Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 on the common organisation of the market in processed fruit and vegetables and Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits"
Date: 2000-10-19
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: aid system, citrus fruit, common organisation of markets, fruit product, production aid, vegetable product

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/157

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation
amending Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and
vegetables, Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 on the common organisation of the market in processed
fruit and vegetables and Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for
producers of certain citrus fruits’

(2001/C 14/28)

On 17 July 2000 the Commission decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article
262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 October 2000. The rapporteur
was Mr de las Heras Caban˜ as.

At its 376th plenary session (meeting of 19 October 2000), the Economic and Social Committee adopted
the following opinion by 36 votes to three, with four abstentions.

1.

Introduction

1.1. The Commission proposal

The Commission proposes the following amendments to the
regulations governing the common market organisation for
fruit and vegetables:

— ending of the current system for processed tomatoes,
peaches and pears, which is based on compensatory aid
for the processor in return for the payment of a minimum
price to the producer. This is to be replaced by direct aid
to the producer, via producer organisations, for the
quantity of raw material delivered to the processor;

— establishment of thresholds instead of production quotas

for processed tomatoes;

— subdivision of the Community thresholds into national

thresholds for processed peaches, pears and citrus fruit;

— fixing of aid by the Council on a permanent basis. For
tomatoes,
forms of aid will be
rationalised into a single amount, irrespective of final
destination;

the various current

— increase in the thresholds for processed tomatoes, pears
and certain citrus fruits, and corresponding decrease in
aid for tomatoes and pears;

— reduction in the maximum quantity of each citrus
fruit that can be withdrawn from the market. For the
2001/2002 marketing year the limit will be 10 % of the
marketed production,
falling to 5 % for subsequent
marketing years;

— elimination of the ceiling on financial aid for the oper-
ational funds of producer organisations, which limits the
total amount of assistance to a maximum of 2,5 % of the
total value of marketed production of all producer
organisations;

— lowering of the ceiling on the maximum aid for the
operational fund of each producer organisation, from
4,5 % of the value of marketed production to 3 %;

— introduction of a tendering system to supplement the
current systems for managing export refunds for fresh
produce.

1.2. General situation in the fruit and vegetable sector

1.2.1.
There are 2.2 million farms producing fruit and
vegetables in the EU, 750 000 of which specialise in these
crops. These farms account for 10 % of all farms in the
Community. Most of them are small, averaging less than 5 ha.
Together they occupy 4,8 million ha, less than 3 % of the
Union’s UAA.

C 14/158

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

1.2.2.
Fruit and vegetable growing is extremely labour
intensive and thus generates employment. Specialist fruit and
vegetable growers account for almost 500 000 AWU and
12,5 % of the Union’s total AWU. It is estimated that the
sector provides direct employment for two million people
throughout the EU. In some Member States it accounts for
50 % of employment in the agricultural sector.

1.2.3. E m p l o y m e n t

1.2.3.1.
Employment is a key aspect of production because
of its impact on production costs. Although the value added
per unit of area is high, income per work unit is lower than
for extensive crops. Large numbers of seasonal workers have
to be taken on, and the sector provides work both for the EU’s
unemployed and for immigrant workers. Other policies are
needed to improve reception conditions for immigrants,
backed by support for measures to improve the mobility of
seasonal workers in the sector so that they can remain fully
employed throughout the year.

1.2.3.2.
The sector also provides a large number of ancillary
jobs, both in the agrifood chain (packaging, storage and
processing, all of which are labour intensive) and in production
and marketing-related activities. Packaging and processing
centres generate income, added value, employment and a
technological culture in rural areas. In the processed tomato
sector, there is close interdependence between grower and
industry as this is a specialist annual crop grown exclusively
for processing.

1.2.4. E n v i r o n m e n t

1.2.4.1.
In environmental terms, some crops in this sector
(e.g. shell fruits and carobs) occupy large areas of marginal
land in arid regions where they perform a vital role in
preventing erosion and where no other form of agriculture is
viable. Moreover, the common market organisation for fruit
and vegetables was the first strand of the CAP to include the
promotion of environmentally friendly techniques among its
objectives. Considerable progress has been made on this front,
and is still being made today. Nevertheless, environmental
problems remain, so this action within the common market
organisation must be continued and stepped up.

