  S 

*  UK 

-  UE 

IMPLEMENTATION  OF SHEEP CLASSIFICATION SCALES BY MEMBER  STATES 

ANNEX  2 

Summary  of  statements  made  at  meetings  of  working  party  up  to  and  including  2 
February  1996  together  with  updated  information  provided  bv  Member  States 
in December 1996. 

BELGIUM 

-  Classification  is  not  compulsory  and  no  slaughterhouses  are  systematically 

classifying.  One slaughterhouse may classify on a very limited basis in 1996. 

-  Limited  use  in  promotion  campaigns.  Some  live  grading  based  on  carcase 

classification  scale. 

-  Direct sales by producer to consumer  make up 50% of total sales. 

DENMARK 

-  Objective  :  to  extend  classification 

in  accordance  with  the  scale  to  all 

slaughterhouses but classification  is not compulsory. 

-  Producers favourable. 

-  Grid operational  (27.2 % of national slaughterings). 

-  One company paying on classification.  Classifiers paid by slaughterhouse. 

-  22.6 % of payments based on classification. 

-  Classification  done  by  slaughterhouse  staff  with  control  by  the  Danish 

Classification Board. 

-  Presentational  difference  (removal of kidney and kidney fat) being eliminated by a 

corrective factor. 

GERMANY 

-  Classification  is  compulsory  in slaughterhouses  with  a through  put  of  more than 

50 lambs per week. 

-  Only 3% of national production paid on the basis of the grid (60,000 lambs). 

Producers  reticent  (lack  of  confidence  vis-a-vis  the  slaughterhouse  and  clear 
preference for flat-rate payment per head or kilogram of carcase). 

Fourteen  volunteer  slaughterhouses  now 
in  classification  but 
slaughterhouses unhappy at extra costs involved  under national  law (65 DM per 
hour for independent graders).  Only 23.4 % of their production (3 % of national 
production) is paid on the basis of the grid alone. 

involved 

Direct sales by producer to consumer make up 50% of total sales. 

GREECE 

-  Classification is not compulsary 

-  Little interest in SEUROP grid, some interest in  BIS grid. 

-  One  volunteer  slaughterhouse  classifies  carcases  with  2  other  slaughterhouses 

now showing some interest (100,000 lambs classified  in 1995). 

-  Price differences mainly determined by weight. 

-  Problems in presentation of carcases. 

-  Problems due to small slaughterhouses. 

-  Problems due to low level of direct sales by producers to slaughterhouses. 

-  Classifiers paid by the State. 

SPAIN 

-  Classification  is not compulsory and the SEUROP grid is not suitable. 

-  Bis  grid  :  six  volunteer  slaughterhouses  which  provide  prices  regularly  (good 

geographical distribution) with interest growing. 

-  20 % direct  sales by producer  to slaughterhouse.  As trade is in live animals the 

live price is the most important. 

FRANCE 

-  Carcase classification is mandatory since 1977. 

-  Grid operational (85 % of national production). 

-  Price  collection  system  by  OFIVAL  (8  correspondents  accounting  for  10% of 

national production) on SEUROP grid. 

-  Payment on SEUROP grid on 617,000 lamb carcases in  1995  especially to better 

producers (producer groups). 

-  70 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse. 

-  Classification done by abattoir staff. 

-  The criteria for the former National grid (EUROP) used for price reporting under 

Regulation No  1481/86. 

-  Total payments on classification  amount to 50% of national production. 

IRELAND 

-  Classification not compulsory but this option being considered. 

-  Good progress on  use of SEUROP  grid for grading  with 5 different  and varying 

price levels based on joined grid positions to be operated. 

-  Two  slaughterhouses with 20% of national throughput now operating  and paying 
on  classification  (still  some  payment  problems  at certain  times  of  year  in  one  of 
them) 440,000 lambs classified in 1995. 

-  Classification  done by abattoir staff under technical  supervision  of Department  of 

Agr. 