1.2.5. C o n s u m e r s

1.2.5.1.
Consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables is ben-
eficial on health grounds and should be encouraged. However,
consumption in the EU is virtually stable, with consumption
of some products increasing slightly at the expense of others.
Domestic production and imports are increasing at a faster
rate, so markets are becoming increasingly saturated and there
is a growing risk of market distortion. It must be remembered
that the EU is not self-sufficient in some fruit and vegetables
and that its high purchasing power and relatively low protec-
tion against imports makes it a target market for certain third
countries. It should be stressed that consumption of some
processed fruit and vegetables, notably processed tomatoes,
fruit juices and citrus fruit, is increasing significantly (in the
case of tomatoes, by around 3 % per year).

1.2.5.2.
Consumers are becoming increasingly concerned
about food safety. They want a wide range of healthy fruit and
vegetables to be available in all types of retail outlet. They also
want products that are grown in a more environmentally
friendly manner.

There are also calls for improvements in the quality
1.2.5.3.
of fruit and vegetables sold, with more information about
their organoleptic qualities, nutritional value, use of ‘green’
production methods etc. so that the consumer can make a
more informed choice. Here it is particularly important that
legislation on food labelling and novel foods be in line with
the quality standards for fruit and vegetables.

2. General comments

2.1.
The Commission has announced that its report on the
operation on Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 will be published at
the end of this year. The Committee urges the Commission to
draw up additional proposals on fundamental aspects which
are not addressed in the present proposals, in the light of
experience and together with an overall analysis of
the
operation of all the common market instruments.

2.2.
In this connection, the Committee considers that the
proposals are partial and inadequate in view of the importance
of employment in this sector, the continual crises facing it,
and the loss of Community preference caused by bilateral and
free trade agreements entered into by the EU. A number of
important aspects are left unaddressed: these are referred to in
the conclusions of the present opinion. The proposal thus
needs to be improved.

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/159

2.3.
Nonetheless, the Committee agrees with the Com-
mission that some aspects of the common market organisation
for fruit and vegetables need urgent revision so that the new
arrangements can come into force in the next marketing year,
as foreseen in the present proposals.

of fresh fruit and vegetables has fallen markedly, and that
added value is now more concentrated in the distribution
sector. This also has a significant effect on the processing
industry’s relations with the distribution sector. The Committee
also points out that the growing concentration of the main
retailers could reduce the range of fruit and vegetables on
offer, to the detriment of both producers and consumers.

2.4.
The Committee is also concerned that the support
systems for processed products are threatened by the expiry of
the peace clause in 2003. It calls on the Commission and the
Council to press for retention of these systems at the WTO
negotiations. This support is necessary in order to ensure the
long-term viability of the processing industry. Processors need
a secure supply of sufficient, high-quality raw materials at the
right time and under economic conditions which enable the
processed product to compete on the markets and which
provide a sufficient income for growers, as well as keeping
over 140 000 jobs.

2.5.
Community preference has seriously weakened in
recent years as fruit and vegetables — and processed products
in particular — have been used as a bargaining counter in
the EU’s negotiating strategy for bilateral and multilateral
agreements designed to establish a free trade area with the EU.
This has aggravated competition from third countries where
prices and costs are lower, placing EU production in an
increasingly competitive market. The reciprocal concessions
granted under these agreements also create an imbalance
between economic sectors which should be corrected by the
CAP.

2.6.
The Committee considers that it is increasingly vital to
concentrate supply via producer organisations. Producers are
weakened by the fact that supply is fragmented, in the face of
the growing concentration of the retail sector. This problem
was discussed in the ESC opinion on the Role of middlemen
— from production to consumption — in the setting of food
prices (see points 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4 and 3.2.1 (1)). Its
analysis shows that the producer’s share of the consumer price

2.7. Application of the common market organisation for fruit and

vegetables

2.7.1.
During the three years since the 1996 reform, the
new system has failed to achieve the desired economic and
organisational objectives. The poor results are mainly due to
insufficient financing and the inflexibility of some of the
mechanisms.

2.7.2.
The aid for producer organisations’ operational funds
has not proved very effective because of budgetary restrictions,
lack of information, and the web of red tape surrounding
the management,
the
operational programmes.

implementation and monitoring of

The measures for encouraging the establishment of
2.7.3.
producer organisations have been insufficient to substantially
increase the concentration of supply, which is still well below
the targets set by the reform. The recognition criteria and the
‘pre-recognition’ of producer organisations have had particular
effects which need to be remedied (e.g. a proliferation of
unviably small producer organisations, or the appearance of
others promoted by interests outside the sector). At all events
the measures have clearly not proved attractive or worthwhile
for a large percentage of fruit and vegetable growers.

(1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1998, p. 36.

2.7.4.
Nonetheless, the Committee recognises that some
measures have helped to encourage concentration of the
supply of processed products; producer organisations now
play a much greater role in negotiations for the supply of raw
materials to the processing industry.

C 14/160

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

support has

2.7.5. Market
fallen significantly, mainly
because of the restrictive and dissuasive measures introduced
under the last market reforms. Although intervention should
under no circumstances be used as an ordinary alternative to
the market, it has become clear that the withdrawal mechan-
isms are unsuited to deal with certain serious crises.

2.8.3.
The Committee draws attention to the need to rectify
the imbalance in support for different economic sectors within
the CAP by remedying the discriminatory treatment of some
sectors (e.g. fruit and vegetables) and providing the firm
support required.

2.7.6.
The insufficiency of the thresholds and the com-
plexity of the quotas for processed products have made it
difficult to adjust to demand, and in some cases — e.g.
tomatoes — Community production has lost some of its
market share. This is borne out by the fact that the guaranteed
quantities for certain citrus fruits, pears and tomatoes have
been consistently exceeded in recent years.

2.8.4.
The Committee rejects the Commission’s interpret-
ation of budget neutrality in its proposal, which uses expendi-
ture in the 2000/2001 marketing year as the reference
year. Because of various cyclical factors and the insufficient
development of the common market organisation, this figure
is unusually low. The concept of budget neutrality should be
based on the whole budget established in the reform of the
common market organisation and in the Agenda 2000
financial perspectives.

2.7.7.
The Committee would also highlight the sensitive
position of certain products which are of great social and
environmental importance for particular regions, such as some
processed fruits and vegetables, nuts and carob beans. There
may be a case here for specific support measures.

2.7.8.
Border protection mechanisms do not operate effec-
tively for most products. There is no guarantee that entry
prices and checks on import quantities are implemented
properly, and the special safeguard clause has not been applied
sufficiently. Current provisions do not ensure that imports
comply with the same labour and plant/animal health regu-
lations as EU products.

The common market organisation for fruit and
2.8.5.
vegetables cannot be reformed on the basis of a budget cut
and the limited action proposed. The sector needs sufficient
appropriations to make the measures effective.

2.8.6.
To safeguard budget stability in the fruit and veg-
etable sector, the Committee considers that the measures
covering the market organisation and those covering bananas
should be divided into two separate budget headings, as the
two regimes are quite separate.

3.

Specific comments

2.8. The budget of the common market organisation

3.1. Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC)
No 2200/96 on the common organisation of the market in
fruit and vegetables

The Commission proposal

2.8.1.
involves real financial
reforms. The proposed measures affect budget headings which
in the 2000 common market organisation budget account for
65 % of expenditure in the sector.

3.1.1.
The Committee agrees that there is an urgent need
to remove the 2,5 % ceiling on the total amount of Community
assistance for all producer organisations. The ceiling makes it
more difficult for producer organisations to draw up and
implement operational programmes, and also makes aid levels
unpredictable.

2.8.2.
The Committee points out that the market organis-
ation accounts for only a small proportion of the EAGGF
budget, and that this share has fallen steadily since the reform
(from 5 % in 1995 to 3,2 % in 2000, for a final production
value of 16 % of total Community production).

3.1.2.
The Committee thinks that the ceiling on aid for
operational funds should remain at 4,5 % of the production
marketed by each individual producer organisation. In tandem
with this, the case should be considered for (a) encouraging

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/161

the establishment of new producer organisations in areas
where they are not found, and (b) increasing the Community
contribution to operational funds for producer organisations
which meet certain criteria (joint action by associations of
producer organisations, merging of organisations, cooperation
between organisations from different Member States, organis-
ations with a large number of producers in regions where a
greater organisational drive is needed. This should all help to
improve the organisation of supply.

considers that a proliferation of management mechanisms is
not desirable, and prefers the A1 and B systems; at all events,
there should be a single system for each product.