ITALY 

-  Classification  not  compulsory  and  littleJ  enthusiasm  by  slaughterhouses  or 

producers. 

-  SEUROP grid not relevant.  Bis grid is relevant. 

-  Difficulties  in working out price paid to producer (lambs are sold in batches). 

-  Producers reticent (they fear that the price will be lower). 

-  35 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse. 

-  Seasonality problems (peak sales, in October-April). 

-  Training courses to be organized for slaughterhouses and producers. 

-  Institution of an observatory envisaged for price collection. 

-M 

NETHERLANDS 

-  Classification is not compulsory. 

-  Little  interest  in  slaughterhouses.  One  slaughterhouse  participating  with  1%  of 
animals classified  and producers paid on classification  (4,000 lambs in  1995). 

-  Particular  interest  in export  of live animals 558,000  live exports  in  1995  (50%  of 
total  production):  one  group  classifies  and  purchases  live  animals  in  accordance 
with the scale (33,000 heads); cost of classification  Dfl. 0.5 per animal. 

-  5 % direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse (estimate). 

-  90 % of lambs for  slaughter or export are sold via a trader on the holding. 

-  Bulking  of  lambs  for  sale  from  small  producers  with  sheep  as  a  secondary 
enterprise makes it difficult  to pass classification  information  to small  producers. 

-  Classification  done  by  indépendant  company  which  charges  slaughterhouse 

(207 FL/day plus VAT) or producer (live animals). 

PORTUGAL 

-  Classification  not  compulsory. 

-  Producers interested  in bis grid.  SEUROP grid not relevant. . 

-  Three volunteer  slaughterhouses  but  small numbers  of animals classified  and  paid 

according to grid at present (5% of total). 

-  Classification  done  by  regional  body  of Ministry  of  Agriculture  with  centralized 

checking. 

-  Weight  rather than quality determines price level. 

-  Large percentage of production  sold by producers to traders. 

UNITED  KINGDOM 

-  Classification  is not  compulsory. 

-  Two  volunteer  slaughterhouses  in  Great  Britain  paying  according  to  grid  (out  of 
approximately 400) (less than  1% of total slaughterings) (44,000 lambs in 1995). 

-  Two  volunteer  slaughterhouses  in  Northern  Ireland  (10%  of  total  slaughterings) 

(148,000 lambs in  1995). 

-  Classification  done  by  MLC  (paid  by  slaughterhouse)  or  by  slaughterhouse. 

Control by MAFF rarely. 

u 

-  Three problems : 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Slaughterhouses  not  interested  in  payment  on  classification  (see  no 
benefit). 

Slaughterhouse  owners  are  not  convinced  that  notifying  prices  paid  to 
producers is in their interest (in particular vis-a-vis their main competitors and 
commercial contacts). 

Lack  of  cooperation  between  slaughterhouses  and  the Ministry  mainly  for 
commercial reasons. 

-  20 %direct sales by producer to slaughterhouse, the rest sold mainly via auction 

markets. 

.„ 

-  Continuing efforts to find volunteer slaughterhouses but little success. 

SWEDEN 

-  Classification compulsory, producers paid on classification (2.1001 in 1995). 

-  Direct trade from farm to slaughterhouse (producers favourable). 

-  Classification done by slaughterhouse staff with control by Board of Agriculture. 

-  Classification according to the grid.  The Class S is not used. 

-  Presentational difference  (removal of kidney and kidney fat) being eliminated by a 

corrective factor. 

-  The grid is the basis for the carcase trade.  Q 

FINLAND 

-  Classification is  compulsory. 

-  Classification done by slaughterhouse staff with control by Ministry. 

-  All sheep classified with no distinction between categories (ewes, lambs, rams). 

-  Presentational difference  (removal of kidney and kidney fat) being eliminated by a 

corrective factor. 

-  Classification  of over 90% of all animals with prices paid and reported on them. 