3.1.6.
The Committee acknowledges the need to simplify
the management of export refunds for fresh fruit and veg-
etables, and calls on the Commission to optimise management
so that full advantage can be taken of the available funding,
within the limits established under the WTO agreements.

3.1.2.1.
The Committee also notes that there are imbalances
in the operation of producer organisations in some regions of
the EU. A specific Community programme to iron out the
imbalances in the development of these organisations is thus
absolutely vital. This programme, which would be geared to
the particular needs of the regions concerned, would promote
the launch or merger of producer organisations, and joint
activities by different producer organisations, as well as
bolstering the Community contribution to the operational
funds, on the basis of objective Community criteria, including
economic ones.

3.1.3.
The Committee cannot accept the proposal to lower
the abovementioned ceiling to 3 % of the value of the marketed
production of each producer organisation. Such a move would
make the instrument ineffective both for organising supply in
the face of the concentration of distribution and for adjusting
supply to demand.

The Committee cannot endorse the proposal

3.1.4.
to
reduce the maximum quantities for citrus fruits on financial
grounds. Instead, it recommends retaining the current limits,
given the unpredictable nature of fruit production for which
intervention provides an effective safety net for producer
incomes. It must be remembered that the saving achieved vis-
à-vis the financial perspectives was caused by a reduction
in the quantities withdrawn and the fact that the refund
management systems did not allow the available budget to be
used.

3.2. Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC)
No 2201/96 on the common organisation of the market in
processed fruit and vegetables

3.2.1.
The Committee notes the proposed amendments to
the processing regimes for tomatoes, peaches and pears which
will end the current system of granting compensatory aid for
the processor in return for the payment of a minimum price
to the producer.

3.2.2.
The Committee draws attention to the important
role which the minimum price has played in providing
producers with a reference for their negotiations with the
processing industry and guaranteeing them a minimum
income.

The proposed measures pose a very real threat to the
3.2.3.
areas specialising in these crops. It must be remembered that
these sectors support a whole agro-industrial system which is
vital for keeping people and jobs in the regions concerned.

The Committee has serious doubts about the pro-
3.1.5.
posal to alter the management system for export refunds on
It
fresh products by introducing a tendering procedure.

The Committee stresses that the reduction in aid for
3.2.4.
tomatoes, peaches and pears in the last few marketing years
was the result of cyclical factors such as the euro/dollar
exchange rate and the rising price of the raw material
in
competitor third countries. Discretionary decisions were also
taken by the Commission, such as the cut in minimum prices
which was designed to prevent destabilisation of the market.

C 14/162

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

The

proposal

overlooks

Commission

3.2.5.
some
important measures which could improve it and help to
stabilise production and farm incomes, and guarantee a
sufficient regular supply to the processing industry and the
market. Such measures would include limiting penalties to
20 % of aid and encouraging multi-year contracts for tomatoes,
peaches and pears.

The Committee welcomes the proposal to replace
3.2.6.
the quota system for processed tomatoes by a threshold
system. It also agrees that it was necessary to revise the system
in order to make it more flexible and achieve more balanced
relations between processors and producers.

3.2.7.
The Committee agrees with the Commission on the
need to increase the maximum guaranteed quantities for
tomatoes in order to adjust them to market trends, although it
considers that the 10 % increase far too modest, bearing in
mind that processed production has increased by more than
this in recent years in order to meet market trends and the
increase in consumption.

3.2.8.
The Committee is afraid that unless the Community
threshold for fresh tomatoes is increased to a figure which
reflects the actual quantities processed in the last few marketing
years, the outlook for the next few years is very bleak as the
guaranteed quantity is insufficient to meet market demand.
The threshold is likely to be significantly exceeded, and the
resulting penalties will mean a sharp drop in aid. The threshold
should be revised at regular intervals to adjust it to market
trends.

The Committee has serious doubts about the need to
3.2.9.
reduce aid for tomatoes in order to achieve budget neutrality.
The increase in the guaranteed quantity would not entail
exceeding the budget estimates for this measure which were
approved when the common market organisation for fruit and
vegetables was reformed.