1% 

AUSTRIA 

-  Classification is not compulsory. 

-  Direct marketing of sheep at live markets. 

-  Slaughterhouses  small  with  only  14%  of  total  slaughterings  (287,000)  going 

through the 30 slaughterhouses in Austria. 

-  Direct  sales  between  producers  and  consumers  account  for; 80  -  90  %  of  total 

production. 

1+ 

Annexe 3 

Prix selon la grille de classement et selon la qualité type pour 1995 et 1996 
et graphiques comparatifs entre les prix selon la grille et selon la qualité type 
pour 1996. 

Classification grid and standard quality prices for 1995 and 1996 
and comparative graphs between classification grid and standard 
quality prices for 1996. 

Preise 1995 und 1996 gemâss Handelsklassenschema und 
Standardqualitâtspreisen sowie Grafiken zum Vergleich der Preise 
gemass Handelsklassenschema  mit den Preisen der 
Standardqualitât fur 1996. 

r* 

isas. 

Prix  -  Prices - Preise 

D 

386.9 
391.0 
388.6 
361.6 
338.1 

388,7 
386,1 
381.1 
360,5 
339.0 

371.7 
378.5 
370,3 
349.8 
314.1 

356,4 
364,8 
364.7 
343.0 
320,6 

266,5 
272.0 
245.0 

F 

511.7 
484,3 
398,9 
363,1 

355.5 
471.7 
457.3 
368.3 
335.9 

348,5 
443.6 
420,2 
344.6 
325,2 

317.4 
369.8 
386.1 
327.6 
302,4 

294.9 
330,8 
315.6 

IRL 

318.1 
333.9 
322.6 
324,6 
304,0 

272,6 
332.4 
317.7 
322.5 
307.3 

303,4 
313.0 
319.0 
302.5 
248.7 

278,4 
290,4 
314.6 
299,8 

277.1 
237,8 

Fin 

291,3 
242,2 

250,9 
229,7 
186,3 

207.7 
229,3 
183,4 
145.3 
124,4 

188.6 
198,4 
168.6 
127.4 

134.2 
130.6 
96.6 
76.6 
43.1 

S 

289.1 
428.7 

308,9 
402,3 
367,1 
243.9 
175.7 

303.1 
335.4 
307.9 
207.6 
151.8 

229,0 
287,4 
279.6 
182.5 
143.6 

115,5 
146,6 
139.9 

DK 

402,0 
374,3 

339,2 
342,9 

295,3 
302,8 

247,2 
273.8 

137,4 
128.9 

E 

U 

R 

O 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
S 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

P 

1 
2 
3 
.  4 
5 

0  SEUROP 

GB 

348.9 

275.7 
311.8 
VW4btO 
274,1 

319,9 
296,7 
299.1 
271,8  -

259.9 
290.8 
271.6 

eCU/100  kg 

IRLN 

331.6 
304,3 

325,4 
322,8 
305,3 
269.6 

328.0 
326,0 
304.4 
281,9 

270.9 
323.5 
293.7 

304,8 

364,5 

421,5 

314,1 

186,3 

289,6 

295,3 

318,2 

0  Qualité  typa  -  Standard  quality  -  Standardqualititt 

270,6 

358,6 

380,2 

308,4 

186,3 

289,6 

336,7 

310,1 

Quantités en %  •  Quantity in % -  Mengein% 

DK 

0.0 
0,6 
2,1 
0,0 
0.0 

0,0 
4.9 
19.9 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
15.2 
38,5 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
11.7 
6.9 
0.0 
'•"*  0.0 

0.0 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

E 

U 

R 

0 

P 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
6 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

0 

0.3 
0.6 
1.2 
0,2 
0 . 1. 