3.2.11.
The Committee calls on the Council and the
Commission to take steps to ensure that the relevant manage-
ment committee periodically updates the list of processed
tomato products eligible for aid, so that the industry can
respond swiftly and flexibly to changes in demand and the
marketing of new products. The Committee suggests that the
Commission consider simplifying monitoring procedures for
the raw material and the finished products. This should make
it easier to check that aid is used properly, and cut red
tape and expenditure, while safeguarding legal certainty for
interested parties and the quality of the products marketed.

3.2.12.
The Committee considers that in order to safeguard
producer incomes, the current system for processed peaches
and pears needs to be altered. If the fall in aid continues,
processors might prefer to negotiate a price directly rather
than having to have recourse to aid and respect the minimum
price. This would spell the end of the system, and would leave
producers unprotected.

The Committee is pleased that the threshold for
3.2.13.
pears is to be increased, but
the increase is
insufficient. Current processing levels are 30 % above the
Community threshold, in response to increased demand.

thinks that

3.2.14.
The Committee points out that the threshold for
pears is bound to be exceeded right from the first marketing
year. This could also happen, albeit less dramatically, in the
case of peaches, given the sharp rise in the quantity processed
in the last marketing year compared with the two previous
years when adverse weather conditions reduced Community
production.

3.2.10.
The Committee thinks that reducing the categories
of processed tomato to one single category is excessive. A
distinction should continue to be made for whole peeled
tomatoes, using a separate threshold, in order to safeguard
production of this type of tomato in the areas where it is
traditionally grown.

3.2.15.
The Committee warns that the proposed levels of
processing aid for peaches and pears are too low and will place
producers in a delicate situation. Aid for peaches in 2000/2001
is already 50 % down on the 1997/1998 figure, for cyclical
reasons. For the same reasons and in the same period, aid for
pears has been reduced by 27 %. The Committee therefore
does not consider that the 10 % additional cut on budgetary
grounds is justified.

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/163

3.2.16.
In view of the system for calculating aid, it seems
illogical to take the 2000/2001 marketing year as the reference
year. The Committee proposes that 1996/1997 be used as the
reference year for tomatoes, peaches and pears.

3.3.4.
In order to help processors of fruit segments remain
in activity, there should continue to be two separate thresholds
for small citrus fruits processed for segments and juice
respectively.

4. Conclusions

3.3. Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 introdu-
cing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus
fruits

4.1. Regarding the proposals

3.3.1.
The Committee considers that now that the new
system has been in force for three marketing years it has
proved its validity, especially in regions where production is
the best organised. It has been less satisfactory in other regions
where supply is not concentrated or there are few producer
organisations. The situation should be scrutinised and appro-
priate steps taken to encourage the concentration of supply
and improve the effectiveness of producer organisations in all
citrus-growing regions. Despite the uneven picture, processed
quantities have remained stable or risen in all producer regions,
and the industrial fabric has been maintained.

3.3.2.
The Committee notes that thresholds have been
greatly overshot in recent years, particularly for oranges and
lemons and to a lesser extent for small citrus fruits, because
the thresholds are not
trends. The
Committee also regrets the adverse impact which aid penalties
have had on producer incomes, and thinks that such a situation
must be avoided in future.

in tune with market

3.3.3.
The Committee agrees that the thresholds for certain
processed citrus fruits should be increased. However, it con-
siders that the proposed quantities are insufficient to meet the
increased demands of the processing industry and to help fill
the EU’s supply shortfall, currently being met by an increase in
imports. Given current processing levels, a 35 % increase in
the current thresholds is needed. The new measure should also
cover grapefruit, so as to meet current market needs and help
the Community industry to become more competitive.

4.1.1.
The Committee would have preferred the Com-
mission to submit the proposals alongside its report to the
Council on the operation of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96.
The Committee considers that the proposals are partial and
inadequate, although it accepts that certain measures are
needed urgently.

4.1.2.
The Committee rejects the Commission’s narrow
interpretation of the concept of budget neutrality, and con-
siders that the sector must have sufficient funding to ensure
that the measures are effective. It calls for a restoration of
financial balance between the sectors covered by the CAP, to
reflect the special situation of the fruit and vegetable sector in
the face of market globalisation and its importance in generat-
ing employment.