0.7 
2.2 
4.7 
0,9 
0.1 

3.4 
10,3 
27.1 
7.5 
1,3 

6.5 
12.1 
16.0 
2.2 
0.1 

2.1 
0.4 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 

F 

0.0 
0.1 
0,2 
0.0 
0,0 

0.0 
4.4 
17.2 
1.3 
0.0 

0.3 
15.6 
39.6 
3.9 
0.1 

0.6 
2,3 
13.2 
0.9 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 

IRL  . 

FIN 

0.0 
0,0 
0.2 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
1.5 
17.7 
3.4 
0.2 

0.0 
8.9 
55,1 
3.1 
3,0 

0,0 
3,3 
2.5 
0.0 
0.0 

0.1 
0.9 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.3 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 

0.1 
6.2 
3.1 
0.2 
0.0 

2,6 
51,4 
9.5 
0.6 
0.0 

5.4 
17.1 
0.8 
0,0 
0.0 

97.7 

S 

0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0,2 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 

0.5 
23,0 
13.0 
0.9 
0.0 

6.1 
43.6 
8.9 
0.4 
0.0 

1.7 
1.4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

GB 

0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

0.0 
2.3 
21.4 
7.1 
0.1 

0.0 
6.4 
42.9 
13,0 
0,3 

0.0 
3,7 
2.9 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0,0 
0,0 

IRLN 

0,0 
0,0 
1.8 
0.2 
0.0 

0.0 
1.5 
15.9 
8.3 
0,7 

0.0 
6.1 
35.8 
14,0 
1.3 

0.0 
2.1 
11.4 
0.9 
0.0 

0,0 
0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

/fc 

1995 

Prix  -  Prices - Preise 

F 

IRL 

S 

GB 

ecu/100 kg 
IRLN 

441.4 
431.0 
326.6 
280.6 

351.2 
419.2 
409.7 
313.7 
292.7 

327.3 
388,4 
379.4 
280.8 
281.6 

260,2 
344.3 
350.8 
260.3 
265.1 

277.4 
320.1 
313.6 

250.9 
277.2 
236.0 

275.6 
280.7 
270.7 
272.1 

255.4 
265.4 
"277,1 
250.9 
269,7 

224,0 
263,3 
261.7 
294.5 

218.4 
242.6 
250.2 

226.9 

286.1 
360,0 
339,5 

295.0 
318.8 
283,8 
176,9 
95,4 

237.6 
276.2 
256.6 
°  157.9 
93.2 

137.0 
142.0 
108,2 
15.6 

327.8 

267.2 
263.5 
253,7 
218.7 

267.0 
264,9 
262.5 
224,2 

247.6 
248.1 
288.3 

280.4 
245.1 

273.1 
270.3 
252.7 
216,9 

274.0 
273,0 
252.9 
•225.0 

233.1 
262.8 
240,1 
216,6 

OK 

325.0 
319.1 

303,0 
300,4 

255,5 
270,0 
229,7 

225,2 
211.7 

126.0 
100,6 

E 

U 

R 

0 

P 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

D 

349,6 
351.1 
349,3 
334.0 
334.5 

349.1 
650.4 
348.8 
336.1 
316.3 

343.9 
340,6 
341.8 
327,5 
308.9 

338.4 
336.1 
337.1 
323,8 
308,5 

306,8 
312,8 
318,2 
354.0 
343.7 

0*SEUROP 

256,2 

343,2 

374,5 

273,2 

277,2 

254,4 

265,9 

0  Qualité  type  -  Standard  quality  -  Standardqualltât 

256,4 

335,0 

328,6 

257,1 

277,2 

284,4 

258,2 

Quantités en %  -  Quantity in % -  Menge in % 

DK 

0.0 
0.1 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
3.3 
10,4 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
17.1 
38.3 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
18.4 
12.1 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.3 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