Bearing in mind that the cut in aid for tomatoes,
4.1.3.
peaches and pears in recent marketing years was caused by
cyclical factors, discretionary decisions on the part of the
Commission, market trends for the products concerned, the
competitive position of the EU processing industry and trends
in CAP expenditure for these sectors, the Committee argues
that:

— the Commission is right to replace the quota system for

processed tomatoes by a threshold system;

— the reference year for calculating aid for tomatoes,

peaches and pears should be 1996/1997;

— the proposal to reduce aid for tomatoes and pears in
order to achieve budgetary neutrality is unjustified;

— the guaranteed quantity for processing tomatoes should
be raised to a level which reflects the actual quantities
processed, and a distinction should continue to be made
for whole peeled tomatoes;

C 14/164

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.1.2001

— the threshold for pears should be increased by 30 %, and

for peaches by 10 %;

4.1.7.
The Committee stresses the usefulness of schemes to
promote fruit and vegetable consumption, given their health
benefits for consumers.

— penalties should be limited to 20 % of aid, and multi-year

contracts should be encouraged.

4.1.4.
Action is needed to meet increased demand in the
citrus fruit sector, help fill the EU’s supply shortfall (which is
currently being met by an increase in imports), and keep the
Community’s processing industry in activity. At present,
producers are seriously penalised for increases in processing
volumes. The Committee argues that:

— there should be a 35 % increase in the current thresholds

for citrus fruit for processing;

— there should continue to be two separate thresholds for
small citrus fruits processed for segments and juice
respectively;

— when thresholds are overshot, the cut in aid should not

exceed 20 % of the value of that aid;

— the current limits on quantities of citrus fruits withdrawn

from the market should be retained.

4.1.5.
The Committee agrees with the Commission that
there is an urgent need to remove the 2,5 % ceiling on the
total amount of Community assistance for all producer
organisations, and calls for retention of the 4,5 % ceiling for
production marketed by each individual producer organis-
ation. It cannot accept the proposal to set this ceiling at 3 %,
as such a move would make the instrument ineffective.

4.1.6.
The Committee draws the Commission’s attention to
the absence of measures to encourage the setting-up of
schemes to insure fruit and vegetable growers against weather-
related losses, while respecting the systems which already exist
in some Member States.

4.2. Regarding the Commission report on the common market

organisation for fruit and vegetables

In the light of experience in applying the common
4.2.1.
market organisation, the Committee suggests that the follow-
ing points, amongst others, be looked into:

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

h)

i)

the need to improve knowledge of production and
markets. The establishment of a market observatory could
be very useful here;

improvement of quality standards for fruit and vegetables,
and monitoring to ensure compliance with them through-
out the marketing chain;

development of producer organisations (nature, size,
concentration of supply, regional development, sectoral).
Obstacles to this development and to improvements
in their effectiveness. Recognition of other facilitating
organisations and organisations without a production
base. Pre-recognition of producer groups. Need to encour-
age producer organisations to merge and form associ-
ations;

operation of producer organisations’ operational funds
and programmes, and dovetailing of these with rural
development measures; assessment of
to
which the aims of improving quality, respect for the
environment and food safety have been achieved;

the extent

possibility of harmonising the elegibility criteria for
environmental measures under the operational pro-
grammes;

operation of the intervention system and assessment of
the need to reinstate the concept of ‘serious crisis’;

trade and respect for Community preference: entry price
mechanism (evaluation of the application of tariff equiva-
lents), checks on quantity and quality, respect for plant
health rules, special safeguard clause, non-tariff barriers
to Community exports;

specific measures needed for products facing stiff inter-
national competition. Long-term solution of the problem
of shell fruits and carob beans;

support for certain processed fruit and vegetables (tinned
asparagus, apricots and cherries);

16.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 14/165

j)

delimitation of responsibilities and possible consequences
when one party fails to comply with processing contracts
between producer organisations and processors, and for

failure to comply with agreements between individual pro-
ducers and the producer organisation to which they are to
deliver produce for processing that is eligible for aid.

Brussels, 19 October 2000.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Göke FRERICHS