E 

U 

R 

0 

P 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 

D 

0.2 
0,7 
1.1 
0.2 
0,1 

0.7 
2.0 
4.7 
1.1 
0.4 

3.1 
12.9 
26.3 
8.2 
2.9 

4.1 
8.7 
16.2 
3.8 
0.9 

0.8 
0.8 
0.2 
0,0 
0.0 

F 

0.0 
0.2 
0.2 
0.0 
0,0 

0.1 
5.2 
15.4 
1.3 
0.0 

0,8 
12,4 
40.5 
4.6 
0.1 

0.6 
1.7-
15.9 
0.9 
0.0 

0.0 
0.1 
0,0 
0,0 
0.0 

IRL 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

0,0 
1.0 
16.5 
1.5 
0.0 

0.0 
5.6 
58.2 
1.1 
6,6 

0,0 
5.4 
3.8 
0.0 
0.0 

0.1 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

S 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

0.0 
0.2 
0.1 
0.0 
0.0 

0.5 
23.0 
14.0 
1.0 
0.0 

4.9 
42.2 
11.1 
0.6 
0.0 

1.2 
1.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

GB 

0,0 
0.0 
0.0 
0,0 
0.0 

0.0 
2,8 
10.5 
10.3 
0.0 

0.0 
9.7 
39.9 
15.9 
0.0 

0.0 
6.0 
4.7 
0.2 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

IRLN 

0,0 
0.0 
1.3 
0.1 
0,0 

0.0 
1.7 
18.6 
8.9 
0.6 

0.0 
6.6 
37.3 
12.0 
0.7 

0.0 
1.8 
10.1 
0,2 
0.0 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 
0.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

R3 
1995 

+  Dk 

_. D 

•  F 

-A-(ri 

«S 

•  GB 

_  IrIN 

_i_i_.1.J_l_Li_  J  J-J_L _.1_ t_l_.LJ_t._LJ_l_l_L_Ui_ J_L_L  I  M  1  I  I  I  1  I  I  l_I_.t_J-J._J-

1 

6 

11 

16 

21 

26 

31 

36 

41 

46 

51 

Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 

520 

t 

480 

440 

400 

«> 

o  360 
o 

g  320 

280 

240 

200 

160 

520 

480 

440 

400 

360 

320 

280 

240 

200 

160 

_ 
o 
o 

O 
LU 

02 
1995 

+  Dk 

•  D 

*F 

• 

Irl 

•  S 

•  GB 

• 

IrIN 

LI 

I  I  I  l_l-J-J_L 

21 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 

26 

31 

Danmark 
1996 

Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitat 

Grille - Grid - Schema 

500 

CO 
__ o 
o 

D 
O 
LU 

400 

300 

200 

L_Jl_J_J  I—I LLJ... LJ-J .J-J-l—LL—-L_._LJ  I  I_LJ._LJ_.LJ_L1_LL.LJ. J_ 

.J_.J._Ll...i_l_J_.L_L 

6 

11 

16 

21 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 

26 

31 

36 

41 

46 

51 

CO 
_: 
o 
o 

3 
O 
LU 

(s* 

500 

400 

300 

200 

Deutschland 
1996 

Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitat 

Grille - Grid - Schema 

i

ii 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i  i 

I  I  I  LL 

11 

16 

26 
21 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 

31 

36 

41 

46 

51 

France 
1996 

500 

400 

CO 
_£ 
O 
O 

D 
O 
LU 

£ 

300  h 

Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât 

Grille - Grid - Schema 

200 

i 

i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  J 

i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i  i 

l_L_LJ_i.J_ 

_L_ J_ 1_ L J_ - J-J _ J _ L . LL 

11 

16 

21 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 

26 

31 

36 

41 

46 

'  51 

CO 

_ o 
o 

3 
O 
LU 

500 

400 

300 

200 

6 

11 

16 

Ireland 
1996 

mm  Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât 

— Grille - Grid - Schema 

_ J - L J - J -I 

I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I-I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I J_LLJJ._LLJ._L_L 

21 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 

31 

26 

36 

41 

46 

51 

Finland/Suomi 
1996 

Sverige 
1996 

CO 

_: o o 

3 
O 
LU 

*4> 

500 

400 

300 

200 

Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât 

Grille - Grid - Schema 

w 

*%». .^r^l 

/>r^u.p 

!'""' 

\ , *^ 

£\ 

±_l_l_i.  ± _ L J - i _ . - . L l J . J _ L J — L - L - LJ 

I  I——_l  I  I  I  I.. I  I  I  I  I  I  J.J.J..J_J_J„.J_ I_L.I 

_L_L_LJ_ 

11 

16 

21 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 

26 

31 

36 

41 

46 

51 

Great Britain 
1996 

Qualité type - Standard  quality  -  Standardqualitat 

Grille - Grid -  Schema 

500 

400 

300 

CO 
_: 
o 
o 

3 
O 
LU 

N 
^ 

200 

I 

I 

l _L 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

11 

16 

21 
Semaines  - Weeks  -  Wochen 

31 

26 

36 

41 

46 

51 

£ 

co 
._ 
o 
o 

3 
o 
LU 

500 

400  h 

300 

200 

Northern Ireland 
1996 

Qualité type - Standard quality - StandardqualitSt 

Grille - Grid - Schema 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i -J  _LJ._LJ_LJ._l_J_J_L_l_J_L 

I 

I  I  J—L  l  I  I  I  I J_l 

I  I  I  1-L. 

11 

16 

21 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 

26 

31 

36 

41 

i 

46 

51 

850 

800 

750 

700 

650 

co _?  600 
o 
o 

550 

3 
S  500 

lu 
o 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

Elias 
1996 

m  Qualité type - Standard quality - Standardqualitât 

a-i Grille bis - A Grid  - Schema  a 

ii 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

6 

11 

16 

21 
Semaines - Weeks - Wochen 

26 

31 

36 

41 

46 

51 

Prix  -  Prices  -  Preise 
Qualité type  -  Standard quality  -  Standardqualitàt 

O) 
_: 

1° 

g  320 
UJ 

240 

200 

160 

Jan 

Fév 

Mars 

Avril 

Mai 

Juin 

Juil 

Août 

Sep 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

1996 

•  DK 

-é-D 

e  Gr 

*7  E 

A  FIN 

•  F 

• 

Irl 

•  S 

•  UK 

•  U.E 

Prix  -  Prices  -  Preise 
Qualité type  -  Standard quality  -  Standardqualitàt 

435 

O) 

I  335 

D 
O 
UJ 

Vu 

I 

•o 
5 
1  235 
o 
c 
< 

135 

l__ 

Jan 

Fév 

Mars 

Avril 

_L 

Mai 

Juin 

Juil 

Août 

Sep 

Oct 

Nov 

Dec 

1995 

520 

480 

440 

400 

360 

O 
tu 
3 
0) 

320  £ 
0) 

| 
3 
O 

280 

240 

200 

160 

•  DK 

*D 

B  Gr 

*  E 

-h  FIN 

•  F 

•  M 

•  S 

«  UK 

•  U.E 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION ŒO 

amending Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 determining the Community standard 
quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses and Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 
concerning the Community scale for the classification of carcasses of ovine animals 
and determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcasses 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, 

Having regard  to  Council  Regulation  (EEC) No 3013/89 of 25 September  1989  on  the 
common  organization  of  the  market  in  sheepmeat  and  goatmeat  ',  as  last  amended  by 
Regulation (EC) No 1589/96 2, and in particular Article 4 (2) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 

Whereas  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 338/91  of  5  February  1991,  determining  the 
Community  standard  quality  of  fresh  or  chilled  sheep  carcasses  3,  as  last  amended  by 
Regulation (EC) No 1278/94 4, applies until the end of the  1997 marketing year, pending 
the setting up of Community carcase classification  standards; Whereas sufficient  progress 
has not been made to permit the replacement  of the current Community standard  quality 
by the  standards  in  question;  whereas  the  current  standard  quality  should  therefore  be 
retained; 

Whereas in view of the conclusions of the Commission report on the implementation  of 
Regulation  (EEC) No 2137/92 5, as last amended  by Regulation  (EEC)  No 1278/94 the 
goal set itself by the Council of making the use of the Community grid compulsory for all 
Community  slaughterhouses  approved  for  intra-Community trade,  if possible  during  the 
1999  marketing  year  and  in  any  event  before  1 January  2000  without  prejudice  to  the 
possibility of excluding small slaughterhouses situated in regions where the impact on the 
market  price produced  by the volume slaughtered  in such slaughterhouses  is negligible, 
should no longer be pursued. 

Whereas  in  order  to  facilitate  price  reporting,  Member  States  should  be  authorised  to 
subdivide  category  C  in  Annex  III  of  Regulation  (EEC)  No 2137/92  into  two 
subcategories; 

1  OJ No L 289, 7.10.1989, p. I 

2  OJ No L 206,  16.8.1996, p. 25 

3  OJNoL41,  14.2.1991, p. 1 

4  OJ No L  140, 3.6.1994, p. 5 

5  OJ No L 214, 30.7.1992, p.  1 

2</-

VI-D-2 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION : 

Article 1 

The second subparagraph of Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 338/91 shall be deleted. 

Article 2 

Regulation (EEC) No 2137/92 is hereby amended as follows : 

1.  The following subparagraph is added to Article 3 (3) 

"Member  States making use  of the classification  system  provided  for  in  Annex III 
shall be authorized to subdivide category C into two subcategories" 

2.  Article 9 is deleted. 

Article 3 

This Regulation  shall enter into force on the seventh  day following  its publication  in the 
Official Journal of the European Communities. 

This  Regulation  shall  be  binding  in  its  entirety  and  directly  applicable  to  all  Member 
States. 

Done at Brussels, 

For the Council 

3S 

FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

BUDGET HEADING: 

B1 -2220 

APPROPRIATIONS: ECU  1 656.4m 

TITLE: Council Regulation amending Reg. 338/91  determining the Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep 
carcases  and Reg.  2137/92  concerning  the  Community  scale for  the  classification  of  carcases  of ovine  animals and the 
Community standard quality of fresh or chilled sheep carcases 

DATE:  9.4.1997 

LEGAL BASIS:  Art. 4 of Council  Reg. 3013/89 

AIMS 
- To extend the definition of Community standard quality 
- To repeal Art. 9 of Reg. 2137/92 (compulsory application of Community scale) 
- To adapt the use of Annex m  to Reg.2137/92 

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS (in ECU million) 

PERIOD OF 12 
MONTHS 

CURRENT 
FINANCIAL YEAR 
(97) 

FOLLOWING 
FINANCIAL YEAR 
(98) 

5.0. 

5.1. 

EXPENDITURE CHARGED TO: 
-EC BUDGET 

(REFUNDS/INTERVENTION) 

- NATIONAL AUTHORITIES 

-OTHSR 

REVENUE 
- OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC 
- (LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) 

-NATIONAL 

5.0.1. 

ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 

5.1.1. 

ESTIMATED REVENUE 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

5.2. 

6.0. 

6.1. 

METHOD OF CALCULATION: 

CAN  THE  PROJECT  BE  FINANCED  FROM  APPROPRIATIONS  ENTERED  IN  THE  RELEVANT 
CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? 

YES/NO 

CAN  THE  PROJECT  BE  FINANCED  BY  TRANSFER  BETWEEN  CHAPTERS  OF  THE  CURRENT  YES/NO 
BUDGET? 

6.2. 

IS A SUPPLEMENTARY  BUDGET  NECESSARY? 

6.3. 

WILL FUTURE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS  BE NECESSARY? 

YES/NO 

YES/NO 

OBSERVATIONS: 

34 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(97) 250 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

03 

Catalogue number  : CB-CO-97-239-EN-C 

ISBN  92-78-20153-7 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

if